Should Boxing Have A Price Cap If The PPV Model Is Going To Continue?

One of the themes that this observer has become known for over the many years I have covered Boxing has been my long-standing criticism regarding the pay-per-view model, both here on The Boxing Truth® ️ as well as numerous outlets both online and in print through the years. The primary reason behind the criticism is in two aspects, the overuse of the model in that cards that in years gone by that would have been featured on a sports centric network or as a Friday or Saturday night attraction on a premium cable network like HBO or Showtime, have instead been reserved for pay-per-view, rather than bouts of significant public interest that were heavily promoted and treated and viewed amongst Boxing fans as special events or occasions, which leads to the second aspect. The price points, which regardless of the perceived quality of a card or the main events have only gone up as time has gone on, which has led to declining buy numbers for most pay-per-view attractions. 

This in addition to now in an era dominated by subscription-based streaming at reasonable prices for consumers, has only continued to fuel my criticism and belief that Boxing needs to adapt to the changing landscape of media, in this case, how television is transitioning away from previous methods of distribution and embrace something that will be more budget-friendly for consumers. While I have long advocated for the sport to move away from the pay-per-view model, something which I still strongly believe in, one aspect I have touched on occasion in previous writings could be worth exploring and debating once again as we have entered the spring of 2025.

What aspect am I referring to dear reader? The subject of a price cap structure if the pay-per-view model is to continue. Before I delve into things further, I feel it important to state that I feel just as strongly that under a price cap structure, the issue and frankly danger of potential over use by promoters and networks would still exist and it would therefore be something that would need to be addressed.

Now, what exactly does this observer mean by implementing a price cap structure? In simple terms, putting a cap on how much a pay-per-view card could be priced regardless of what a main event might be. While some might laugh at such an idea, it is actually not a new concept and variations of a structure have been used before throughout the world with varying degrees of success. The most prominent example at least currently would be the pricing structure for pay-per-view events in the United Kingdom that are not priced above £25 (a little over $32 in U.S. dollars). By law, prices are kept at usually between £19.99-£21.99, but do not exceed that £25 mark, or at least I have never seen it done in various advertising materials I have observed that have circulated throughout the United Kingdom for various cards/events that were distributed via pay-per-view. While the United Kingdom did not get into the pay-per-view model until the 1990’s, such a pricing structure has proven to be successful in that it is not uncommon to see a card distributed via pay-per-view there do a million buys if not more there on a regular basis, which can be directly attributed to the affordable price points.

Here in the United States, there is no set price cap structure, but there have been times where the concept has at least been flirted with. Those of us of a certain age might remember a time where advertising and marketing for pay-per-view Boxing cards would not only promote an event heavily in the days and weeks prior to it, but depending on the cable/satellite provider and pay-per-view distributor, there would be a reduced price offered to customers if one chose to order an event prior to the day it was scheduled to take place. Throughout the 1980’s and much of the 1990’s, most price points, regardless of when an event was ordered, did not exceed $40.

During the mid-1990’s, a period of time when this observer was in his teenage years, but also the period of time I began my career as a writer covering Boxing as well as other combat sports, I spent time living in the New York area, and one thing about that time that sticks in my mind even over thirty years later, was the cable provider I had access to at the time did a few experimental things with regard to their Boxing pay-per-view offerings that should have been groundbreaking and somewhat of what I think could be achieved under a price cap structure if implemented properly.

At the time, Mike Tyson was in the midst of his comeback and seemingly after every Tyson card, which were often full top to bottom with competitive fights, there would inevitably be complaints that the fight did not last long enough to justify what was then seen as an expensive price point. (Between $34.95-$44.95 depending on cable provider/pay-per-view distributor.) Where I was at the time, my family and I had access to one of the numerous variations of cable providers that did business under the Cablevision banner. Both due to the length of time between back then and when this column is being penned by yours truly, I am unclear as to whether this was the main Cablevision provider in the New York area or an affiliate of that provider. I point this out for accuracy purposes. 

The concept that Cablevision came up with was a $9.95 per round idea. Before anyone misunderstands this idea, what it was, was one where say if a pay-per-view card was priced at $50, what they would do is have the concept that if the main event ended before round six, there would be a reduced price for the event. Meaning, if the main event ended in the first round the cost to those who ordered it would be $9.95. If it went five full rounds then they would pay the full $50 price, but it would be capped at that price point meaning that if a fight went six rounds or beyond, the price did not exceed $50. Cablevision was also the first cable provider in my recollection to experiment with the idea of packaging for pay-per-view events. For context, some may not remember that back in the mid to late 1990’s, both Showtime and HBO through their respective pay-per-view divisions Showtime Event Television (SET Pay-Per-View) and TVKO (Later renamed HBO Pay-Per-View) did cards on a seemingly rotating basis. If not every one to two months, it seemed as though they would at minimum rotate fiscal quarters where one would stage a pay-per-view card followed by the other in the next either month, bi-month, or fiscal quarter. 

In an attempt to follow up on their $9.95 per round concept for a time, Cablevision decided to offer pay-per-view Boxing events as a package. Say for example there were four separate pay-per-view cards on the calendar for the upcoming months. The cable provider would offer those events as a package for one price, while also giving the customer the option if they did not want to purchase the package to purchase them separately at each event’s respective full price. While I am not certain as to how long this concept lasted as I was in the process of moving at the time, it should show that there was at least the idea of offering value to the consumer for a single set price even as far back as thirty years ago long before the concept of streaming became mainstream. 

With that trip for this observer down memory lane concluded, the question is should a pricing cap structure be implemented here in the global streaming era as consumers move away from traditional cable/satellite television and towards subscription-based streaming and with pay-per-view distributors like InDemand (Formerly Viewer’s Choice) preparing to cease operations if pay-per-view is to continue to exist beyond 2025. The main hurdle obviously would be for promoters and networks to if not so much to agree to such a structure, but also to do so regardless of who might be on the card in order to put an emphasis on value for the consumer. While one would think the evidence of declining buy numbers and the issue of one aspect everyone including those of us who cover the sport do not like discussing, piracy, would be enough to bring all the above to the table both for their benefit as well as the overall health of the sport, it is a difficult task if nothing else because of each network’s and respective promoters vested interest. 

Recently, however, those behind the Riyadh Season-promoted Boxing cards staged in Saudi Arabia and throughout the world have seemed to gradually start implementing if not a price cap structure of it’s pay-per-view cards, at least a budget-friendly one for it’s pay-per-view cards with prices being under $30 in most cases. Although this is not a set structure as of this writing, at minimum, it shows that at least one promoter or brand is seeing the need to adapt. Adaptation, however, does not always mean that cards will be overwhelmingly successful even at a reduced/budget-friendly price point and should like everything else be viewed on a case-by-case basis. 

The recent pay-per-view card headlined by the rematch for the Undisputed World Light-Heavyweight championship between Artur Beterbiev and Dmitry Bivol, which was priced at $26.99 on DAZN Pay-Per-View here in the United States reportedly did 45,000 total buys. While not a reflection or either fighter’s standing in the sport, it is important to keep in mind that their first encounter in October of last year was offered free in the United States via ESPN+, while the undercard was offered as a $19.99 pay-per-view on DAZN. Whether the fact that the first fight being offered free as part of an ESPN+ subscription negatively impacted buys for the rematch, despite the full card being available on one platform globally rather than split between two platforms with a combination of included with subscription and paid add-on, is subject to debate. 

This observer feels it is more an indication that the number of cards offered on pay-per-view needs to be reduced if not outright done away with, which the latter I maintain would be better both for the sport and consumers in the long run. The problem then becomes both how would the number of cards be reduced and would promoters and networks be willing to keep the remaining slate of cards on subscription-based models like the one DAZN has, regardless of who might be on the top of those cards in order to keep pay-per-view offerings to a minimum where the concept can be both budget-friendly and viewed as special occasions in the sport where folks might be more willing to pay for those events legally. 

Unfortunately, regardless of how budget-friendly events are priced there will always be those who will look for free access to events. Although I am not one who supports the mentality of looking for not so legal workarounds to access events, I do sympathize with those who feel Boxing pay-per-views has become to expensive, which is one reason why I am in favor of replacing pay-per-view with reasonably priced subscription-based alternatives, which offer more content and value for the price rather than a pay-per-view on a per event basis model. As far as how things can be reduced, I believe that those who insist on the pay-per-view model should look back at how things were done in the 1980’s and for part of the 1990’s where the vast majority of Boxing events were split between either free over the air broadcast television on networks like ABC, NBC, CBS, and for a time Fox, and premium cable networks like HBO, Showtime, and basic cable networks like USA Network and ESPN. Those that were reserved for pay-per-view were considered major events, to the point where if one of the aforementioned networks did not produce those events and have a prearranged agreement in place, saw lucrative deals for rebroadcast/replay rights, were reasonably priced and were not frequently used so the value to the consumer remained.

Even now in a digital streaming era, it is important to keep value to the consumer as the main priority. Perhaps what should happen would amount to a reset of the model back to what it was in the aforementioned period, but with the difference being it taking place on streaming networks/platforms rather than free over the air television or premium/basic cable networks. Whether that means pay-per-view being used four times a year, which would amount to once per fiscal quarter or maybe between six or eight times a year, subscription-based models should be seen as the main selling point where pay-per-view is used strictly for special occasions even though they will be hosted on the same platforms. It will come down to whether those in the sport can for lack of a better term, get out of their own way and realize that things need to change, if they can set their respective egos aside, they should also realize that it will benefit themselves, the sport, and the fighters that compete in it in the long run. In the meantime, I would like to see most of the Boxing pay-per-view offerings capped under $40 regardless of whether it is offered via DAZN, ESPN+, or Prime Video.

Although that $40 figure is only a suggestion from someone who truly cares about the sport and wants to see it grow and thrive, and obviously in the case of DAZN and Prime Video, would vary by country given that they are global network platforms, I believe if pay-per-view is not used too often and is capped at $40 and not used as a starting price point, but the cap that it will not exceed,, at minimum things might improve, despite subscription-based models, which already exist offering better value and will only benefit those networks in the long term.

“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 

Does “Celebrity Boxing” Hurt Or Benefit The Sport?

 

Since the latest influx of celebrity bouts began to find its way into the sport of Boxing a couple of years ago, one question that I have been asked more than once is do these bouts, which nowadays usually consist of social media influencers help Boxing overall or does it actually hurt the sport? Obviously, it is a question that can be viewed and answered in a variety of ways. 

 

The most obvious argument in favor of these bouts occurring on a regular basis is that it brings in a segment of the population that the sport of Boxing for whatever reason struggles to attract on an ongoing basis. This observer is referring to the casual fan. Normally when discussing the struggle Boxing faces in procuring the interest of a casual fan, yours truly will often use the term “Casual Sports fan.” A distinction of fan that can be defined as one with a general interest in sports, but not a thorough follower of any particular sport. In this case however, the term should be reduced slightly to “Casual fan” as a means of describing one who may be a fan of a certain celebrity or influencer, but may not watch sports on even a casual basis, much less Boxing.  

 

While one should not dismiss the viability of a casual fan as the aim for any sport should be to draw as many eyes as possible to it, do “Celebrity Boxing” bouts succeed in drawing the interest of those casual fans beyond the celebrity involvement? To be honest with the reader, I think the answer is a bit mixed and cannot be answered simply with a “Yes” or, a “No.” The reason for this is simply because the answer depends both on who you ask as well as the extent of the “Celebrity” involvement. 

 

To provide some context, let me take the reader back a few decades. In the early 2000’s the Fox television network here in the United States produced a series of specials titled “Fox Celebrity Boxing.” While the fights if you want to call them that, that occurred on these shows were not necessarily aimed at being taken seriously as a legitimate sporting endeavor, the bouts, which were held in front of a live studio audience did for a time generate interest amongst the public and as a result, the network did a handful of shows with the “Fox Celebrity Boxing” branding over a limited period of time. As someone who viewed these shows when they took place, but did not cover them, I understood that it was more than likely a ratings initiative by the network as the cards were held during the summer months, which usually was not the best time for a network to produce consistently good ratings outside of sports programming as many weekly scripted television programs were not in season during the summer months. I also understood not to take things too seriously as the way the show was presented was such that it was meant for entertainment rather than to be taken as necessarily legitimate Boxing contests. 

 

The reason why I cannot reminisce too much about the series is simple, it did not last long and it is questionable as to whether or not beyond mere curiosity that it had any impact whatsoever on the actual sport of Boxing whether it be positively or negatively. In more present times, the influx of “Celebrity Boxing” has been in the form of those who have achieved notoriety as either social media influencers or YouTube stars that have ventured into the sport. 

 

Readers may recall when this trend started, I stated that anyone who entered the sport from an outside realm would get a fair shake from me so long as the sport of Boxing was treated with respect and taken seriously as it should be for the reason being that it is a combat sport and as such those who participate in the sport are risking their lives each and every time they enter the ring. It is therefore important to me as someone who truly cares about the sport and wants to see it thrive, that it is not treated by those entering it from the outside as a joke, because reality is, it is anything but. 

 

In fairness, those like the Paul brothers and KSI (Real name Olajide Olatunji, who have had actual professional bouts on their respective Boxing resumes, at least on the surface appear to be treating the sport with some level of respect. The criticism that all three as well as others have faced, despite their pleas to be taken seriously as fighters is they have not yet competed against anyone with Boxing experience unless you count Logan Paul’s exhibition with Floyd Mayweather as a legitimate Boxing contest, which it was not, thus the exhibition distinction. 

 

While Logan Paul’s bother Jake, has tried twice thus far to get into a ring in a competitive Boxing match with a person with a Boxing background, as of yet, has been unsuccessful in getting a fight in the ring. Now, KSI following the withdrawal of scheduled opponent Alex Wassabi, who were scheduled to meet in a Boxing match that would headline a card broadcast on DAZN Pay-Per-View in some countries and part of a standard monthly or annual subscription on DAZN in others. With his desire to keep his scheduled August 27th date, KSI will now face two men on the card in the same night. 

 

While this is an obvious attempt by both KSI and the network to salvage the event, which will take place at the O2 Arena in London, England and be available through DAZN Pay-Per-View for an economically reasonable price of $9.99, and it does appear to be a gimmick by someone facing two opponents in the same evening, there is actually a precedent for such an event. Depending on one’s age, some may remember an event that took place in Toronto, CN in April 1975 where after losing the World Heavyweight championship to Muhammad Ali in October of 1974, George Foreman returned to the ring in an event classified as an exhibition where he faced five overmatched opponents in one night.  

 

Although such an event was designed as both a way for Foreman to get back into the ring following what would ultimately become the only knockout loss of his career, and as a publicity stunt in an attempt to re-establish Foreman’s scary aura as one of the sport’s feared “Knockout Artists,” the event was universally held in little regard due in part to the lack of quality opposition that Foreman faced on that evening.   

 

In this case, there is no such aura of intimidation or feared knockout power for KSI to establish, but competing in two exhibition bouts in one evening may appeal to some on the surface because it is something that is rarely done, even by seasoned professional boxers. Despite his limited professional Boxing experience, unlike his YouTube counterparts in the Paul brothers, KSI will facing at least one man with professional Boxing experience in facing a man by the name of Swarmz, who is known as a Rap artist. Swarmz, has never been in a Boxing ring before. KSI will however, begin the evening by facing Luis Pineda. 

 

 Both fights are not official professional bouts, but in regard to the Pineda bout, KSI will face a fighter with seven professional bouts, but one with a record of 2-5, with 0 Knockouts. It should also not be overlooked that Pineda, is a Jr. Middleweight, which has a weight limit of 154lbs. In his one professional bout in a rematch from an amateur bout against Logan Paul, KSI fought as a 190lb. Cruiserweight.  

 

While original opponent Alex Wassabi had to withdraw due to suffering a severe concussion while training for the bout with KSI, one should wonder just how successful this event will be both in terms of a live gate attraction and as well as an event for digital subscription sports streaming network DAZN, who has vowed to only dip their toes into the pay-per-view realm on a sporadic basis. Even though the card featuring the two exhibition bouts is being sold in some countries including here in the United States and Canada at a more reasonable price of $9.99 compared to virtually all Boxing cards sold through pay-per-view, it is a fair question to ask how successful this event will be when all is said and done. 

 

What cannot be overlooked is networks like DAZN and the Paramount-owned Showtime have welcomed these social media influencers/ YouTube celebrities with open arms. While it cannot be discounted that there is a method to the networks madness in trying to get their network in front of demographics of fans that may not of otherwise given either much of a look, so far, the jury is still out as to whether or not it will have much long-term benefit to the sport of Boxing long-term, particularly in regard to Showtime who has willingly signed a multi-fight contract with Jake Paul to showcase him exclusively on the pay-per-view model, which thus far has produced mixed results. 

 

Although yours truly will be tuning into this exhibition event both for curiosity and as a Boxing scribe in the endless search for his next story/column, I feel it important both as a Boxing lifer, as someone with the best interest of the sport at heart, and as someone who listens to the criticism of the sport from everyone ranging from those involved in Boxing to those who are “Casual Sports fans” on a daily basis, to simply offer this caution to anyone watching this event. “No Expectations, No Disappointments.”  

 

“And That’s The Boxing Truth.” 

 

KSI vs. Swarmz /KSI vs. Pineda takes place on Saturday, August 27th at the O2 Arena in London, England. The event can be seen in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom on DAZN Pay-Per-View beginning at 2PM ET/11AM PT (*U.S. Times and Pricing.) The card will be available outside of those markets as part of a standard monthly or annual subscription to DAZN’s streaming network.  

 

For more information about DAZN including schedules, list of compatible streaming devices, platforms, Smart TVs, availability around the world, local start times in your area, how to access this event in your region, and to subscribe please visit: www.DAZN.com. 

 

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

 

Follow Beau Denison on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Beau_Denison