Will DAZN's New "Ultimate" Approach Win Over Both Current And Former Subscribers Tired Of Paying Pay-Per-View Prices?

Credit: DAZN

The most consistent topic of Boxing coverage penned by yours truly over the last several years, particularly here on The 

Boxing Truth® ️ has been on the sport’s reliance, despite consistent evidence of decline, on the pay-per-view model and the subsequent need to move away from said model, especially with the rise of digital subscription-based streaming. Without doing a complete refresher as by this point there have been many columns written by this observer that serve as an accurate chronicle of how we have gotten to the present time and topic. What is the topic of this writing the reader might ask? the revamp of sorts for digital subscription-based streaming network DAZN.

As some may recall the network, which launched in 2016 internationally, made a significant expansion into the United States in 2018, which coincided with what turned out to be a significant shift not just in Boxing, but for sports overall as shortly before DAZN entered the United States, ESPN, a major presence in the country as a sports network across cable and satellite television, launched its first attempt at a direct to consumer streaming network ESPN+, (Now ESPN Unlimited) while before the end of 2018, the former network of champions HBO, the one time power broker in Boxing and a major player in pay-per-view, exited the sport after forty-five years.

Upon its entry into the U.S. market and essentially positioning itself as the network that would assume the position that HBO was vacating in the sport, DAZN made a bold claim that it would end the pay-per-view model by going with a strictly subscription-based approach that was more consumer-friendly than the aforementioned model. A strategy that this observer was openly supportive of. Not because I had any vested interest in DAZN, but as one who has covered Boxing and other combat sports dating back to the mid-1990’s and had been familiar with pay-per-view as a child, I saw a model that went from occasional use for legitimate major events in the sport that were at an affordable price point, gradually devolve into a model that was over used and frankly abused and lost its value where you would routinely see pay-per-view offerings only showing a fraction of a full card being priced at upwards of between $60-$80 or even higher for some events. The fact that some promoters would simply say “Well, those are the price points in the U.S.” was the type of example that led to the problem the sport is still dealing with in 2025 as more networks have left the sport, due largely to the insistence of some promoters and even fighters of the use of pay-per-view.

It was on that basis, however, where DAZN not only stood against an outdated model that no longer served a positive for the sport, or consumers, making Boxing as well as other sports it carries on its platform more accessible, and the fact that every fight on a card would be shown rather than three or four out of a full card of for example, eight to ten bouts, I felt was refreshing and thus was vocal in my support of a subscription-based model, which I still stand by. As most know, despite its pledge to offer “Pay-Per-View quality Boxing without the pain of Pay-Per-View!,” the network ultimately went back on that promise and while they insisted their dipping their toes into pay-per-view would be occasional and on a selective basis, which appeared understandable in the aftermath of the global COVID-19 epidemic, which had severe financial implications for many sports and sports networks both traditional and streaming worldwide including DAZN, it seemed also to be used as a means of bringing fighters and promoters insistent on pay-per-view to the negotiating table, even as the model has continued to decline as it was prior to the impacts of COVID-19.

The decision to even dip their toes into the model on an occasional basis has resulted in DAZN walking a tightrope. In that they still have their subscription model, but risk alienating subscribers by taking fights that would/should be included with the subscription and putting it behind a pay-per-view paywall. Adding further insult to that, doing so often at the same inflated price points that turns off many fans and led to the exits of HBO, Showtime, Fox Sports, and most recently, ESPN from Boxing.

It should also not be overlooked that in an attempt to try and counter the obvious decline of pay-per-view, DAZN attempted to sell two pay-per-view cards on back to back days as part of a bundle price in May of this year with the first Boxing card to be held in Times Square in New York City, followed by a card headlined by an Undisputed Super-Middleweight world championship bout between Saul “Canelo” Alvarez and William Scull in Saudi Arabia. While yours truly does not have access to official numbers, it did interest me as to whether subscribers or non-subscribers bit on the bundle offer at $89.99 (Not including tax) for both events versus how those cards did as individual offerings at $59.99 each. 

Word then began circulating over the summer that a new subscription approach would be introduced seemingly at the behest of H.E. Turki Al-Sheikh, Chairman of the Saudi Entertainment Authority who proclaimed that his promoted events under either the Riyadh Season or Ring Magazine banners (A publication which he now also owns) would no longer be offered as pay-per-view, but would be included with a DAZN subscription stating that pay-per-view has hurt the sport and that he stands with the Boxing fans. 

Although I was vocal in saying on social media that common sense had returned to the equation upon hearing such a statement that was subsequently backed up by the network, I was not vocal in the sense of thinking that this would be a complete revert back to DAZN’s original strategy, but likely an approach that would ultimately serve as a way to phase out pay-per-view over time while still offering it for those who prefer it. While Al-Sheikh stated that he intended this new subscription approach to begin with his upcoming Ring IV event in Saudi Arabia on November 22, there was some backlash as it was revealed that both that event and tomorrow's (At the time of this writing) Eubank Jr.-Benn rematch would be available as standalone pay-per-view offerings at $59.99 each or $119.98 combined. This changed slightly, however, with the announcement on November 7th by DAZN with the introduction of DAZN Ultimate. An upgraded Tier subscription that would include not only those two events, but a claimed 12+ pay-per-view events per year. 

The cost for this new subscription (United States and Canada) is $44.99 a month or $449.99 per year on an annual subscription. Full disclosure with the reader, even though I have covered the sport of Boxing for thirty years as of this writing, I do not receive payment or compensation in any form from any promoter or network whose events I regularly cover. Upon hearing this new subscription had launched, I immediately upgraded my existing subscription as a means of limiting my own expenses as, despite what some might believe those of us in media often pay the same price as the average consumer for things like pay-per-view or subscriptions and only so many journalists covering the sport have the opportunity to travel for multiple events that occur during a calendar year, which for yours truly due to physical limitations, is also difficult as I am disabled. With my disclosure in all truth and honesty with the reader having been stated clearly, I will move forward. 

Despite the backlash this announcement received particularly online and from some fellow members of the media, I chose to sit back for a few days and for lack of a better term, feel the room, or in this case, the temperature of those of us in the industry and the fan before I commented further. What I feel needs to be stated clearly, which was not done in my view by the network, is this new “Ultimate Plan” or tier for existing subscribers is an upgrade of an existing subscription rather than paying for two separate subscriptions under one banner, similar in scope to what Prime Video subscribers have the option of doing by potentially subscribing to multiple streaming networks and sports packages like NBA League 

Pass for example under one banner and access it in one app. This rather seems more in line with some streaming subscriptions that offer a less costly plan with adverts or a higher priced option for an ad-free experience or similar to Netflix that offers plans including ads, ad-free, and ad-free with 4K streaming capabilities and multiple streams for different members of a household. While this “Ultimate Plan” gives me a similar impression, there are a few questions that need to be answered here, which while I cannot answer outright, I will try to provide some clarity beyond what I already have in terms of distinguishing what is an upgraded subscription for existing subscribers or a potential option for non-subscribers from a situation where you have a subscription plus an add-on. 

The first among those questions is a guarantee of 12+ pay-per-view events per year? When I first saw that statement, the cynic in me as a born and bred New Yorker began to go off in my mind with the first thought being “Are there really 12 Boxing events per calendar year that are truly major events?” Despite that thought, I immediately thought of other content, which DAZN has also offered on pay-per-view through its platform that will likely be used to fill that schedule including Glory Kickboxing events, select events from the sport of MMA, and select events from the Bareknuckle Fighting Championship (BKFC) Bareknuckle Boxing promotion, who also have their own subscription streaming network. While traditional Boxing is the obvious selling point here, I believe this “Ultimate Plan” will likely evolve over time to essentially be the premium option for DAZN, similar to Netflix's 4K streaming plan that will encompass everything the network has to offer including what should now be referred to as Premium Live Events (PLE) as compared to pay-per-view. 

Question number two that needs to be asked is having seen that the pay-per-view model was not a successful strategy and has not been one for some time regardless of network/platform, will DAZN hold firm and stick with this subscription approach even if they face pressure from promoters and perhaps fighters? This is a difficult question because again, I'm viewing things from the outside as a journalist and not a network executive.  I will say, however, is I do not believe for one second and would testify in court under oath that this “Ultimate Plan” would have been introduced had pay-per-view whether it be Boxing traditional or Bareknuckle, MMA, or Kickboxing were overwhelmingly successful in drawing millions of buys per event regardless of region and price points, which here in America, I've often compared to a compulsive eater in terms of being out of control and not knowing when enough is enough. 

What I will say in viewing things with an industry wide perspective, promoters and there are many of them worldwide, should understand that things need to change with clear evidence that pay-per-view has not worked for many years with the rare exception of a single fight or event that will draw a significantly high paid audience than is typically the norm. Those rare exceptions, however, are often spaced out by years and thus while they may have been successful individually, do not serve as an accurate indicator of the viability of a model, especially one that has only increased in price and does not hold much value for consumers, this holds especially true when one considers that the biggest event in the sport of Boxing in 2025, the Undisputed Super-Middleweight world championship clash between Saul “Canelo” Alvarez and Terence Crawford, a highly anticipated encounter that in some ways brought back memories for yours truly of major fights in the 1980’s and 1990’s in terms of anticipation, would have been a guarantee for pay-per-view in previous eras, but did not air on pay-per-view, but instead aired on Netflix, who over the last year, has entered the sport and seems primarily focused on securing those type of “Pay-Per-View Quality” events for their subscribers. In terms of viewership, the Alvarez-Crawford event drew over thirty-six million live viewers including here in the United States as well as globally. A figure that has increased over time with on demand viewing. Numbers one would never see with a pay-per-view model, even when it was considered viable and consumer-friendly. This only reinforced the viability of a subscription-based approach at reasonable prices rather than using an outdated model that consumers continue to reject.

If one is looking for further evidence, they need look no further than the recently announced deal between the UFC MMA promotion and Paramount in a $7.7 billion broadcast deal that will see the promotion’s scheduled events move from ESPN to Paramount+. A key part of that deal is the promotion, who had been one of the few content providers keeping pay-per-view afloat, will be moving those events to be included with a Paramount+ subscription. No doubt in response to both its own declining numbers for pay-per-view events, which until January 2026, continue to be sold through ESPN Unlimited, but also the success of WWE, who over a decade ago as of this writing went with a digital subscription streaming network strategy that moved it away from pay-per-view. Now under the same corporate banner as the UFC, TKO Group Holdings, which also has its own digital subscription streaming network that houses the full UFC library as well as content throughout combat sports, UFC Fight Pass, WWE has moved away from its network being a direct to consumer product, which in addition to its PLE schedule, includes its vast library of previous events and additional programming, and towards a licensing strategy, which has seen its network first become available on Peacock, but most recently moving to ESPN Unlimited here in the United States and Netflix internationally. Furthermore, Paramount+ will also be home to TKO’s upcoming Boxing promotion Zuffa Boxing, which is slated to begin in 2026, with all events being included with a Paramount+ subscription.

When one takes all of that into account, it should not be difficult for a Boxing promoter or network like DAZN to see and comprehend that pay-per-view is not a winning strategy in 2025 and beyond. This is also underscored by the fact that InDemand previously known for many years as Viewer's Choice prior to 2000, the leading pay-per-view distributor across cable in North America will be ceasing operations at the end of this year after over forty years in service, while its streaming platform PPV.com, will continue to exist for a time. How long is debatable given both the decline of the model as a whole, but also events that would normally be on pay-per-view now generally being aimed for subscription-based streaming primarily because that is the preferred choice of consumers.

As for fighters, it is understandable that fighters will want to make the most money for their efforts, as they should because ultimately, it is fighters who are risking their lives each and every time they compete. While understandable, the pay-per-view model even in a predominantly streaming era has relied on a revenue split structure, often cable/satellite providers, pay-per-view distributors, now streaming platforms, the promoter, network, and finally the fighters as the last entity to profit from such a split and often, the lesser of whatever revenue is generated. When one considers that a significant portion of cards have been taking place either in the Middle East or elsewhere outside of the United States, where time differences can also negatively affect viewership, in addition to the price points for pay-per-view more often than not alienating consumers, one should wonder just how much revenue fighters receive from pay-per-view particularly as buys have continued to decline. Part of the issue is fighters have been preconditioned in a sense to expect that pay-per-view is the only way to make additional money beyond their purse for a given fight.

This is one reason why this observer has strongly advocated for advertising, and sponsorships to become part of the strategy in Boxing. Not only have other sports used those sources of revenue to great success in addition to respective broadcast agreements for various sports leagues, but it also allows those athletes to gain additional revenues beyond their contracts by endorsement deals. All while making the sports in question more accessible and within consumer reach. Boxing is and has been long overdue to adopt a similar approach, which would be more beneficial for fighters in the long-term as well as the sport as a whole than pay-per-view has proven to be. It's a matter of getting promoters, some of whom were saying the pay-per-view model needed to be put out of its misery upon DAZN’s entry into Boxing, but in recent years have backtracked, notably Eddie Hearn of Matchroom Boxing, to come to that realization that there are other avenues to gain revenue, that pay-per-view has proven to hurt the sport more than help it and they are only shooting themselves in the foot by not adapting.

Poll Conducted On X (Seen Above) Asking DAZN Subscribers If They Intend To Upgrade To Ultimate Plan Credit: Beau Denison 

Finally, the last question that should be asked here is whether or not this “Ultimate Plan” or tier will be able to not only maintain DAZN’s existing subscribers, but also grow it and potentially win back some subscribers who felt lied to when they went into pay-per-view rather than being the alternative it promised to be? It will likely come down to what fights and other content is offered on this “Ultimate Plan” that will determine whether it will be successful. While it is understandable to see incremental price increases over time, what should be a priority is to ensure the subscription plan remains affordable. This in addition to a bit of increased competition from networks that are in the general entertainment genre in the streaming space should keep DAZN on their toes along with the knowledge that folks can be fickle and as my late father instilled in me as a child, you are only as good as your word. Even during a period where there aren't as many networks involved in Boxing including at least for the time being the proclaimed “Total Sports Network” ESPN, and promoters like Bob Arum’s Top Rank Inc. continue to look for new broadcast deals, DAZN will have to prove both to its current subscriber base as well as any potential new or returning customers that this is the approach from here on while still making some cards available as standalone pay-per-view offerings for those who may be reluctant to upgrade knowing the past history of broken promises and lack of accountability of promoters who could have prevented the move to dip into pay-per-view to begin with. At some point the line of “Well, The Market Changed.” does not hold water and is merely an excuse. For all the good DAZN has done for Boxing over the last seven years, they should look at the list of all the networks that were involved in Boxing, in some cases for decades, both here in the United States and internationally that are no longer in the sport. Unfortunately, it is a long list, and while Boxing’s detractors will claim it's because the sport is dying, it is more a case of bad business decisions, which often included pay-per-view as the culprit that led to those networks exiting the sport. 

As one who does not see as many options to watch the sport I have loved my whole life and have been involved in for most of it, I sincerely hope DAZN will not join that long list. To think, however, that this new “Ultimate Plan” is a cure all for a sport that desperately needs to embrace not only subscription-based streaming, but also methods of revenue generation that will help grow Boxing  by making it more accessible for consumers, may be wishful thinking, but hopefully it is a step in the right direction that others outside of DAZN who still have a pay-per-view mentality will take notice.

“And That's The Boxing Truth.”

For more information about DAZN including schedules, list of compatible streaming devices, platforms, Smart TV’s, availability around the world, to subscribe and learn more about DAZN’ Ultimate subscription plan please visit: www.DAZN.com. 

Photo Courtesy of: DAZN Used with permission.

The Boxing Truth®️ is a registered trademark of Beau Denison All Rights Reserved.

Follow Beau Denison on the following Social Media Platforms:

X: (Formerly Twitter) www.twitter.com/Beau_Denison      

Facebook: www.facebook.com/BeauDenison1     

Threads: www.threads.net/@BeauDenison1   

Instagram: www.Instagram.com/BeauDenison1  

BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/beaudenison1.bsky.social  

Will DAZN's Three PPV Gamble Be Too Much For Boxing Fans?

Longtime readers know that one of the most consistent topics this observer has discussed over the many years that I have covered the sport of Boxing has been the pay-per-view model and more specifically, the increasing need for the sport, those who promote it, and networks that televise it to move away from a model that no longer benefits the sport and rarely offers value to consumers who support it. While I have at times been criticized for my stance that Boxing would be much better off in the long-term picture by adapting a reasonably priced subscription-based approach like what has already been established by digital streaming networks DAZN and ESPN+, my motivation has always been what will benefit the sport and help it grow and be more accessible to anyone who wants to see it regardless of economic scenarios one might find themselves in rather than any vested interests as I do not write or otherwise work for any other outlet or network outside of the one I own and operate here at The Boxing Truth®.

Even as my stance seems to have been increasingly validated as years have gone on as networks that have relied on the pay-per-view model have exited the sport since 2018, coincidentally the same year ESPN+ launched here in the United States and DAZN also entered the U.S. market, despite the sport being in the midst of a transition to being almost exclusively available via streaming, both in response to consumers looking to move away from traditional cable/satellite pay television, as well as general decline continuing in regard to pay-per-view buys, the model still remains more of an issue for the sport rather than a beneficial solution both for Boxing as well as consumers. Although I have been supportive of both DAZN and ESPN+ for each’s introduction of subscription-based alternatives to the model, I would not be objective if I said I have not also criticized both when they have ventured into pay-per-view, despite the evidence that it is not a profitable strategy for either in the now largely streaming-based era.

Many likely remember that when DAZN entered the U.S. market, the main pitch to consumers was pay-per-view quality Boxing events “Without The Pain of Pay-Per-View!" Their reasoning for eventually venturing into pay-per-view starting in 2022 was as a means to attract fighters and promoters who have insisted on the model to the negotiating table. It should also not be overlooked that at the time, much like many others businesses globally, DAZN was in the process of recovering from the effects of the global COVID-19 epidemic, so the move to what they insist is a “Selective/Sporadic" use of pay-per-view may have been seen and justified by some as a necessity.

As the pay-per-view model has continued to decline with the latest casualty being pay-per-view distributor InDemand preparing to cease operations by the end of 2025 ending 40 years as a primary pay-per-view distributor across cable/satellite providers in the United States and in recent years streaming via it's PPV.com platform, even as DAZN and platforms like Prime Video have continued doing periodic pay-per-view events, despite the evidence that it is not being embraced by consumers, one may be tempted to ask when will common sense enter the equation? More specifically, when will it no longer be ignored that things need to change as no doubt such stubbornness has to negatively impact the bottom line.

Perhaps the next example that will be used to illustrate the need to change will come in the coming weeks as DAZN will present three pay-per-view events in a span of one week.  First, on April 26, DAZN will air the highly anticipated grudge match between sons of Boxing legends Chris Eubank and Nigel Benn, two-time world champion Chris Eubank Jr. and Conor Benn, which will take place at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in London, England, which will be available for $24.99 here in the United States.

While that price point on it's own is certainly budget-friendly and a throwback to a time where most Boxing pay-per-view cards were priced under $30 and were less frequent throughout the 1980’s and part of the 1990’s, one might wonder how consumer-friendly the price might be when one considers that on May 2nd and 3rd back to back pay-per-view cards will be held also on DAZN.

First on May 2nd, a card headlined by a triple header featuring Ryan Garcia facing Rolando Romero, Devin Haney facing Jose Ramirez, and WBO Jr. Welterweight world champion Teofimo Lopez defending his title against Arnold Barboza will take place outdoors in Times Square in New York City. This will be followed on May 3rd when Unified WBO/WBA/WBC Super-Middleweight world champion Saul “Canelo" Alvarez will be attempting to become a two-time Undisputed Super-Middleweight world champion when he faces undefeated IBF world champion William Scull in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Beyond the latter being the first time Alvarez has fought in the increasing hotbed of Boxing in Saudi Arabia and a significant shift in Alvarez not fighting on Cinco De Mayo weekend in Las Vegas, and the Times Square event bringing the overdue return of Hall of Fame broadcaster and longtime HBO play by play voice Jim Lampley to calling Boxing for the first time since HBO exited the sport in 2018, one would be justified in questioning if one or both of these events will be priced consumer-friendly considering that there will be a pay-per-view card just days before.

Although it should be pointed out that like any sporting event, some events will draw more eyes than others, the question here is will this gamble for DAZN be too much for Boxing fans given the state of economic conditions and whether these events will fit into one's budget. While it needs to be noted that all three of these cards are being promoted in part by the Riyadh Season group that has largely established Boxing’s footprint in Saudi Arabia and who has generally began to price their pay-per-view cards in a more consumer-friendly approach, the question that needs to be asked is how much is too much?

How much is too much not only in regard to the frequency of when these cards take place, how closely they are placed on the schedule to each other, and finally the price points to not only draw in the interest of the hardcore Boxing enthusiasts, but also the casual sports fan? For DAZN, the question should also be whether the value of a monthly or annual subscription to their network is going to be diminished by not only doing pay-per-view a bit more frequently than the pledge of “Selective/Sporadic?" Furthermore, is it a disservice to their network that is still growing to not include these events as part of a subscription to the network for existing subscribers? 

While price points for the May 3rd and 4th events have not been announced as of this writing, I do believe that if pay-per-view is going to continue to be used by networks/platforms that already have established subscription-based models that it should be used as a way to draw in consumers who may not be subscribed to try these networks. For existing subscribers, it should be either included with their subscriptions, which would be the more common sense approach, or should be offered to subscribers at a reduced price that should not exceed $30 regardless of who might be on the card. 

Under circumstances like this with three cards occuring within a week’s time, perhaps selling the three events as a package bundle with a budget-friendly price with a cap of under $60 should be something DAZN should consider. Unfortunately, numbers will continue to generally decline only with rare exceptions without adapting to the changing landscape. This includes folks who get on social media platforms and boast about how they will look for not so legal walk-arounds to access events that either do not fit within their budget or they simply have no interest in paying for.

Although I discourage such practices and pay the same fees as the average consumer to ply my trade, though I do sympathize with those who feel they have no other options to watch the sport they love, the way to reach those folks is not by continuing to rely on a model that consumers continue to reject and perhaps in spite of evidence continuing to resist change, which whether networks or promoters want to admit it or not will ultimately benefit them and the sport. Unfortunately until such realization occurs with networks having left the sport largely due to their over reliance on pay-per-view, with one network in ESPN perhaps either nearing an exit itself or a significant revamp in terms of their commitment to the spot by the end of 2025, it will be up to DAZN, who despite their growth, will have to make the decision as to how long they want to walk a tightrope by using a model that they were insisting on changing at the risk of alienating their subscribers not just here in the United States, but globally. At the risk of being unpopular, that is a gamble that may not be worth taking.

“And That’s The Boxing Truth." 

The Boxing Truth®️ is a registered trademark of Beau Denison All Rights Reserved.

Follow Beau Denison on the following Social Media Platforms:

X: (Formerly Twitter) www.twitter.com/Beau_Denison    

Facebook: www.facebook.com/BeauDenison1      

Threads: www.threads.net/@BeauDenison1    

Instagram: www.Instagram.com/BeauDenison1  

BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/beaudenison1.bsky.social 

A Boxing Wishlist For 2025

Introduction:

It is that time of year once again. What has become a yearly tradition here at The Boxing Truth® ️ where this observer begins the new year by sharing his “Boxing Wishlist" with the dear readers who have followed my writings over the many years I have covered Boxing and by extension combat sports. By the title of this column for those who are unfamiliar with previous editions, this is a list of things that I would like to see happen in the sport of Boxing during the course of the new year. It also should be pointed out for those who may be reading the “Boxing Wishlist" put out by yours truly for the first time that this is not a standard list in the sense of a numbered list from 1-10 for example, but rather a condensed selection of topics that will be highlighted in Bold that I will try to discuss in both a detailed as well as a condensed form as possible within the context of a single column. While I always hope to add new topics that have not been featured before in previous years, unfortunately, circumstances do warrant some things to remain on the list, but will be obviously updated for present context as is necessary.

As has also become standard over the years as this list has evolved into a yearly tradition, this year's list is being compiled in the latter days of 2024 while yours truly is recuperating after what was a busy year for the sport and also a challenging one for me personally. For the purposes of this year's list, it is being composed before the World Heavyweight championship rematch between champion Oleksandr Usyk and Tyson Fury, which was held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on December 21st. Delayed coverage of that encounter will be covered in a separate column that will be released on Tuesday, January 7th. Without any further ado, it is time to get into this year's “Boxing Wishlist." 

A " Boxing Wishlist For 2025”:

A Possible Consolidation Of Boxing’s Power Brokers (Promoters) Under One Broadcast Platform:

This is a subject that is both interesting and could be viewed as both good and bad for the sport depending on one’s perspective. One of the more consistent themes of this observer’s work over the last thirteen or so years has been the emergence of digital streaming networks and more specifically, how subscription-based streaming has the opportunity to bring Boxing into a new era that offers both better value and is more cost effective for consumers. A significant part of this particular theme since 2018 has been the inception of DAZN and ESPN+, two digital streaming networks dedicated exclusively to sports that quickly emerged as successors to previous broadcast powerhouses HBO and Showtime, two premium cable networks that have since both exited Boxing.

Although both networks have offered Boxing fans considerably more content than had previously been offered prior to the advent of streaming and have done so mostly under a subscription-based model, it has been DAZN that has grown significantly to house several promoters respective events all under their broadcast banner including Eddie Hearn’s Matchroom Boxing, Oscar De La Hoya’s Golden Boy Promotions, Universum Box Promotions, Dmitry Salita’s Salita Promotions, and most recently Frank Warren's Queensberry Promotions to name a few of what is becoming a deep and global roster of promotional entities ranging from the top of the sport to promoters on the regional level worldwide.

While it is a testament to the growth of DAZN not just in regard to their involvement in Boxing, but also their ongoing investment in securing additional sporting rights as well as continued expansion of their network around the world, the network is poised to continue building momentum in 2025 and may further add to it's Boxing roster, which could increase the likelihood of the network becoming as close to a one stop destination for all things Boxing that is frankly uncharted territory. 

While this could also be seen as bad for the sport in the sense that it might limit competition if most of Boxing's major promoters and even regional promoters around the world will be openly seeking one platform, for the respective other platforms that exist in the sport, which in regard to here in the United States consist of in addition to ESPN/ESPN+, ProBox TV, Triller TV, Prime Video, and Peacock, like DAZN and ESPN, all of the above are largely streaming-based networks, but it will be interesting to see if ESPN for example, who is preparing to revamp their streaming offering to include access to the ESPN linear cable networks, without requiring a Pay-TV provider to access those feeds through the ESPN app, will be looking to either increase their involvement in the sport or potentially at minimum scale back as the network’s agreement with Hall of Fame promoter Bob Arum's Top Rank Boxing is due to conclude in the Summer of 2025, which has also fueled speculation that Arum could potentially be next to join DAZN’s roster.

Although as of this writing, the latter is speculation and yours truly does not like partaking in the practice of rumor gossip, if Arum is indeed preparing to switch platforms, it will be interesting to see what ESPN and the other networks involved in Boxing might do. Even though DAZN has built a roster of promoters and Boxing programming the sport has never seen before, there is always no shortage of promoters worldwide who will always be looking to make their footprint in the sport and it will be very interesting to see if ESPN and Arum do part ways if the network will look to a different promoter who is not currently signed to any of the aforementioned networks and give them a platform in which to try and make that footprint just as it allowed Arum to do initially beginning in 1980 when Arum’s Top Rank became the first major promoter to provide Boxing on a weekly basis on what was then a network in it's early stages in ESPN. There is also always the possibility given what has happened in the last decade with HBO and Showtime that ESPN, though sports centric, might opt to move in a different direction away from Boxing, which if that were to happen, would open a potential window of opportunity for the other networks that have been mentioned here outside of DAZN to potentially expand their involvement in the sport. How this will all play out obviously remains to be seen, but the question is how could this benefit consumers, which leads to the next and all too familiar item that remains a staple of this observer’s annual “Boxing Wishlist." 

The Need For Boxing To Finally Embrace Subscription-Based Models Over Pay-Per-View:

This one admittedly is the one item on the list year over year that has seen very little change, perhaps due to the stubbornness of those in the sport who are hell-bent on sticking with what has been an outdated and overpriced model for years, as well as yours truly’s refusal to stop speaking up on something I sincerely feel needs to change, not for the benefit of myself, but for the sport I have loved all my life and have covered for most of it.

The silver-lining to a significant amount of promoters all being under one broadcast platform in DAZN, which is a global network, however, just might give the network the opportunity to get back to it's original strategy upon its inception here in the United States in 2018, which in turn would ultimately benefit consumers. Top level Boxing cards under a reasonably priced subscription-based model without the need for subscribers to pay an additional pay-per-view fee to access the sport’s major events on DAZN’s platform.

Those who are knowledgeable on the subject know that DAZN, while remaining a subscription-based network, has deviated from their original promise and has offered Boxing cards including some “Influencer Boxing" events which have required an additional pay-per-view fee, which began in 2022 as a likely response to both coming out of the global COVID-19 epidemic in an attempt to recoup losses, which began for many in the television and streaming industries when the world was brought to a standstill in 2020, as well as a way to get fighters and promoters, who have insisted, despite the significant evidence of pay-per-view being in decline, to continue to use the model, to bring them to their platform.

Those who have followed my work going back to the mid-1990’s when I began my writing journey and entered the sport as a writer, but also spent several years covering the professional wrestling industry as well as periodically also covering Mixed Martial Arts (MMA)  in several online and print publications that predated The Boxing Truth®️, the outlet which I own and operate, know that I have frequently and unapologetically criticized the pay-per-view model, primarily over increasing costs as years have gone on as well as the frequency in which the model has been used in that a vast majority of pay-per-view events were put on pay-per-view as a requirement in contractual agreements and/or demands of promoters and even some fighters, more so than it being a significant event, deemed special that would draw a significant audience. Although I can be significantly more thorough, I will give a brief background into what ultimately convinced me that pay-per-view created more problems for Boxing than it solved. I came into this world in the 1980’s. Back then, pay-per-view as well as the cable/satellite industry as a whole were in its initial growing stages. In the context of Boxing and for a period of time Professional Wrestling, saw their major events shown on closed-circuit television in arenas, and theaters throughout much of the United States, but also on cable/satellite pay-per-view where it was available at that time. 

While there was also a difference back then in how those events were presented in that it was presented as a special event and featured a look and feel of something one would not see on standard television broadcasts of either medium at that time, the prices also were limited to between $15-$30 depending on the market you were in and those events were occasional, which made it feel more special, though pro wrestling was the first to eventually expand on the occasional special event to something that would evolve to one event per fiscal quarter by the time the 1980’s came to an end.

With the brief trip down memory lane now also concluded, I should not have to tell those who are knowledgeable that pay-per-view is no longer the budget friendly model that it once was and in regard to Boxing the feel of the true “Special Event" is at best a rarity. Despite this fact and the continued decline of the model with very rare exceptions, promoters still continue to use pay-per-view, even as evidence of the success of reasonably priced subscription-based models exist and could help the sport significantly in the long-term.

One need look no further than the recent event featuring social media influencer, turned aspiring boxer Jake Paul and 58 year old former two-time Heavyweight world champion and Hall of Famer Mike Tyson in November of last year. A controversial event for a few reasons, but one that, despite Mike Tyson's status as once the biggest draw in the sport in the 1980’s and more specifically throughout much of the 1990’s where the latter period saw most of his fights carried on pay-per-view, the Tyson-Paul event was not a pay-per-view attraction, but was instead offered on digital subscription entertainment network Netflix.

While the event was not without its share of controversy both for what occurred inside the ring, but more specifically relating to issues with the live broadcast stream of the event, which was significant, the event, which was also archived for on-demand viewing without any of the issues that plagued the live broadcast, drew an audience of 108 million subscribers globally for the network that has recently ventured into live sports including carrying two NFL football games on Christmas Day, which thankfully did not have any issues with the live broadcasts and also drew massive numbers around the world, but also signing a deal with WWE to broadcast its flagship Monday Night Raw weekly series in the United States as of this week (January 6, 2025), as well as becoming the global distributor of WWE Network internationally including all of the company's weekly programming, library of past events, as well as live premium live events, (Previously known as pay-per-view) which will likely include the United States market when the U.S. rights become available in 2026.

Although the agreements with both WWE and the NFL are clearly part of a much broader strategy by Netflix as it ventures into live sports and sports on-demand programming in expanding its content to grow it's subscriber base even further, the success of both the Tyson-Paul event as well as the NFL’s Christmas Day games which drew 65 million viewers in the United States alone, should serve as a wake up call to those Boxing hold outs as I call them that the time to move away from pay-per-view has come. Though we do not know as of this writing as to what plans might be in the works as for as Boxing is concerned for Netflix, these kinds of numbers could only be dreamed of via pay-per-view distribution even when the model was considered a bargain and budget-friendly for consumers. 

If one is looking for more evidence, longtime pay-per-view distributor InDemand, previously known as Viewer's Choice here in the United States when it launched in 1985, the leading pay-per-view distributor across cable and satellite television here in the United States as well as Canada announced last year that it will be ceasing operations by the end of 2025 ending forty years of service and for a lot of us who grew up with what was then Viewer's Choice as a pay-per-view provider, a lot of good memories of those “Special Events" as well as an alternative to movie theaters to view the blockbuster films of the day. While the distributor has said that it's streaming platform PPV.com will continue operating after the company closes, it should serve as yet another in a growing list of examples as to not only the lack of viability of the pay-per-view model in now 2025 at the time of this column's release, but of the decline of the cable/satellite industry as a whole. 

Although the possibility exists that a new distributor could emerge as cable and satellite providers look to survive in both their traditional forms as well as attempting to transition into offering live TV streaming packages and services rather than traditional cable or satellite service, the odds of both the pay-per-view model as well as cable and satellite models reverting back to an era of both being consumer friendly and consumer-embraced where both models are profitable for providers, distributors, as well as networks and promoters seems unlikely with subscription-based models easily accessible and consumer friendly on the market, which tends to offer considerably more content as well for the price.

Given all of this, it would seem logical that Boxing promoters and networks, rather than waiting for the inevitable collapse of what remains of cable, satellite, and pay-per-view, get out ahead of things and finally embrace subscription-based streaming as the future. In terms of the endless pursuit of seeking additional sources of revenue, which are always hoped-for, but rarely achieved by pay-per-view, the obvious route would be to both attempt lucrative broadcast agreements with streaming networks that would offer these (Pay-Per-View Quality) bouts to their subscribers as part of their subscription, something both DAZN and ESPN have done well when neither has deviated towards pay-per-view, but to also seek sponsorship deals and endorsements, which could effectively replace the pay-per-view model without forcing consumers all promoters attempt to draw to their events to incur additional costs. The bottom line is with much of the Boxing promotional landscape now either under one broadcast banner, or soon to be joining that banner, the argument of using pay-per-view as a way to draw fighters and promoters who insist on the model to the negotiating table, no longer holds water, nor does the excuse some promoters when confronted on the subject of “Market Changes" or blaming expensive prices, which often begin at a $70 price point as something that is the way things are done in the United States. There needs to be accountability of promoters and networks when decisions that ultimately do not benefit consumers are made. With the pay-per-view model suffering yet another blow with InDemands impending closure, one can only hope that common sense on the need to move away from an outdated model will finally come into the equation. On the subject of the implementation of “Common Sense" it coincidentally leads to the final item on this year's list that is also making a return.

To See Women's Boxing Moved To Three Minute Rounds And World Championship Fights Expanded To 12 Rounds:

Perhaps one subject besides the need for Boxing to move away from pay-per-view in order to make the sport more accessible to all as well as the need to seek new revenue streams as an effective strategy to effectively replace the model, which I am also proud to be associated with is my long-standing advocacy for Women's Boxing. To be more specific, wanting to see progress made for female fighters in the sport that would put women on similar footing to their male counterparts. In taking it a step further, two critical aspects, to see women's bouts moved from two minute rounds to three minutes, the same length as Men's bouts and to see world championship bouts in Women's Boxing go from a ten round distance to a twelve round distance, the same distance as men's world championship bouts.

Much like my stance on the pay-per-view model needing to be either significantly revamped, or outright done away with, this is something I will gladly continue banging the drum on until change occurs. With regard to pay-per-view, it's looking to and wanting to see the sport grow and be made accessible to more eyes regardless of economic level, my desire here for Women's Boxing can be summed up in a word “Equality." 

When Women's Boxing began to be featured on television in the mid-1990’s also coincidentally when I began my writing journey, to be frank, it was treated as an attraction more than it was regarded as the sport it was and still is. One of the main differences between women's bouts and men's bouts were that unlike men's fights,; where rounds were three minutes in duration, women were limited to two minute rounds.

Although the purpose in theory was first out of safety concerns and offered a selling point of “More Excitement" due to the quicker pace , women's combat sports has evolved and when one considers that in the sport of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) women's bouts are contested under either three five minute rounds for non-title fights or five, five minute rounds for world championship bouts, the same standards as what men's MMA bouts are contested under, the idea that women boxers should be limited to two minute rounds has less and less credibility.

To expand on this aspect, in the last two Olympic Boxing tournaments, women's bouts were held with three, three minute rounds and there were no instances of serious injury that could have been attributed to the length of time of a round. Furthermore, the additional minute not only allowed fighters time to pace themselves, but also it seemed to solve the the conundrum that often occurs in bouts held with two minute rounds that often result in close fights being scored draws by allowing the same round length as men's bouts, which allowed for more conclusive scoring.

On the professional side of the sport, some may remember the Women's world championship bout between Amanda Serrano and Danila Ramos, where Serrano put her unified World Featherweight championship on the line, which took place in October 2023 in Orlando, FL was contested with three minute rounds and also saw the bout extended to a twelve round distance, the same as men's world championship fights. There were no issues and Serrano was able to retain her championship with a convincing twelve round unanimous decision.

Despite Serrano wanting to continue competing under what is the standard format for men's bouts, three minute rounds and a twelve round distance for world title fights, unfortunately, there has not been a bout held in Women's Boxing since under the format. Frankly, I would like to know why? 

One of the benefits of Netflix' entry into Boxing with the Mike Tyson-Jake Paul event was the co-main event featured the highly anticipated rematch between Serrano and two-division world champion Katie Taylor. A delayed second encounter between two groundbreakers of the sport who made history in April 2023 when they met in Madison Square Garden for Taylor's Undisputed Lightweight championship of the world at that time. What was a great fight that brought tears to my eyes having long advocated for Women's Boxing, was the first Women's bout to main event a Boxing card in the main arena in Madison Square Garden and drew a sell out of over 20,000 people. As one who faced much criticism over the years and questions of why I covered women's bouts, it was a moment of validation not only for the two fighters, not only for the sport of Women's Boxing, but also for yours truly in a small way having long known what female fighters were capable of and holding firm in my stance that Women's Boxing needs to be under the same format as men's bouts. I will also concede that I had a similar emotional reaction during Serrano's fight with Ramos as the crowd in attendance at that fight gave the fighters one long steady standing ovation for the last several rounds of that fight, very similar to that which took place in Madison Square Garden when Taylor and Serrano met for the first time.

When I was informed that the Taylor-Serrano rematch would be taking place as the co-main event of the Tyson-Paul card, I immediately told anyone who asked me about the event or Tyson-Paul that irregardless of what happened in that fight, the Taylor-Serrano rematch would be worth the time to watch and would steal the show at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, TX. Though it did not take long for me to be proven right yet again as the two fighters met again, this time for Taylor's Undisputed Jr. Welterweight world championship, I found myself a bit disappointed because like their first fight in Madison Square Garden, I feel an opportunity was missed here by not allowing the fight to be held with three minute rounds and with a twelve round distance.

Much like their first fight, a grueling and bloody back and forth battle occurred between Taylor and Serrano for ten hard rounds with Taylor once again emerging victorious by the slimmest of margins to retain her undisputed crown. Irregardless of the outcomes of those two fights, which had my votes for Fight of the year in 2023 and 2024, not just in Women's Boxing, but in the entire sport including men's bouts, I feel that style wise Katie Taylor and Amanda Serrano could fight ten to twenty times and it would be closely fought from start to finish every single time. One should wonder, however, if the rivalry between these two trailblazers and future Hall of Famers would be even at one fight a piece or potentially even reversed with Serrano having two wins instead of Taylor if the two fighters had the benefit of three minute rounds and an extra two rounds that men who compete in world title fights are afforded. While the fights may have still ended up narrowly decided regardless of duration of round length or distance, simply based on the styles of the two fighters, they deserved three minute rounds and two extra rounds to try to determine a more conclusive outcome. 

My hope for 2025 for Women's Boxing is that those who have stood in the way of progress whether they be sanctioning organizations and/or state and international athletic regulatory boards finally realize that with more women's bouts being held around the world than ever before, with more and more women's fights being positioned as main events on cards also featuring men's bouts, there is no longer a reason to deny female fighters the opportunity to fight under a three minute round or to compete in a twelve round fight in a world championship fight. The time for further steps for equality has come and if top female fighters in the sport are not going to yet be given similar pay as their male counterparts, which they also deserve and is overdue, the least the powers that be in the sport can do is take one step forward by allowing women to compete under the same format as men even if the issue of similar purses for female fighters is a bridge yet to be crossed, but one that much like three minute rounds and the same distance as men's bouts needs to be crossed sooner than later. Female fighters do take the same risks as male fighters take by getting in the ring after all.

Conclusion:

As always by definition the items on this list for now remain “Wishes", but are not ones with the benefit of this observer in mind, but of the sport of Boxing as a whole, the fighters who compete in it and put their lives on the line, and the fans who support it in good times and bad year after year. While some items have remained on the list year after year as circumstances dictate, there are several other things that have been discussed over the years in previous editions of the “Boxing Wishlist" that are as relevant today as they were when they were featured and well likely be featured again in the days, weeks, months, and indeed years when appropriate. With frankly too many of those items to list in the context of one column, it is my hope that this condensed list will not only see progress made as 2025 moves along, but also that the powers that be in the sport take a look and realize that my goal is and has always been from the moment I began my writing journey 30 years ago to benefit Boxing, to advocate for the sport, the fighters, and the fans that support the sport. It is something that has not and will not change. 

With all the above now said and done, it is now time to see what 2025 has in store for the sport of Boxing.

“And That's The Boxing Truth." 

The Boxing Truth® is a registered trademark of Beau Denison All Rights Reserved. 

Follow Beau Denison on the following Social Media Platforms:

X: (Formerly Twitter) www.twitter.com/Beau_Denison  

Facebook: www.facebook.com/BeauDenison1 

Threads: www.threads.net/@BeauDenison1 

Instagram: www.Instagram.com/BeauDenison1   

BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/beaudenison1.bsky.social 

JAVIER "RAYITO" PEDROZA CLASHES WITH FLOYD DIAZ IN VEGAS JUNE 21ST

 Press Release: May 25, 2024 By Lewis Moss - A modern day Cinderella man story could unfold June 21st when undefeated Top Rank prospect Floyd Diaz takes on Mexico’s 29 year old 12 year fight veteran Javier "Rayito" Pedroza 18-11 at the Fontainebleau Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA June 21st.

 

Credit: Mike O'Hara/Dragon Fire Boxing

Pedroza opened up about his fight preparation, what the fight means to him and a final message.

 

“Preparation has been the best of my life; discipline has always characterized me but this time applying the experience throughout my 12 years as a professional. I was lucky enough to start the year sparring with Jason Moloney for his first title defense against Saul Sanchez, then straight into camp with Jonthan Rodriguez for his WBA Title Eliminator then later with Luis Nery for his Undisputed World title fight in Japan with Inoue.

 

“This fight right now represents a better future for me and my family. I am aware of what Top Rank means in the world of boxing. It is a dream come true that they have given me this opportunity and even more so being in Las Vegas. I want the world to know who I am and I'm ready to show it on June 21”

 

“I would like to thank everyone involved in organizing this fight, my advisor Tony Tolj, Matchmaker Brad Goodman and top rank for the opportunity”.

 

Pedroza delivered a final message ahead of his clash.

 

“Boxing is of times and this is mine, I don't care who you are because I have already faced the best and you are going to know what a true Mexican warrior with hunger is.”

 

Tune in June 21st on ESPN plus for all the action for another night of Top Rank non stop action in the fight capital of the World, Las Vegas.

A modern day Cinderella man story could unfold June 21st when undefeated Top Rank prospect Floyd Diaz takes on Mexico’s 29 year old 12 year fight veteran Javier "Rayito" Pedroza 18-11 at the Fontainebleau Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA June 21st.

 

Pedroza opened up about his fight preparation, what the fight means to him and a final message.

 

“Preparation has been the best of my life; discipline has always characterized me but this time applying the experience throughout my 12 years as a professional. I was lucky enough to start the year sparring with Jason Moloney for his first title defense against Saul Sanchez, then straight into camp with Jonthan Rodriguez for his WBA Title Eliminator then later with Luis Nery for his Undisputed World title fight in Japan with Inoue.

 

“This fight right now represents a better future for me and my family. I am aware of what Top Rank means in the world of boxing. It is a dream come true that they have given me this opportunity and even more so being in Las Vegas. I want the world to know who I am and I'm ready to show it on June 21”

 

“I would like to thank everyone involved in organizing this fight, my advisor Tony Tolj, Matchmaker Brad Goodman and top rank for the opportunity”.

 

Pedroza delivered a final message ahead of his clash.

 

“Boxing is of times and this is mine, I don't care who you are because I have already faced the best and you are going to know what a true Mexican warrior with hunger is.”

 

Tune in June 21st on ESPN plus for all the action for another night of Top Rank non stop action in the fight capital of the World, Las Vegas.

Material Courtesy of: Lewis Moss and Photo Courtesy of: Mike O’Hara/Dragon Fire Boxing  Used with permission.

The Boxing Truth®️ is a registered trademark of Beau Denison All Rights Reserved.

Franklin Stops Vargas In 6 On Big Time Boxing USA

Heavyweight contender Jermaine Franklin continued his winning ways by scoring a sixth round stoppage of veteran Devin Vargas on Thursday night at the Wayne State Fieldhouse in Detroit, MI. A fight where Franklin was able to showcase both his punching power and combination punching, he frequently had Vargas, a former Olympian in the 2004 games in Athans,Greece on the defensive. As has been a trait throughout his career, Vargas was able to withstand much of what Franklin dished out, which more often than not consisted of hard, thudding punches with both hands and did try to make a fight of it in spots throughout. 

The effects of the punishment however, gradually took its toll on Vargas who was knocked down in the fourth round and again in the sixth round. Both knockdowns were from accumulated punishment. Although Vargas was able to get up both times, after the second knockdown in round six where he was able to finish the round, he told his corner that he had, had enough and the bout was stopped at the conclusion of round six. Jermaine Franklin advances to 23-2, with 15 Knockouts. Devin Vargas falls to 22-11, with 9 Knockouts.

 Also on this card:

In a battle of unbeaten Jr. Welterweights Joshua Pagan overcame a bad cut in the opening seconds of the first round over his left eye in the first round as well as consistent pressure from his opponent Roger Hilley to earn a convincing eight round unanimous decision. Official scores were: 78-74 (On all three scorecards) in favor of Pagan. Joshua Pagan advances to 10-0, with 4 Knockouts. Roger Hilley falls to 13-1, with 8 Knockouts.

An encounter between former Middleweight sparring partners saw Josiah Shackleford pound out a four round decision over a very “Game” Ja'shar Banks, who was making his professional debut. Official scores were: 40-36 (On all three scorecards) for Shackleford. Josiah Shackleford advances to 3-1, with 2 Knockouts.  Ja'shar Banks falls to 0-1, with 0 Knockouts. 

In a Super-Middleweigh bout that began the evening, Ali Akhmedov scored the fifth win of his comeback following a loss to Carlos Gongora in December 2020, by scoring a second round knockout of Encarnacion Diaz. Akhmedov spent the first round gradually stalking Diaz and in the second round dropped him with a short left hook to the head. Diaz was able to get up, but moments later was dropped with a barrage of punches highlighted by a right hand to the head. Diaz from his knees nodded his head in resignation and took the full ten count. Official time of the stoppage was 2:14 of round two. Ali Akhmedov advances to 21-1, with 16 Knockouts. Encarnacion Diaz. falls to 18-5, with 11 Knockouts.

This card, which was promoted by former world title challenger and now promoter Dmitry Salita’s Salita Promotions as part of its recently introduced Big Time Boxing USA series broadcast globally by digital subscription sports streaming network DAZN was in many was reminiscent of the classic Tuesday and Thursday night Boxing series, which ran weekly on the USA Network here in the United States in the 1980’s and 1990’s. The series, which took it's final bow in 1998 at the legendary Blue Horizon in Philadelphia, PA has left a void in the sport in the years since its closure. Though ESPN did fill that void for several years through it's Friday Night Fights series, which eventually became seasonal due to the network’s commitments to College Football in the days that predated digital streaming, which seemed to solve the issue of scheduling conflicts while putting more options and control in the hands of the consumer, the need for series like this new Big Time Boxing USA series is still there.

Not only does a series like this allow fighters in various stages of their careers including contenders like Jermaine Franklin the opportunity to stay active, not only an opportunity for increased exposure, but also an opportunity for promoters like Salita to showcase their stable of fighters all while bringing the sport to cities and states big and small, which should open Boxing to new eyes. Something that both USA Network and ESPN accomplished with their respective series. As cable/satellite appears to be on the way out in the traditional way we know it, it is refreshing to see a series like this trying to fill the void in the era of digital streaming. It is something that should be supported.

“And That's The Boxing Truth." 

The Boxing Truth®️ is a registered trademark of Beau Denison All Rights Reserved.

Follow Beau Denison on the following Social Media Platforms:

X: (Formerly Twitter) www.twitter.com/Beau_Denison  

Facebook: www.facebook.com/BeauDenison1    

Threads: www.threads.net/@BeauDenison1  

Instagram: www.Instagram.com/BeauDenison1  

A Boxing Wishlist For 2024

As the calendar turns to another year, that means it is time once again for what has become a tradition to start the year every year here on The Boxing Truth®️. Yours truly is referring to this observer’s annual “Boxing Wishlist" of things that I would like to see take place in the new year.

For those who may be new to this tradition, this is not a Wishlist in the sense of a numbered list from 1 to 10 as an example, but what I will do is list an item and proceed with an explanation as to why it is on the list and hopefully a brief explanation or as brief as I can make it within the context of a single column as to my feelings on the subject.  Unfortunately, to those who are loving readers,some items that have been on the list in years past will remain on the list this year, but as frustrating as that might be, it is worth revisiting and updating the various subjects that remain in the list in present context.

With what I hope is as clear an explanation of the structure/criteria both for new readers who may be reading this observer’s work for the first time as well as a refresher for longtime readers, there is only one thing left to do. Get down to business. As was the case for the 2023 edition of “A Boxing Wishlist," each item on the list will be highlighted in an effort to make it easier for readers rather than simply moving from paragraph to paragraph as one would expect in a standard column.

“A Boxing Wishlist For 2024”

To see Women's Boxing moved to three minute rounds:

In October of 2023, the Boxing world was treated to a truly historic moment when Featherweight world champion Amanda Serrano defended her unified crown against top contender Danila Ramos in Orlando, FL. What made this a truly historic event in Boxing history was it was the first world championship fight for women in the sport scheduled for twelve rounds and a three minute round length. The same distance and round length as men's world championship bouts.

As one who has long advocated for Women's Boxing through my various writings in almost three decades, this was an emotional moment for me, a man who has never competed in the ring, but one who has said for years that the sport for women needed to be held in the same regard and light as their male counterparts. While only in recent years has the United States seemingly caught up with the rest of the world in staging women's bouts as the main event on cards also featuring men's bouts, a major step towards equality that I had been yelling for, for years was to see women's bouts moved from a two minute round length to the standard of three minutes along with the adaptation of a twelve round distance for world championship fights.

Although the argument of a two minute round length has been used to push narratives regarding both the excitement of women's bouts, but more specifically to address safety concerns, it is an argument that is flawed on both subjects. Firstly, despite fights with two minute rounds having an obvious quicker pace, it does not necessarily equate to an exciting fight and the old adage of styles make fights still applies as it would for men's bouts. Secondly, even though the issue of safety should be taken with the utmost importance at all times, the argument for keeping two minute rounds loses credibility when one considers that women in the sport of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fight in bouts scheduled for three five minute rounds for non-title fights and five, five minute rounds for world championship fights, the same standards as what men's bouts in the sport are held. 

When one also considers that women boxers also now compete in various forms of Bareknuckle Boxing, the argument for not allowing female fighters to box under the same standards as men in traditional professional Boxing has less credibility. If one were to look for more evidence, they need look no further than the delayed 2020 Summer Olympics held in Tokyo, Japan in 2021. All women's bouts held in the Boxing tournament in every weight class were held with a three minute round length. More importantly, there were no serious injuries and the fighters who competed in the tournament showed they can do so under the same structure as their male counterparts.

As for what Serrano and Ramos were able to show on October 27, 2023, they too proved they can box in three minute rounds and what was an exciting fight from the opening bell was loudly and proudly applauded by the crowd in attendance in Orlando, FL who spent the majority of the final four rounds giving both fighters a standing ovation. This observer is not ashamed to say that as I covered the bout remotely, the emotion of both the significance of what was taking place as well as the fight itself got the better of me and I had tears in my eyes because seeing it validated everything I ever believed could be possible for Women's Boxing and also vindicated my coverage of women's bouts going back to when I started my writing journey in the mid-1990’s where people would actually say among other things,“Why do you waste your time covering women's fights, no one takes it seriously.” It may have taken almost three decades for me to both see and cover a woman's world championship bout fought for twelve three minute rounds, but I do consider it one of the highlights of my career.

The then Undisputed Featherweight champion Amanda Serrano retained her crown with a twelve round unanimous decision. Unfortunately, as there always seems to be in Boxing, it turned out to be one significant step forward towards equality, but a few steps back in the process. This was due to Serrano indicating immediately after that fight her intention to box in three minute rounds for the remainder of her career, which the World Boxing Council (WBC) has refused to sanction Women's bouts fought with three minute rounds and a twelve round distance for world championship fights. In a true display of integrity, class, and also proving she was serious, Serrano relinquished the WBC World Featherweight championship due to the sanctioning organization’s refusal to allow equality. Along with relinquishing that championship, Serrano also willingly gave up her status as an undisputed champion, putting principle over whatever financial gain she might have received as an undisputed champion.

With all due respect to the WBC, I stand with Serrano and all the other female fighters that want to be equal to their male counterparts. Although Serrano is getting ready to defend the remainder of her titles in March in a fight that will again be scheduled for twelve three minute rounds, at some point in 2024, I would like to see all the respective state athletic commissions, international regulatory boards as well as the various sanctioning organizations adapt the same standards that are used for men's bouts for women. While for the moment, it appears outside of the WBC, that such a standard has to be requested by the fighters themselves, all of those who are tasked with regulating the sport need to realize that it is 2024 and there is no longer any legitimate argument that should prevent women from being able to compete under the same format as men. 

To See Boxing Finally Realize The Time Has Come To Move Away From Pay-Per-View:

Perhaps the one subject that has been on this “Boxing Wishlist '' year after year and for a legitimate reason is to see the hold outs as I call them, who have relied on the pay-per-view model to admit it's time to change. The pay-per-view model unfortunately is something that gets a lot of coverage by yours truly, but as years have gone on, it is because it is a model that does more harm to Boxing than it benefits the sport. In addition to often asinine price points, which are no longer of value to consumers in an increasingly subscription-based streaming world, which predictably has led to an increase in declining buy returns for promoters and networks as consumers continue to reject pay-per-view, the latest casualty was the recent exit of United States premium cable network Showtime, who after thirty-seven years exited the sport after spending much of the last several years producing overpriced pay-per-view cards rather than producing consistent cards on their main network.

In responding to the criticism of the frequent use of the model in the years before Showtime's parent company Paramount Global pulled the plug not just on Showtime’s Boxing programming, but of the network’s sports division as well, then president of Showtime Sports Stephen Espinoza claimed proudly that “Pay-Per-View is a tool." While I do not intend to kick anyone who lost their jobs as a result of Paramount's decision to get out of Boxing and also sports altogether as far as Showtime was concerned, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that while there may have been other contributing factors, which led to that decision, the primary one was the use, overuse, and insistence on an outdated model, which subsequently led to significant losses financially. 

With networks like Showtime and HBO before them having now exited Boxing due largely to the pay-per-view model, with the sport seemingly about to embark on a streaming-based future in 2024, it is imperative that the networks that remain including DAZN, ESPN/ESPN+, as well as recent newcomer Peacock, and soon to enter Amazon Prime Video realize that the time to get away from pay-per-view has arrived and the insistence of those who demand the use of such a model no longer has credibility as evidence continues to point in the direction that pay-per-view is not the answer nor is it a cure-all for the flaws in the sport, particularly on the business end of it, it is a cause of a lot of what holds Boxing back and that will not change though the distribution model seemingly has officially changed from cable/satellite to streaming.

Equally as imperative is the need for those who believe pay-per-view is the only way to make additional revenue including, but not limited to fighters purses for a given bout, to seek alternative ways to get that revenue without alienating consumers.  While major sports leagues here in the United States and internationally have what can be called premium packages marketed to consumers through cable/satellite and now streaming, the athletes in those respective sports make additional revenue through advertising and endorsement deals. The various leagues also benefit from those sources of revenue beyond their licensing rights and live gate attendance figures.

An analogy this observer has used frequently to illustrate the point that pay-per-view does more harm than good for the sport is comparing access of Boxing's biggest events, or what is thought to be via pay-per-view to the playoffs of the National Football League (NFL). Although the NFL has two separate streaming packages for consumers to watch all the league’s games, NFL Sunday Ticket, through YouTube and the league's own NFL+ streaming platform, all playoff games remain free and both of the aforementioned streaming offerings are for games that one would not see in their local market and in the case of NFL+ on demand access of every game in addition to being able to live stream games in one's local market, as big as the NFL has become, imagine if the league came out and said we're going to a pay-per-view model where consumers will have to pay $70+ per game and $85+ for playoff games and the Super Bowl. It should not take a rocket scientist to see that such a model would take the NFL or any other sports league that would attempt it from extremely profitable, popular, and a guaranteed ratings winner for any network, traditional or streaming, and turn it into something that would resemble the stock market crash in the late 1920’s which led to the great depression.

While it is an extreme analogy, it nevertheless illustrates the need to appeal to consumers and what would happen if consumers were to be alienated by what would be asinine business decisions. Despite Boxing and by extension Combat Sports being considered by some to be niche sports or products, much like other organized sports, the need to appeal to a wide audience and make your events as accessible and consumer-friendly as possible exists and for Boxing and other combat sports to continue to rely on a model that has not been consumer-friendly in decades, even as more networks have left the sport and consumers continue to reject said model, is to put it in a word asinine.

To see more fights of significant interest not placed behind expensive paywalls:

To continue with the need for Boxing to move away from pay-per-view, part of the issue, which has led Boxing to what some may feel is a crossroads moment as 2024 begins is the need for Boxing promoters and networks involved in the sport to produce fights that will be of significant interest to draw eyes to the sport, but also do so without requiring a high price tag for consumers to access said events. Originally, this was the strategy of digital subscription-based streaming network DAZN, who upon its entry into the United States in 2018 proclaimed a greater value to consumers by producing pay-per-view quality Boxing events “Without The Pain Of Pay-Per-View!"

It was a successful strategy until the global COVID-19 epidemic hit in late 2019 and 2020, which caused a ripple effect throughout all of sports and for networks like DAZN, with no live sports taking place throughout much of the world through various stages of the epidemic, significant financial losses. While the implementation of pay-per-view, which began for DAZN in 2022 was understandable to a degree in that losses needed to be recouped and the explanation of needing a pay-per-view option, which they insist will be on a selective/occasional basis that will not devalue the network’s core subscription business, was also a way to get those who insisted on such a model to the negotiating table, the time has come to go back to the original strategy and strengthen their subscription-based model as much as possible.

With another network now out of the sport because of relying too much on pay-per-view and also not holding promoters and maybe even fighters who insisted on it's use to a standard of accountability for failing to reach profitable numbers and do so on a consistent basis, which likely would have kept Showtime involved in the sport beyond 2023, it's imperative that networks like DAZN do not follow that same path and use what was working for them prior to circumstances of a global epidemic that essentially shut down the world. Although COVID-19 still exists, we are now years removed from the point where there were shutdowns across the globe and as far as sports is concerned, things are pretty much back to where they were prior to 2020.

If the argument for the continued use is to get folks to the negotiating table and those folks attempt to point to what are perceived successes of the model by selecting certain events as a means of trying to justify their case, arguably Showtime had what was perceived by some to be one of their most successful years in the sport in 2023, even though the bulk of the content produced was produced not for the main Showtime network, but for pay-per-view, it is obvious that it was not a successful strategy as they are now on the outside, looking in. Furthermore, those perceived successes fail to address the issues of refunds having to be issued for Showtime’s events due to technical problems through the now defunct Showtime streaming app, as was the case for the Gervonta Davis-Ryan Garcia event last April, which was also streamed through DAZN and had widespread problems resulting in significant refunds having to be issued. While some may omit facts like that as a means of trying to push a narrative, it does make one question just how successful the model truly was for Showtime even though by appearances they appeared to have a successful 2023.

In any case, the argument for its continued use in spite of evidence that it is no longer a successful formula for the sport is diminished further when one also considers that pay-per-view in recent years has also been contractually obligated. Meaning that a network like Showtime was obligated to produce a certain number of pay-per-view cards over the duration of a contract with a promoter, which in their case was the Premier Boxing Champions (PBC) group of promoters. The obvious flaw with such a structure is it did not matter what specific fights would be reserved for pay-per-view, which ultimately meant that most of the resources went to pay-per-view and away from Showtime's main network. This also meant that fights and cards with limited appeal that might have otherwise have aired as part of the network’s main Boxing programming were moved to pay-per-view and predictably failed to deliver a profit for all involved.

Simply put, the original concept of pay-per-view as not only providing value for consumers, but also only being reserved for rare special events no longer exists and essentially putting fights on the model simply because it can be done rather than merit and also not at a price point that appeals to consumers is a recipe for failure. As 2024 begins, there is a significant opportunity for the aforementioned networks, which operate primarily under a subscription-based model to redefine the idea of offering value through their respective subscription plans.

What this observer means by that is not only providing value in terms of the quantity of Boxing content offered, but also in an effort to re-establish the sport in the eyes of consumers, producing fights and cards of significant interest, but without the expensive price tag. While some in the sport including perhaps some fighters might turn their nose up at such an idea, the reality is it needs to happen for the long-term health of the sport, otherwise circumstances like what has happened with Showtime leaving Boxing will continue happening if the networks that remain and potential new platforms are not making a profit to make their investments in the sport viable and that will not happen by continuing to rely on an outdated model even if said model was the status quo in a previous era. Simply put, times change and the business structure of Boxing needs to evolve.

Conclusion:

As the calendar now turns to 2024, the aforementioned items on this observer’s “Boxing Wishlist” are just some of what would benefit the sport moving forward. While 2024 appears as though it will look different and perhaps feel different in terms of how the sport is presented, one should feel at least a little optimistic that there is at least the potential for Boxing to be in a better position at the conclusion of this year than was the case at the end of 2023. One item that has been on the “Wishlist” for many years that has seen progress made and thus has not been included as a highlighted item is the need for Boxing to establish one world champion per weight division. In recent years, there has been progress made towards this goal for both men and women competing in the sport, but I should not have to tell you dear reader, there is still much more that can be, and should be done. 

Although I have decided at least for this year’s list to omit this topic as a highlighted item, it does nevertheless remain relevant because it is still a work in progress. Part of that progress needs to be a commitment not only by the fighters involved, but also by the various sanctioning organizations to keep world championships unified once they become undisputed championships. This is not an easy task given that there are five recognized world sanctioning organizations, each with their own rules and mandatory defense obligations that need to be met on an annual basis, but for true progress to be made where it is not viewed as temporary, there needs to be an effort by all involved to ensure that the process of making unification bouts, which is often a long, drawn out, and complicated one due in part to the aforementioned organizations’ respective policies, once that process has been done, it needs to be preserved to ensure that all the process that took place to unify a division, does not ultimately turn into a waste of time where the primary motivation will be to start said process all over again.

Some may view that, and all of what has been discussed on this “Boxing Wishlist For 2024” as truly “Wishful Thinking,” but the reality is evidence of the need to change could not be clearer and the need for significant progress and “Legitimate Progress” remains needed for the sport to grow and thrive. Let 2024 Begin!

“And That’s The Boxing Truth.”

The Boxing Truth® is a registered trademark of Beau Denison All Rights Reserved.

Follow Beau Denison on the following Social Media Platforms:

X: (Formerly Twitter) www.twitter.com/Beau_Denison  

Facebook: www.facebook.com/BeauDenison1    

Threads: www.threads.net/@BeauDenison1 

Instagram: www.Instagram.com/BeauDenison1