Longtime readers know this observer's long-standing
criticism of the pay-per-view model in the sport of Boxing. Of several
recurring themes over a lifetime covering combat sports, it is perhaps the
theme that I have written about the most. While it is something that has become
repetitive by my own admission, it is something that unfortunately continues to
be warranted both as a regular subject matter for yours truly as well as
something that should be discussed by everyone who is involved with the sport
whether they be fans, the fighters themselves, trainers, managers, promoters,
broadcasters, commentators, and those of us who cover Boxing. With this in mind,
I felt it appropriate to dedicate the March edition of the new monthly feature
that was introduced in January as a way to frankly try to cover as much ground
as I possibly can in regard to the action throughout the sport that I simply
cannot cover as they are occurring, a departure from the first two editions of
Jabs and Observations however will be that this month’s edition will be
centered on one subject “Pay-Per-View.”
Recently, the news in regard to the pay-per-view model
has centered on digital subscription-based sports streaming network DAZN choosing to implement what they insist
will be an occasional use of the pay-per-view model due largely to the newest
multi-fight agreement between the network and Saul “Canelo” Alvarez, who
returns to their network following a brief venture to premium cable network Showtime where he headlined a pay-per-view event
against IBF Super-Middleweight world champion Caleb Plant, in which he
completed his goal of fully unifying the Super-Middleweight division. While
that event did between 400,000 and 800,000 buys at an $80 price point depending
on where you read and who you choose to believe as Showtime and its parent
company ViacomCBS, the recently rebranded Paramount does not release actual
numbers, and keeping in mind that those “Guesstimates” as I call them are still
better than the vast majority of pay-per-view events over the last several
years, it is a far cry from the massive buy numbers in decades past that in
some cases were in the millions for some of Boxing’s biggest bouts.
Although this should not be a reflection of both Alvarez’
standing in the sport or one of the overall commercial appeal of Boxing as a
whole, the consistent dwindling buy numbers for most pay-per-view events are an
indication of a much bigger problem the sport faces. It is a problem that I
have repeatedly pointed out in various writings as a two-part issue. The first
part is the price points for such events have gotten out of control over the
last decade and one might even go as far as to say longer than that as most
major pay-per-view Boxing events now begin at a $70 or above price point here
in the United States, which differs significantly from international countries
that offer the same events on a pay-per-view basis, but do so at a much more
reasonable price point, in some cases under $30 to use the United Kingdom’s
pay-per-view model as an example where most pay-per-view events are capped
under that thirty dollar price point regardless of who is the main event
attraction for such cards.
The second part of the problem is the mere frequency of
pay-per-view Boxing events, which should not be blamed strictly on one network,
but rather viewed as a wider scale problem. Simply put, the pay-per-view model
in 2022 and in several years past is no longer reserved for the legitimate
major events, but are used and basically admitted by those who rely on the
model as a necessity to gain revenue. While I do sincerely hope that DAZN will
stick to their word of using the model sparingly, unfortunately, they are not
the only players who will be using the model and as such it creates a
significant issue as to how well each respective card will do in terms of the
bottom line buy numbers.
Beginning on April 16th, there will be four
pay-per-view Boxing cards in the span of one month running through May 28th.
While DAZN will only be responsible for one of those events, the May 7th
card, which will be headlined by Saul Alvarez challenging undefeated WBA
Light-Heavyweight world champion Dmitry Bivol for his world championship, the
likelihood of all four events, which will be split between Showtime and ESPN
outside of the one event DAZN is doing will likely be priced at, at least a $70
price point each here in the United States exists.
In the interest of honesty with the reader, I do
periodically read the works of others who cover the sport, particularly when I
am taking some needed downtime between covering cards and focusing on my own
work. Recently, I read one blurb on one website that may have been a fan page
that I randomly came across while browsing that listed the upcoming
pay-per-view schedule for its readers and ended the content with three simple
yet depressing words “Start Saving Now!”
For all of Boxing’s ills, what I often refer to as “Black
Eyes” that give its critics more than enough justification to both criticize
and mock the sport, I can honestly say as someone who has spent most of his
life covering Boxing and by extension combat sports going back to when I was a
youngster, I never thought I would see the day where I would observe a listing
of a pay-per-view schedule with the conclusion imploring its readers to “Start
Saving Now!” It is as much a reflection of the major problem Boxing faces from
those who rely almost exclusively on the pay-per-view model to those who are in
DAZN’s position in more or less admitting that they needed a pay-per-view
component in addition to its subscription-based model, not because the
subscription-based model is a failure, but because of pay-per-view being a tool
to lure fighters that might otherwise not want to do business with their
network, despite the declining state of the pay-per-view model. I can also
honestly say to the reader that those three words “Start Saving Now!” put me in
a state of depression. Both in terms of what the consumer will be asked to pay
to see each respective card, but also as someone who truly has Boxing’s best
interest at heart.
When one considers that we are now also in an era where
novice “Celebrity” bouts and exhibition bouts now headline pay-per-view events
at the same high price points as those events featuring main events where world
championships are at stake, it should not be hard for one to understand why it
depresses me as someone who wants to see Boxing not only grow, but thrive. I
will also say in the interest of honesty that it troubles me to hear some
whether they be fans, promoters, or network executives use the sentence “Boxing
is a niche sport.” as justification for an over reliance on such a model. While
fans are more than entitled to their point of view, in my experience when
networks and promoters use that line, they do so when confronted with
underwhelming returns on fights that they not only try to sell, but ones that
under the original purpose of pay-per-view /Closed Circuit television would not
be considered legitimate big fights, much less pay-per-view main events.
The one thing I will say is at least DAZN when announcing
their newest agreement with Saul Alvarez were up front and honest about the
pricing for the Bivol-Alvarez bout for both current DAZN subscribers as well as
non-subscribers. Something that other networks and promoters often wait until
the days before a pay-per-view card to announce. Although $59.99 for current
DAZN subscribers and $79.99 for non-subscribers is still overpriced, hopefully,
if the returns on Bivol-Alvarez do not meet a profitable number, the network
will consider at least reducing the price for existing subscribers for their
next pay-per-view offering. Another issue that will likely play a factor in
that decision process is the scheduling of the other non-DAZN pay-per-view
events that will be scheduled around the May 7th Bivol-Alvarez card,
which will likely affect the overall buys in addition to the price point for
both current and non-subscribers of DAZN.
As for the other three cards over the month’s span of
time, let’s discuss each event. First, will be the April 16th
Welterweight unification bout between undefeated WBC/IBF Welterweight world
champion Errol Spence and WBA champion Yordenis Ugas, which will be broadcast
on Showtime Pay-Per-View here in the United States. Although this will be a
very interesting fight on paper that I frankly am looking forward to covering,
one should question how successful this card will be not only in terms of buys
given what is likely to be a $70 or above price point, but also the remaining
events in such a narrow timeframe. While this figures to be a good fight, which
might have quite a bit of action based on the two fighters' styles, it is also
important to note that this will be Yordenis Ugas’ second time as a
pay-per-view main eventer after stepping in on short notice in August of last
year and successfully defending his title against future Hall of Famer Manny
Pacquiao.
Even though there is no disputing Ugas’ skillset or the
fact that he outboxed an aging legend who subsequently retired shortly after
the fight, he has not been marketed as a pay-per-view attraction and perception
in fans eyes might be that he defeated a legend that was at the end of his
career in a fight that was not the most entertaining to watch. While Ugas
cannot be and should not be blamed for promoters and networks reliance on the
pay-per-view model, the perception some might have, could convince some to save
their money and thus effect the overall buys.
The second card, which will be offered on a pay-per-view
basis here in the United States will take place one week after the scheduled
Spence-Ugas Welterweight unification bout when undefeated two-time Heavyweight
world champion Tyson Fury makes the second defense of his WBC Heavyweight world
championship against number one contender Dillian Whyte in the main event of a
card that will be offered through digital subscription sports streaming network
ESPN+. While ESPN’s direct to consumer streaming network
ESPN+ has grown significantly since it’s inception here in the United States in
2018, the periodic times they have dabbled in pay-per-view outside of their
agreement as the exclusive pay-per-view platform for the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) MMA
pay-per-view events, have been underwhelming. Although again, this can be
attributed to the price points for the handful of Boxing pay-per-view events
that the network and its parent company Disney
have offered through ESPN+, much like DAZN, subscribers have seen a greater
value in terms of content offered as part of either a monthly or annual
subscription and have not been as willing to pay expensive fees on a per card
basis as a result.
In regard to the Fury-Whyte pay-per-view offering, the
card will be taking place in London, England at Wembley Stadium and while the
pay-per-view event will likely do significantly more buys in the United Kingdom
through broadcast platform BT
Box Office at a lower price point compared to here in America, the
challenge for both the promoters of the bout as well as ESPN/Disney here will
be to get a decent amount of buys at a higher price point for a Boxing card
that will air during the afternoon hours on the east coast and late
morning/early afternoon on the west coast stateside. Though not impossible
depending on the sporting event to draw a big viewing audience during daytime
hours, both Fury and Whyte are bigger stars in the United Kingdom, despite
Fury’s two victories on pay-per-view here in America over Deontay Wilder. The
three pay-per-view bouts between Fury and Wilder did produce varying results in
terms of buys, but the second and third bouts in which Fury was victorious
produced underwhelming numbers.
While not a reflection of how competitive those fights
were or Fury’s standing in the sport, one can question whether the selling
point of a fight being for a version of the World Heavyweight championship
alone will be enough to convince consumers here in the U.S. to buy the event. Given
that the buy numbers will likely be impacted in some way by the afternoon start
time here in the United States, and despite ESPN's best efforts to market that
as a positive given that many main events on pay-per-view typically do not
begin until at least midnight for those events that take place during the
evening hours, one might wonder if this event would do better numbers if it
were included with an ESPN+ subscription, not unlike several international
cards that are carried on pay-per-view in the countries where they are taking
place, but broadcast stateside on either a digital subscription-based streaming
network or on traditional television.
The third pay-per-view card, which will take place
outside of the DAZN Bivol-Alvarez pay-per-view event on May 7th will
occur later in the month of May with the rescheduled Lightweight bout between
undefeated former world champion Gervonta Davis meets undefeated contender
Rolando Romero at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, NY in the main event of a
card broadcast by Showtime Pay-Per-View here in the United States.
A bout that was originally scheduled for December of last
year, but was changed when Romero had to withdraw from the fight due to issues
outside of the ring. The bout, which was scheduled to headline a Showtime
Pay-Per-View event, went forward with Isaac Cruz stepping in to face Davis.
Although that was a competitive fight, the event did not perform well on
pay-per-view as it was scheduled in between a slew of pay-per-view cards from
October through December of last year, not unlike the position that this rescheduled
event will find itself in. Unlike the previous two events discussed, this fight
will not feature a world championship at stake, but will be for an
interim/regular championship designation in the World Boxing Association’s
(WBA) Lightweight ratings.
The politics that be in the sport, which are just as
problematic as the over reliance on the pay-per-view model aside, and keeping in
mind that it has little to do with what could be a good fight between two
unbeaten boxers, the fact that this event like this previous two will likely be
priced at $70 or above without a world championship being at stake or the
fighters involved being household names in the sense of their name recognition
being enough to draw significant interest particularly amongst the casual
sports fan, should indicate how the standard of Pay-Per-View being reserved
only for the legitimate special events is not necessarily applied by promoters
and networks in 2022 and frankly has not been for some time.
A more crucial illustration of the flaw in relying on an
outdated model can be reflected in the total cost that one could be expected to
pay for all four of these events. If one were to exclude the slight wrinkle in
regard to DAZN's pricing structure in offering a slightly reduced price for
current DAZN subscribers for the Bivol-Alvarez bout, assuming that each of the
other events are priced at a $74.99 price point to go with the $79.99 price
point that Bivol-Alvarez will be priced for non-DAZN subscribers, one will
arrive at an estimated total cost of $304.96 not counting taxes and other
applicable fees.
Now, the reader is probably asking what my point is by
giving that total cost estimate for four pay-per-view Boxing cards. When one
factors in the amount of Boxing content that is offered under
subscription-based models that come to a fraction of that cost even on an
annual or monthly subscription plan, it does not take one who is an expert in
the financial industry to see the flaw in the pay-per-view model. One should
also keep in mind that Boxing is really the only sport outside of the UFC Mixed
Martial Arts promotion that relies heavily on such a model.
To put things in perspective, currently here in the
United States, the sports world is in the midst of the NCAA College Basketball
tournament. A tournament that even if one does not follow College Basketball
regularly during its season draws significant interest amongst even the most
casual sports fans. The tournament run known as March Madness draws significant
television ratings for the networks that broadcast the games. It was not long
ago during the period where the cable/satellite pay-TV industry was in much
stronger shape prior to the advent of digital streaming that the NCAA offered
an out of market package for both it’s basketball and College Football seasons,
which were offered under ESPN branding through cable and satellite providers.
While those packages did succeed for several years, as technology evolved,
those packages eventually gave way for content that would be offered as part of
those cable/satellite packages to be offered as part of a digital subscription
streaming option where a subscriber has access to much more content as well as
other sports included with their subscription. While professional sports are
gradually adapting a similar approach as evidenced in the National Hockey League’s (NHL) recent agreement
with ESPN to make their standalone out of market streaming package available as
part of an ESPN+ subscription, the biggest games and playoff games are still
made available to a wider audience without such a pay wall structure as
pay-per-view. Just imagine the backlash the NCAA
or professional sports leagues would incur if playoff games, college Bowl
games, and the ongoing NCAA College Basketball tournament were only made
available on a pay-per-view basis and on a per game basis on top of that. It
would be something that those running those respective leagues/organizations
would find it very difficult, if not outright impossible to survive.
For Boxing, there is no real benefit by continuing to
rely on such a model because not only does the economics no longer benefit the
consumer, but by pricing such events so high, it limits the potential audience as
well as the potential to expose the sport to new eyes. Although this should be
obvious to anyone with an objective view, the question is how can it be fixed
to benefit Boxing and the fans that support the sport?
This observer believes strongly in the subscription-based
models that have been established by both DAZN and ESPN+ and if I felt that
both dipping their toes into the pay-per-view model even on an occasional basis
would serve the networks and the sport well, I would say so. Although as I have
said in previous columns regarding the pay-per-view subject that some have
expressed to me that the root cause of the pay-per-view problem is that fighters
are simply being guaranteed so much money that it makes the model a necessity,
I am against the idea that a fighter’s pay should be reduced. The bottom line
is a fighter’s career can end at any moment each and every time they compete as
they are risking their lives. It is therefore important for a fighter to be
able to make as much money as they can while they can, but for those around
them to also share in the responsibility of preparing the fighter not only for
competition, but also for life after Boxing in trying to ensure that a
fighter’s earnings will be able to sustain them and grow when their careers are
over.
What I am instead referring to is the need for those who
rely on the pay-per-view model, promoters and networks to look for alternative
sources of revenue. The types of revenue that would essentially allow the
revenue that is hoped for by the pay-per-view model, but rarely achieved to be
replaced, but at the same time opening up the opportunity to watch the sport
and it’s biggest events to a much wider audience regardless of one’s economic
standing. It should also not be overlooked that there are those who instead of
paying such high pay-per-view fees openly seek streaming events via a
third-party website, which is not something that will go away by doing more pay-per-view
events. With honesty again being at the core between yours truly and the
reader, I cannot put a number on how many times readers and others used to
reach out to me via social media and other forms of communication to ask me if
I knew of any third-party streaming websites that would be showing pay-per-view
events in the days preceding the advent of digital subscription-based streaming
networks like DAZN and ESPN+. While I always have said that I would not be a
party to such requests and that the best way to view such events would be the
legal way of purchasing the events via pay-per-view, it does speak to the
problem that Boxing as a whole has not been able to solve.
In regard to seeking other forms of revenue that could
replace the pay-per-view model and open up the sport to new eyes, I believe an
obvious source would be something that major sports leagues such as the National Football League (NFL) and Major League Baseball (MLB) have used to great
effectiveness. Advertising/Sponsorships. You need look no further than the
recently concluded NFL playoffs to see what type of audience numbers can be
possible by opening up access to the sport without a pay wall structure. How
does the NFL and other sports leagues earn revenue beyond the lucrative
broadcast agreements with networks and the respective out of market packages on
cable/satellite and streaming? Advertising.
Even as those standalone out of market packages appear to
be heading for inclusion with a subscription-based streaming network like what
the NHL has done with ESPN, there is still an advertising component. Those who
regularly watch Boxing coverage on either DAZN or ESPN+ will likely see advertisements
aired either between rounds of bouts or prior to bouts themselves. All of which
are revenue generators. Now, some might ask well it might work out for the
promoters and networks to turn to advertising, but how would it benefit the
fighters who still think, despite evidence that pay-per-view is still the way
to go? When I was growing up in the 1980’s and even into the 1990’s, it was not
uncommon to see some of the biggest stars in the sport on television and radio
commercials as spokespeople for products, which in some cases earned those fighters
more money than they would earn simply by relying on pay-per-view revenue or
their purse for bouts alone.
With rare exceptions, we do not see boxers take part in
commercials beyond advertising their own bouts. This is something that should
be openly sought by promoters, a fighter’s management and even networks as a
way to not only give fighters an opportunity to earn more money, but also in
doing so, market the sport to new eyes, while not relying on a pay wall
structure that is pay-per-view to draw revenue. Although much was made of the
now severed guaranteed contract between DAZN and Saul Alvarez, that was for
eleven fights and $365 million to see his bouts be aired exclusively through
DAZN’s subscription model without pay-per-view, one aspect of that deal, which
should be implemented is there were incentives for the fighter if certain
subscription numbers were met.
This is something that all networks whether they be
streaming or traditional television need to adapt. While DAZN in response to
the backlash it has faced for adapting an occasional pay-per-view model has
said that it was necessary to get Alvarez back on it’s network, I cannot see a
network not at minimum setting a standard in saying if fighters insist on pay-per-view,
we as the network expect x number of buys not as a break even point, but as a
profit point to be met regardless of who that fighter will be competing against
with failing to meet that point resulting in the network not being willing to
do pay-per-view. Even though such a standard obviously puts more pressure on a
fighter, it might be the only way to convince fighters that pay-per-view is not
the guaranteed revenue generator that it was prior to the advent of subscription-based
streaming.
Would fighters in Saul Alvarez’ position benefit more by
being offered guaranteed contracts to fight under a subscription-based streaming
model as Alvarez was for a time? Obviously, I think it would vary on a fighter
by fighter basis, but if for example a fighter in Alvarez’ position were to
fail to draw a buy number on pay-per-view that would be profitable for all
involved, what would the alternative be? Step one would involve reducing
pay-per-view prices to see if it is strictly the price point for such events
that turn off consumers, but a more sensible approach would be to give a
fighter a similar structure as Alvarez had in his initial agreement with DAZN
in 2018 that would give a flat guarantee for x number of fights, but also implement
incentives for meeting certain subscription numbers. It makes it more sensible
for the consumer, but it also would put a fighter, a fighter’s management, and
a fighter’s promoter in a position to aggressively market a subscription-based
network such as DAZN in order to hopefully increase subscriber numbers. One
aspect that you also do not see fighters doing much of in present day in
addition to commercial advertising/sponsorships, is you do not see the elite fighters
in the sport making the television talk show rounds on either late night or
morning chat shows that you would see in years and decades past.
While some may not see the benefit of a star boxer making
the talk show rounds, what is important about it from a marketing perspective
is by doing so, it gets the attention of the casual viewer who may watch talk
shows regularly, but might not watch Boxing and other sports beyond occasionally.
Thus, by exposing the fighter to new eyes and promoting an upcoming bout as a
result, it has the potential to increase the audience and if
overpriced/inflated pay-per-view prices are not part of the equation to see
those bouts and are replaced by reasonably priced subscription alternatives,
the potential audience would likely increase as well as allow the fighters, the
networks, and the promoters to earn more revenue by not only increased
subscription numbers, but also by the implementation of advertising that would
replace the pay-per-view model
All of this at the end of the day might seem like an
overly optimistic viewpoint by yours truly, but the bottom line is these are
the things that would benefit Boxing, its fans, and most importantly the
fighters in the long-term than simply those who continue to rely on such an
outdated model just putting events together and putting them on pay-per-view.
Something needs to change and without those who think such a model is still
beneficial coming to that realization, Boxing will continue to see
underwhelming results as well as limiting the sport’s potential to grow. As a
Boxing lifer, I want to see the sport thrive and that simply will not happen as
long as those who continue to refuse to adapt stand in Boxing’s way. Four
pay-per-view offerings likely totaling a $300 expense for a Boxing fan to view every
card in one month’s span of time is evidence of preventing the sport’s growth.
Anyone who truly has Boxing’s best interest should see that as unacceptable and
should demand accountability not just for the sport itself, but for those who
support it.
“And That’s The Boxing Truth.”
The Boxing Truth® is a registered trademark of Beau
Denison All Rights Reserved.
Follow Beau Denison on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Beau_Denison
No comments:
Post a Comment