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 

The End For Showtime Boxing And Showtime Sports

Back in 2018, a major shift took place in the sport of Boxing with the introduction of both ESPN+ and DAZN here in the United States. Two digital subscription sports streaming networks that vowed to change the dynamic in how not just Boxing, but sports as a whole was viewed and consumed by introducing reasonably priced subscription-based options as opposed to pay-per-view. While initially met with criticism and mocking laughter from some in the Boxing establishment and even some fans that doubted the significance of such a model, it was not long after both networks launched that one of the longtime power players in the sport HBO announced they would cease broadcasting Boxing at the conclusion of that year. 

For some this was truly an unthinkable event that truly signaled the end of an era in not just Boxing, but in sports when HBO officially took its final bow in December 2018 bringing an end to forty-five years of broadcasting Boxing, but also for a significant period of time throughout the network’s history other sports as well including, the Wimbledon tennis tournament, bowling, MLB baseball, swimming, among others throughout its decades on the air. Though primarily known for its Boxing coverage, in the years since HBO bowed out of the sport, its sports division has continued to exist with magazine style programming such as Real Sports and talk shows including ones hosted by the legendary Bob Costas. Nevertheless, it was truly an end of an era and a significant acknowledgement as to where technology was heading. A subject that this observer has written extensively about over the last decade.

Still, despite that clear evidence as well as one of the major networks in Boxing choosing to exit the sport, plus the success the streaming networks like DAZN and ESPN+ were able to have in bringing Boxing to a subscription-based model along with other sports, there were still some players in the sport, promoters, fighters, and yes networks that fought against this change rather than embrace what might have been. One of those players was premium cable network Showtime, ironically, one of HBO’s main competitors both in the premium cable/satellite network space in regard to general entertainment, but for thirty-two years of HBO’s forty-five year run as the one time “Network of Champions," it's main competitor in Boxing as well.

Showtime first entered the Boxing ring in 1986, serving as the official rebroadcast network for then Undisputed Middleweight world champion Marvelous Marvin Hagler’s title defense against John “The Beast" Mugabi from Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, NV, which was originally shown on closed circuit television and pay-per-view throughout the United States. Although its entry into the sport was in fact a taped replay using the same broadcast done by the legendary Tim Ryan and Gil Clancy, which was used for the closed circuit and pay-per-view broadcast, the March 1986 delayed broadcast served as the launching point for what became Showtime Sports.  

With Boxing as it's centerpiece not only did Showtime Boxing grow in the years that followed, but it's sports division grew to include PKA/ISKA Kickboxing, Toughman contests, and from the late 2000’s on the sport of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) with various promotions staging events under Showtime’s banner. As far as Boxing, numerous stars of the sport from the 1980’s and 1990’s appeared on the network at one time or another including the aforementioned Marvelous Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Terry Norris, Julio Cesar Chavez Sr., Evander Holyfield, and Mike Tyson among the near four decade list of greats that have competed under Showtime’s banner.

In an ironic way the 1990’s saw both HBO and Showtime parallel each other in terms of their Boxing coverage. 1991 was one such year where each network made the move from competing for rebroadcast rights to the select few events that were broadcast on pay-per-view at the time, in addition to what each network produced in terms of their Boxing programming, both would make the move to producing the live broadcasts of what remained at the time select and occasional pay-per-view events within a month of each other in March and April of that year. While I could spend countless hours talking about the differences, what was good, what was bad, and all in between not only about price points for those events back then and the era in general, the one thing that seemed consistent at least for several years after each ventured into pay-per-view, was that it was to be reserved only for the true special events and prices points also remained reasonable for consumers, all while the bulk of each network’s Boxing coverage remained on their respective networks and also featured star fighters competing in well matched bouts on a regular basis.

Over time however, the standard of putting the best product on for subscribers of each network in terms of consistently putting on competitive fights began to change and more and more, fights thought to be of significant interest were moved away from airing live on the networks to pay-per-view. Such a change in philosophy though it may have seemed as though would be beneficial for the networks over time became the catalyst for their demise. HBO was the first to fall as in 2018 as part of a significant corporate restructuring under it's then new owner AT&T, would bow out of Boxing, but not before the budget for Boxing programming in the years prior to that decision was significantly reduced and most of what was left was saved for, you guessed it, Pay-Per-View.

As HBO’s exit took place in December 2018, now in December 2023 almost exactly five years to the day of it's rival’s farewell to the sport, now Showtime prepares for its final bow with a three fight card at the Armory in Minneapolis, MN on December 16th. Much in the same way the two networks paralleled each other during their peak in the sport, Showtime’s exit from Boxing also is similar to that of HBO’s in that gradually over time the majority of Showtime's Boxing content was moved from the network to pay-per-view and even as those events under performed in the last several years with rare exceptions, there was a refusal to adapt by the executives at Showtime Sports, similar in some ways as how those executives at HBO for years tried to put on a spin that relying heavily on the pay-per-view model would have no serious repercussions for the network. Only adding to the similarity of how the two networks exited Boxing, Showtime's exit, comes as its parent company Paramount Global has undergone a major restructuring, no doubt in response to the decline of the cable/satellite industry. This has included folding Showtime’s streaming platform into Paramount’s flagship streaming network platform Paramount+, where much of the company's resources are being focused on moving forward.

In the interest of honesty with the reader, I would be lying if I were to say that I had not heard ramblings for the better part of a year, long before Paramount officially announced their intention to discontinue Boxing programming under the Showtime banner. I will also go a step further in saying that I have spent the last several years both in private conversations as well as in my coverage of the sport, suggesting that a way to move away from the pay-per-view model at least as far as Showtime/Paramount was concerned would have been to add Boxing under the Showtime name to Paramount+ along with numerous other exclusive sports that is available on the digital streaming network.

While it appears that we will never see live Boxing on Paramount+ under the Showtime Boxing on Paramount+ name and even though there is plenty of blame to go around, and justifiably so, for the respective network executives refusing to adapt to a changing technological landscape, choosing to try and minimize the growth of digital subscription-based streaming in the sport, refusing to hold promoters who insist on the pay-per-view model to a standard to ensure the network was not only making a profit on those events, but to such a degree, where the network’s parent company would be more willing to invest in the sport long-term and continuing to go down an outdated path in terms of using a model that has been increasingly rejected by consumers, I find myself feeling saddened to see this happening yet again in our sport.

Although I have earned a reputation over almost three decades as someone who is objective, will speak out in defense of the sport, call it like I see it, and bring attention to things, which I feel do more harm to Boxing then it benefits it, like the pay-per-view model, it is never good for any sport when a network walks away from it regardless of the reasoning. Especially networks like HBO and now Showtime that each had decades of success in the sport and were also considered the industry leaders.

The sport’s detractors will certainly paint a narrative to suit their purpose/agenda that Showtime’s exit is a sign of declining interest. In reality, it is more a reflection of bad business decisions as well as lack of accountability that has led to this point. It should also serve as a wakeup call to those networks, particularly in the streaming space where Boxing television, at least in the United States appears to be heading exclusively for in 2024, that you cannot attempt to serve two masters in trying to establish a sensible subscription-based model and still try to maintain a model that is overpriced and simply outdated such as pay-per-view.

Fortunately for me, but perhaps unfortunate for some who may want to forget out of convenience, I was fortunate to be around when pay-per-view was used sparingly and I am also unfortunately old enough to remember when networks like Showtime and HBO pledged to only use the model on a case by case basis. While that may have worked for a time, particularly in decades past where price points were more consumer-friendly, gradually a shift took place in the sport where pay-per-view became a requirement for some promoters and even fighters. 

When that happened it set a trap for both networks in that the emphasis became more on the pay-per-view model and increasingly less on what each network put out for their subscribers. With the pay-per-view model being used more and more and price points only continuing to increase, it should be logical to anyone who is objective as to why both networks eventually lost money on Boxing and also why the continued use and overuse of it turns consumers off. The truly sad thing is for both Showtime and HBO before them, it did not have to end the way that it did for one and will for the other.

Nevertheless, the final Boxing telecast on Showtime will feature undefeated Super-Middleweight contender David Morrell in the final fight in the history of Showtime Boxing and final production of Showtime Sports as well. While I mean no disrespect to Morrell or his opponent Sena Agbeko as their bout does appear as though it will be competitive on paper, with all due respect, their bout is overshadowed by the significance of a chapter in Boxing history coming to an end. While Showtime will forever have an illustrious legacy for providing the Boxing fan with numerous memories through the years as well as providing a much needed platform for up and coming fighters not only on its flagship Showtime Championship Boxing series, but also their critically acclaimed ShoBox:The New Generation series, in addition to the many world championship fights that have aired on Showtime over the last thirty-seven years.

Criticism aside, there is no disputing Showtime’s place in Boxing history, unfortunately there is no positive spin one can put on this. It's truly the end of an era, and one that makes one thing crystal clear,  Boxing and to be more specific “The Business of Boxing," needs to change.

" And That's The Boxing Truth. “

Showtime Boxing: The Finale takes place on Saturday, December 16th at the Minneapolis Armory in Minneapolis, MN. The card can be seen in the United States on the Showtime cable network on cable/satellite and streaming in the Showtime tab on digital subscription streaming network Paramount+ beginning at 9PM ET/6PM PT. Check your local listings for time and channel in your area. For more information about Paramount+ and to subscribe please visit: www.ParamountPlus.com. 

(*Check your local listings internationally.*)

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  

Alvarez Proves Why There Are Weight Classes In Dominant Victory Over Charlo

 

The hype that preceded the encounter between Undisputed Super-Middleweight world champion Saul “Canelo” Alvarez and former Undisputed Jr. Middleweight world champion Jermell Charlo was largely based on the fact that for the first time in modern Boxing history, two fighters, who were undisputed world champions in their respective weight classes at the same time, would face each other as one would move up significantly in weight to challenge the other for his crown. There was however, the small wrinkle in that once Jermell Charlo entered the ring at the T-Mobile Arena on September 30th to face Alvarez, his status as an undisputed champion would no longer be current as it had been known in the weeks prior to the fight that the World Boxing Organization (WBO) would be stripping Charlo of it’s world championship in the 154lb. Jr. Middleweight division for failing to defend its championship against undefeated number one contender Tim Tszyu. A fight that was supposed to take place, but one that would not be due to Charlo opting to take a high-risk, high-reward gamble by moving up fourteen pounds and two weight divisions to challenge Alvarez.

While it is never good to see an undisputed world championship broken up for any reason, much less the business elements that be in the sport of Boxing, one could make what would be a persuasive argument that economically as things stand in the sport, the fight with Alvarez was the more financially rewarding of the two fights, despite the fact that Tszyu, much like his father, the Hall of Famer Kostya Tszyu, is rapidly becoming a star on the rise in the sport in routinely drawing massive crowds in his native Australia. Nevertheless, whenever a fighter makes a leap up the weight scale as Charlo was attempting in this fight with Alvarez, it is intriguing because of the obvious challenge that it presents in facing a fighter who theoretically is naturally bigger, and stronger at a heavier weight.

Although Alvarez has spent the majority of the last several years fighting either in the 168lb. Super-Middleweight division or briefly at the 175lb. Light-Heavyweight division, he was once a Jr. Middleweight much like Charlo, so it was conceivable at least on paper, that Charlo may be able to move up and be competitive with Alvarez if not be as dominant as he had been at 154lbs. Alvarez would show from the opening bell that he is a fighter who is truly in rare company in having the ability to move up in weight and be dominant and in doing so, also show that it is something that is not an easy accomplishment to achieve. The Super-Middleweight champion of the world immediately put Charlo on the defensive in landing short, but thudding punches and in the process applying consistent pressure. 

What impressed me about this fight was Alvarez’ ability to not only apply pressure on Charlo, who tried to use lateral movement to be elusive and offset that pressure, but more specifically, the way he was able to cut off the ring. This limited Charlo’s ability to move and also established a clear pattern for which the fight would be fought. Alvarez, pushing Charlo back, landing hard punches and controlling the tempo of the combat from start to finish. A pattern that also limited Charlo’s offensive output. In some ways, Alvarez’ approach in this fight brought back memories of a legendary world champion Julio Cesar Chavez Sr. in terms of how Alvarez looked to gradually break Charlo down. It seemed as though similar to so many opponents that Chavez fought over his Hall of Fame career, that Alvarez was on the verge of doing that in the seventh round when he connected with a right hand that forced Charlo to take a knee.

To Charlo’s credit, he was able to survive and as the fight progressed did try to land something in an attempt to turn the ebb and flow in his favor. It just was not Charlo’s night as Alvarez would close out the fight to earn a convincing twelve round unanimous decision to retain his Undisputed Super-Middleweight championship of the world. 

Ultimately, this proved to be a fight that can be summed up as a bigger fighter besting a smaller fighter. In terms of his performance, it is arguable that in addition to moving up fourteen pounds for this fight that inactivity in addition to time needed to recover from a broken hand, likely worked against Charlo in this fight. Jermell Charlo can hold his head up high however, for performing well and going the distance under circumstances where some may have been discouraged to the point where they might not have wanted to finish the fight. Charlo is still a unified world champion in the Jr. Middleweight division holding the world championships of the World Boxing Council (WBC), World Boxing Association (WBA), and International Boxing Federation (IBF). Coming out of this fight, Charlo has stated that he intends to move back down to 154lbs. and the obvious fight to make would be with Tim Tszyu, who is now recognized as the WBO’s Jr. Welterweight world champion in what would be an opportunity for Charlo to fully unify the division twice, something that has not been done in the history of the sport. 

When that potential fight could take place will depend on two things. The most obvious among them is Tszyu is scheduled to make his first title defense on October 14th against current WBO number two rated contender Brian Mendoza in Broadbeach, Australia. Charlo will obviously have to wait for the outcome of that fight before any potential plans could be set in motion for a fight between him and Tszyu. The second and perhaps more serious issue depending on one’s perspective might be the current state of the Premier Boxing Champions (PBC) group of promoters, whom Charlo currently fights under. It is no secret to those that follow the sport that several fighters who have fought under the PBC banner for several years have begun to seek opportunities fighting under different promoters and different television and streaming networks that currently do not have broadcast deals with the PBC. This in addition to what has been an increasingly sporadic list of dates for the PBC to stage cards through its existing broadcast deal with United States premium cable network Showtime as well as persistent speculation that the network’s parent company Paramount Global is intending to exit the sport of Boxing at the conclusion of 2023, in a similar way as former longtime rival and one of the sport’s prominent players HBO had done at the conclusion of 2018 following a significant merger and restructuring of its then parent company AT&T and WarnerMedia. Paramount has been undergoing a significant restructuring of itself and its properties including Showtime over the course of 2023 and if a decision has indeed been made to back out of Boxing as many have speculated, it will likely put the PBC in a dire situation after previously losing its broadcast deal with Fox Sports here in the United States, who subsequently did not broadcast any Boxing programming either on Fox television stations throughout the country or on Fox Sports branded cable networks throughout 2023.  While if indeed Paramount does pull the plug on Showtime’s thirty-seven year involvement in the sport, and such a decision could likely be tied to an overuse as well as overpricing of the outdated pay-per-view model, in terms of the immediate impact on the fighters such as Charlo, who are affiliated with the PBC, it may lead to even more sporadic in ring activity, which has already proved to have at best mixed results for fighters who have sought opportunities under different promoters and networks.

As for Saul Alvarez, his victory over Jermell Charlo was the first in a three-fight agreement with the PBC and if the PBC group of promoters do indeed lose their broadcast deal with Showtime, it will be interesting to see if Alvarez attempts to return to digital subscription sports streaming network DAZN, who have broadcast many of his bouts since December 2018 either as part of its subscription service or on a pay-per-view basis, and perhaps if that previous working relationship might lead to the PBC seeking a deal with the network or at least as a means of fulfilling the remaining two fights in its deal with Alvarez. While obviously, we do not know currently who those potential fights will be against, Alvarez for his part says he just wants to fight and it is likely given that Alvarez is the undisputed champion of the Super-Middleweight division that he will spend his next few fights fulfilling his mandatory defense obligations of the various titles he holds. After previously scoring a twelve round unanimous decision over previous WBO number one contender John Ryder earlier this year, that would leave Alvarez with three defenses to fulfill obligations to the IBF, WBC, and WBA, before the process refreshes for a new slate of mandatory challengers. Who those fights will be against and on what broadcast/streaming platform is obviously up in the air.

Although as of this writing there is no word as to how successful the Alvarez-Charlo bout did in terms of pay-per-view buys at an $85 price point through Showtime Pay-Per-View here in the United States, with another longtime television network that overall has been good for Boxing appearing to be nearing an exit, Boxing’s Pay-Per-View problem and what appears to be an unwillingness of some promoters and maybe even some fighters, who have been conditioned to the belief that pay-per-view is the only way to earn additional revenue, even as evidence of the need to change continues to become more clear, remains an issue for the sport as 2024 nears. 

“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 

DAZN Continues To Roll The Dice

As previously announced earlier this week, Undisputed Super-Middleweight champion of the world Saul "Canelo" Alvarez will defend his crown on May 6th against WBO number one contender and mandatory challenger John Ryder in Mexico, signaling Alvarez' first fight in his home country in more than a decade. While this column will not discuss the fight in detail as we are still more than two months away from the scheduled date, the bout already has generated controversy.

How has a fight that is still weeks away from taking place already raised the ire of Boxing fans? The Alvarez-Ryder bout will be broadcast on DAZN internationally, which means that it will be part of a standard monthly or annual subscription to the digital streaming network in many countries around the world. In the United States and Canada however, the fight will be available on DAZN Pay-Per-View. Why has that decision already raised the ire of many? It is important for this observer to state as I have in the past when discussing the business of the sport of Boxing that I do not currently work for any other outlet or network outside of my own The Boxing Truth®, which I own and operate. Having said that, I would not be objective if I did not say that I have been a vocal advocate for the subscription-based model that both DAZN and ESPN's digital streaming network ESPN+ operate under as it generally offers much more value for subscribers as compared to pay-per-view, which over the last twenty years has frankly resembled that of a compulsive gambler in that both the frequency of events once touted and reserved for fights of significant public demand, have increased to insane levels and along with it so has the prices for such events have increased to where in the United States, one can expect most pay-per-view Boxing events to have a starting price at or above $70, which when one also factors in taxes and additional fees means the final price is actually closer to $90 on a per event basis. This does not also add to the equation that there are times where networks that produce these events will continue to roll the dice and raise the price point even further akin to one playing one too many rolls on a craps table or one too many spins on a slot machine trying to hit the ever elusive "Jackpot," which in this case, means revenues via pay-per-view buys that will make an event a rousing success. The problem with such a mentality is as most those who deal with gambling problems eventually discover, what is hoped for is rarely achieved, and more often than not, the opposite of hitting the "Jackpot" or in this case achieving massive revenues in the form of pay-per-view buys result in both promoters, networks that put on the events, and more importantly the fighters losing money. 

In the current landscape, as of this writing, there are three pay-per-view Boxing events that have been announced between late March and the scheduled May 6 bout between Alvarez and Ryder, with more potentially to be added either before and after that date. When one also factors in that DAZN will be a co-broadcaster for the April 22 pay-per-view bout between Gervonta Davis and Ryan Garcia, along with Showtime and both networks are selling the pay-per-view broadcast on their respective platforms with each's respective branding, one would be justified to question the wisdom of DAZN opting to roll the dice again and to be more specific, do so in relatively close proximity to the April 22 date in producing another pay-per-view event (At least in North America) mere weeks after that event. Considering the co-production with Showtime, who may be nearing an exit of the sport by year's end due to a major restructuring of it's Paramount Global, being rumored to be priced at $100 as of this writing, the question of wisdom in the decision process perhaps becomes more important and the ire/outrage of the Boxing fan becomes more understandable.

An element that has not been touched upon by yours truly thus far is the fact that fighters have been conditioned to expect substantial money via pay-per-view, which unfortunately for many does not materialize into significant income for them when all is said and done for reasons including, but not limited to the revenue split model, which more often than not favors cable/satellite providers, pay-per-view distributors, and finally the promoters and networks, before it trickles down to the fighters. When one takes into the equation that many pay-per-view attractions fail to reach a break even point for all involved, let alone profitability, which I have felt along with the model being outdated compared to what else is available to consumers, can be directly tied to the ever increasing price points for such events, which whether networks want to admit it or not, consumers continue to largely reject.

While all the aforementioned points this observer has made should not be viewed as an indictment against DAZN in particular, as I still feel they have a more economically reasonable model in place with their subscription service if they commit to it, the points I have made is more of an indictment on the pay-per-view model itself, which no longer offers value to the consumer for the price and very rarely is used only for the true "Big Fights" / "Special Events" that it was originally intended to be.

Although Saul Alvarez is one of the top stars in the sport, if he is using the model as a requirement for a broadcaster like DAZN to be able to carry his bouts, unfortunately it does a disservice to Boxing and the fans that support both him, the sport, and other fighters who have been conditioned to have a similar mentality. Despite my view that DAZN would be better served to try and work out a deal with Alvarez and other fighters that fight on their network similar to that of the 11 fight, $365 Million guarantee with incentives for subscription milestones being met that Alvarez received shortly after premium cable network HBO announced it's exit from Boxing after forty-five years in 2018, that saw Alvarez featured as the centerpiece of DAZN's streaming network and marketing the subscription model over pay-per-view, a deal that seemed beneficial until the COVID-19 epidemic and a well-publicized split between Alvarez and his longtime promoter Oscar De La Hoya, which for a time also brought an end to his relationship with the network, an opinion which I stand by as evidence continues to show the decline of pay-per-view, at least for now DAZN continues to dip their toes in the pay-per-view model, which they continue to insist will be strictly on a case by case basis.

A potential problem for the network however, is whether subscribers will continue to support the network if it eventually becomes clear that in order to see the marquee stars of the sport, a subscriber will unfortunately be asked to shell out an additional fee on top of what they pay monthly or annually. Considering that the network raised their subscription rates to $24.99 per month or $224 yearly in the United States in February, there is reason to be concerned when they are also continuing to dip their toes in the pay-per-view model. While I remain supportive of a subscription-based model that I truly believe both as someone who has covered Boxing and combat sports most of his life, but also as a consumer, that has better value, I have also been around long enough to know red flags when I see them.

For most of it's forty-five year run, HBO was firmly established as one of the sport's power players even as unfortunately, Boxing moved away from free over the air television, where revenues were earned not only by ratings, but also by significant advertising, which is still something Boxing sorely needs. Up until a certain point in the late 1990's even as the network had created it's own pay-per-view network TVKO (Later renamed HBO Pay-Per-View) many of Boxing's biggest fights aired on HBO or similarly it's longtime rival Showtime. Eventually, HBO became more reliant on the pay-per-view model, even at times moving fights off their network to pay-per-view, but only opting to serve as a distributor of such events. While I spent a good portion of my career as a writer up to their 2018 exit calling out the network for that as well as other decisions related to how they presented the sport, eventually the over reliance on pay-per-view, increased prices, lack of value, and ultimately arrogance of those running the network at that time in assuming that such decisions would not have a negative impact on their network, led to their demise. 

With Showtime seemingly heading in a similar direction now having moved more and more Boxing events away from their subscribers and to pay-per-view, as well as the former head of Showtime Sports Stephen Espinoza touting how "Pay-Per-View is a tool," but failing to come up with any legitimate justification for using the model on an all too frequent basis as well as displaying a similar arrogance as those who ran HBO when they were still part of the sport, with the restructuring of the network's parent company Paramount Global now underway and Espinoza now recognized as one of the presidents of CBS Sports under the Paramount banner and with Showtime soon to be absorbed into the Paramount+ streaming network, it would appear that it is indeed heading for a similar exit as it's longtime rival HBO.

What both network's forays into the sport and what have proved to be bad decisions, which as of now has led to one exit with perhaps the other with one foot out the door, should show DAZN as a network that is seven years into it's existence that has expanded rapidly including it's 2018 launch here in the United States, is essentially a playbook on what not to do if they want to both survive and thrive in the sport of Boxing. Unfortunately, no matter how big a star might be in the sport, the Boxing fan/subscriber will remain the ultimate authority and if events used for the antiquated model of pay-per-view do not do overwhelmingly well in terms of buys, no matter what a promoter or network executive might say in attempt to spin the obvious slap in the face of fans/subscribers especially when those same people not only criticized the pay-per-view model for many of the points yours truly has made, but also succeeded in showing that a better model that offers more value for the price does indeed exist, DAZN, much like a compulsive gambler may find that they have rolled the dice one time too many, which more often than not means one thing. "Craps." For a network that has been a credit to Boxing since it's inception, it would truly be a shame to see it go down the same path as the former power players of Boxing television in the United States, especially when the evidence to avoid that same path is clearly visible. 

As someone who always has the best interest of Boxing at heart and sees untapped potential in DAZN as a network, particularly here in the United States, I sincerely hope this is not the start of something akin to two stories about networks involved in the sport of Boxing that I have seen play out before, both as a fan growing up and as someone who has covered the sport since the mid-1990's. If it indeed is, the victims will continue to be the sport itself and the fans who support it. Although I am a proud Boxing lifer, in the interest of both objectivity as well as honesty, I will concede that for those who are not involved in the sport beyond being a fan, there is only so many times a fan will allow themselves to be slapped in the face and will willingly pay expensive fees to watch the sport they love before both out of anger as well as fiscal responsibility, they say enough is enough. Regardless of who might be at the top of a Boxing card. 

"And That's The Boxing Truth."

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

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

SuperWomen: Shields-Dicaire Battle For Jr. Middleweight Supremacy

 Perhaps one segment of the sport of Boxing that has been able to take advantage of the unprecedented circumstances of the ongoing global COVID-19 epidemic has been Women’s Boxing. With many of the top stars of the sport sidelined for most of 2020 due to both risks associated with the COVID-19 virus as well as for economic reasons, several of the top female fighters in the sport seized the opportunity to take the spotlight as several notable stars including undefeated Undisputed Lightweight world champion Katie Taylor, Mikaela Mayer, Teri Harper, Natasha Jonas,, Cecilia Braekhus, and Jessica McCaskill all lead the way in putting Women’s Boxing center stage. 

Credit: FITE TV

 

One fighter who has remained sidelined as the epidemic has continued is arguably the woman who has been the focal point of Women’s Boxing here in the United States over the last several years. Undefeated three-division world champion Claressa Shields. As some may recall, Shields emerged on the Boxing scene in becoming the first fighter in history Male or Female to win back to back gold medals in the 2012 and 2016 Olympics. Since turning professional, Shields has used that notoriety to become a three-division world champion winning world titles in the Jr. Middleweight, Middleweight, and Super-Middleweight divisions.

 

Although Shields has accomplished what many fighters struggle to accomplish in their careers in just ten professional fights including becoming an undisputed world champion in the Middleweight division in 2019, she continues to attempt to make history as she will now attempt to become an undisputed world champion in a second weight class as she will defend her unified WBC/WBO Jr. Middleweight world championship against undefeated IBF world champion Marie-Eve Dicaire on Friday, March 5^th at the Dort Financial Events Center in Flint, MI. The bout, which will headline an all-women’s Boxing card promoted by Salita Promotions and broadcast globally on digital pay-per-view on FITE TV, will also be for the vacant WBA Jr. Middleweight world championship marking the first time that the World Boxing Association (WBA) has sanctioned a world championship bout in the Women’s Jr. Middleweight division. In doing so, the addition of the WBA crown makes this bout one for the undisputed world championship in the division and could give Shields the distinction of holding two undisputed world championships in two weight classes simultaneously if she can defeat Dicaire. A feat that even male boxers have not accomplished.

 

In Marie-Eve Dicaire, Shields will face a world champion with slightly more professional experience than she has with seventeen professional bouts to her credit. Dicaire won her world championship in December 2018 with a ten round unanimous decision over Chris Namus and has successfully defended her IBF crown three times since.

 

Stylistically, this fight could favor Shields as she is normally an aggressive fighter that likes to apply pressure on her opponents. Although neither fighter is known for scoring knockouts as Dicaire has not scored a stoppage in her career and Shields has only scored two in her ten career wins, Shields may also have an edge in terms of punching power. The interesting dynamic in thinking of how this fight might be fought is Dicaire is a fighter that uses lateral movement, angles, and has shown the ability to out box opponents when she is able to keep them at distance.

 

The challenge for Dicaire in this fight will be whether or not she will be able to keep Shields at a distance where she will not be able to cut the ring off and make it difficult for the IBF champion to move. Dicaire must also show that if Shields is able to get on the inside that she will be able to keep her from being able to get her punches off as Shields often throws her punches in compact combination and being able to tie her up on the inside or keep her from being able to get on the inside is something no previous opponent has been able to accomplish thus far.

 

Both world champions have the element of hand speed in their respective arsenals and it may be a question of how each fighter uses their hand speed that may be a determining factor in who has the edge in this fight. If Marie-Eve Dicaire is able to find success in keeping Shields at distance, this could prove to be a difficult test for the likely favorite, who will be fighting in front of a hometown crowd.

 

Beyond this fight being for the Undisputed Women’s Jr. Middleweight world championship, the fight between Claressa Shields and Marie-Eve Dicaire also will have the distinction of being a main event of a pay-per-view card of all women’s bouts. Although Women’s Boxing has been part of Boxing as a whole for decades, it was only in recent years that the women of the sport began to receive long overdue exposure and recognition particularly here in the United States where women’s bouts had mainly be limited to pay-per-view undercards of major bout featuring their male counterparts and very limited television exposure for the women of Boxing beyond that.

 

While internationally Women’s Boxing has regularly headlined Boxing cards featuring men’s bouts, it wasn’t until 2017 where Boxing fans were able to see Women’s bouts headline cards that were broadcast across cable, satellite, and streaming networks including Claressa Shields and Cecilia Braekhus co-headlining the final Boxing card broadcast by HBO in 2018. Sadly, the only card headlined by two women’s bouts broadcast by HBO during its forty-five year run broadcasting the sport.

 

Now, with Women’s Boxing regularly featured on digital streaming networks like DAZN, ESPN+, and combat sports centric digital networks like FITE TV, it is only a natural step forward in the overdue progression of Women’s Boxing to see a card exclusively showcasing the women of the sport. Shields-Dicaire is a historic bout for Women’s Boxing not only for what is on the line in the first undisputed world championship in the history of the Women’s Jr. Middleweight division, not only for what Shields is attempting in trying to become the first undisputed world champion in two weight classes simultaneously, but more importantly, for what it represents for the women of the sport going forward. 

 

“And That’s The Boxing Truth.”

 

Promotional Poster Courtesy of: FITE TV Used with permission.

SuperWomen: Shields vs. Dicaire takes place on Friday, March 5^th at the Dort Financial Events Center in Flint, MI. The five bout card can be seen globally on digital pay-per-view on the FITE app across mobile, tablet, connected streaming devices, and Smart TVs beginning at 9PM ET/6PM PT for $29.99. (U.S. Time.) Prior to the pay-per-view broadcast, a one hour pre-show will air beginning at 8PM ET/5PM PT.For more information about including schedules and compatible streaming devices and Smart TVs please visit: www.FITE.TV. To order Shields vs. Dicaire download the FITE app or click the following link: https://www.fite.tv/watch/shields-vs-dicaire/2p8qn/.

 

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

 

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