PBC Joins DAZN : Why It Is A Win For Subscribers

 In April of 2018, this observer received word as I was preparing to cover two separate main events being held in the United Kingdom on April 21st of that year, Amir Khan vs. Phil Lo Greco and Carl Frampton vs, Nonito Donaire that there would be a further shock to the system in terms of the way Boxing was broadcast here in the United States following the inception of ESPN’s first direct to consumer streaming network ESPN+, (Now ESPN Unlimited), which had launched days before and in fact, it was the Khan-Lo Greco bout that ended up being the first Boxing event ever televised on the platform. The further shock that I was informed about privately was the pending entry into the United States of another direct to consumer streaming entity whose focus would largely center on Boxing, DAZN.

Although it would be a few weeks later that the network dubbed by some as the “Netflix of Sports” would hold a press conference in New York to formally announce their entry with Matchroom Boxing promoter Eddie Hearn as the centerpiece attraction to serve as the network’s main promoter, upon hearing the information I was given, I began researching what DAZN, which launched in 2016, had to offer in other markets internationally. As first and foremost a Boxing lifer and combat sports aficionado, but just as a sports fan in general, when I saw the amount of content offered in various regions, particularly amongst the major sports here in the United States, I would be lying if I said my mouth did not begin to water. Obviously, I knew that a global streaming network’s available content would vary by region due to existing broadcast agreements with various networks around the world and I also knew based on years of experience in covering media broadcast rights as it relates to Boxing and other combat sports, that there was not going to be the amount of content that I had seen offered internationally upon DAZN’s U.S. launch, primarily the major sports leagues in this country. What I did see, however, was potential.

With regard to Boxing, the network offered a schedule of events from both major and regional promoters that was unparalleled in the sport. While yours truly has written extensively over the years of the benefits of the subscription-based model as compared to the pay-per-view model, which had gotten out of control before DAZN’s launch, for the purposes of this column, the focus will be centered on how DAZN has strategically put together a roster of promoters and Boxing content that frankly has never been seen before on one platform as along with Hearn’s Matchroom Boxing and wider sports offerings under Matchroom Sport, the network eventually added Golden Boy Promotions under promoter and Hall of Fame fighter Oscar De La Hoya, OPI Since 82 out of Italy, the highly acclaimed World Boxing Super Series, as well as various other promoters who have appeared on the platform periodically. Most recently, the network had signed Hall of Fame promoters Frank Warren of Queensberry Promotions and Bob Arum’s Top Rank, Inc. to multi-year broadcast agreements. Although having clearly established itself as the dominant broadcaster in the sport not just in the United States, but worldwide to a degree we have never seen in Boxing before, the network has not rested on its accomplishments as it continues to build to its platform. On July 9th, during the launch press conference for the upcoming WBA World Welterweight championship bout between champion Rolando Romero and former two-division world champion Teofimo Lopez an announcement was made that the Premier Boxing Champions (PBC) group of promoters, one of the last remaining major promoters in the sport that had spent recent years as a largely pay-per-view centric promoter first through the now defunct Showtime Sports and most recently through digital streaming general entertainment network and platform Prime Video, had signed with the network on what was described as a multi-fight agreement with events being simulcast on Prime Video on a pay-per-view basis for the remainder of 2026.

In all honesty, I was not surprised when I was informed of the pending announcement as frankly, with the exception of a few obscure pay-per-view offerings promoted by independent promoters that have yet to align with DAZN, the PBC group of promoters was really the last hold out, who was attempting to continue to rely largely on what this observer has called the outdated and overpriced model of pay-per-view. Despite DAZN in the period following the global COVID-19 epidemic dipped their toes into the pay-per-view model, a decision that though understandable to an extent given the loss of revenue from the pause of live sports that occurred while the world was essentially shut down during the epidemic, I was highly critical of, which I stand by, the network has always been a subscription-based focused entity. With regard to the PBC’s recent history with Prime Video acting as a distributor for PBC pay-per-view offerings with a handful of free events for Amazon Prime members, though no one has access to how successful or not successful those events have been in terms of buys, the PBC, which launched in 2015 with its initial mission of “Free Boxing For All” with initial time buy arrangements with broadcast and cable networks, had seen its output of events year over year drop significantly as compared to when it launched. Although no one can say how successful a largely pay-per-view centric strategy was for the PBC. One could assume that continuing to rely on what became an increasingly outdated model and doing so at price points of $74 or above, may not have proven to be a winning approach for them, which could have necessitated aligning with DAZN after vocally opposing what the network was attempting to bring to the sport with a subscription-based focus for several years.

While pay-per-view still remains part of the sport, it should be noted that DAZN after testing the waters of periodically dipping its toes into the model, has reverted back to a subscription based approach with the introduction of DAZN Ultimate, a higher priced tier subscription that now includes pay-per-view offerings at no additional cost. This should be of value to many Boxing fans due to now the PBC events being available to DAZN Ultimate subscribers at no additional cost. Although it is not my intention to pen what could essentially be copy for a commercial promoting the network, a monthly or annual subscription is indeed more cost-effective for consumers as opposed to being asked to pay an inflated fee on a per-event basis, regardless of what the headline attractions of those events might be. 

The question is obviously with so many promoters on one platform does it create a monopoly and ultimately, will it serve in the best interest of both consumers and the sport? A cynical viewpoint as well as a realistic one, is Boxing does not have as many broadcasters involved in the sport in 2026 as was the case in decades past. There are several reasons for that, none of which have anything to do with the sport itself or its appeal, but have a lot to do with what became a focus on what was meant to be used for legitimate special occasions in the sport/major events, pay-per-view, which in turn gradually eroded not only the amount of content offered across both free to air broadcast television as well as cable, which over time took what would have been marquee bouts away from free television or from cable networks like HBO and Showtime, which for lack of a better term made whatever was televised on those networks seem secondary by putting the perceived major bouts in the sport behind a paywall. This in addition to consistently raising prices for such events, the frequency of which the pay-per-view model has been used, and the stalling tactics, which delayed fights of significant interest from being made and promoters and fighters refusing to come to the negotiating table for such bouts eventually it created a scenario where free to air networks like ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox eventually bowed out of the sport and were ultimately followed by HBO and Showtime as well after both networks, who had invested significantly in Boxing over decades eventually divested and exited as both became to a significant extent casualties of corporate mergers that is still a major issue in the overall landscape of television.

It goes without saying that having less platforms actively invested in Boxing along with the over reliance on the pay-per-view model has led to where things are now for Boxing. An obvious concern is even with essential 95% of the sport’s major promoters under one global broadcast platform, is that the ways of old including a reluctance of the various promoters to work together to bring about fights of significant interest and to do so in a more reasonable timeframe than  having the public wait, at times several years, before a fight takes place where more often than not, by the time it does it leaves the public feeling very underwhelmed. There is also an obvious danger as well for DAZN in that now with a tier subscription approach, the motivation should be to try and increase long-term subscriptions, but also make it appealing for existing subscribers to stay on. There will come a point where subscription prices will have to stabilize where the ceiling of how high subscription rates can go will have to reach a ceiling or like other networks that were heavily invested in Boxing before them, DAZN may eventually find themselves making a similar decision to that of the aforementioned networks, first by divesting and then by exiting Boxing altogether. It would be a shame if that happens because the potential to grow the sport far beyond any level it has seen before and expose it to new eyes regardless of one’s economic level is there. Will this be the watershed moment where Boxing finally gets out of its own way for the good of the sport? I sincerely hope so. 

“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 

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