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

Credit: DAZN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“And That's The Boxing Truth.”

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

Photo Courtesy of: DAZN Used with permission.

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

Follow Beau Denison on the following Social Media Platforms:

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

Facebook: www.facebook.com/BeauDenison1     

Threads: www.threads.net/@BeauDenison1   

Instagram: www.Instagram.com/BeauDenison1  

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

What Berlanga Can Take Away From Victory Over Quigley

The storyline prior to rising unbeaten Super-Middleweight contender Edgar Berlanga 's fight against former Middleweight world title challenger Jason Quigley on June 24th at The Theater in Madison Square Garden was whether or not Berlanga, who holds the North American Boxing Organization (NABO) championship in the Super-Middleweight division, could produce a performance that would serve as a strong argument for him as being a potential challenger for current undisputed champion of the division Saul "Canelo" Alvarez. As most know however, a slight wrinkle emerged two days before the bout when it was revealed that Alvarez had signed a three-fight deal with the Premier Boxing Champions (PBC) group of promoters, which moves Alvarez at least for the time being away from digital subscription sports streaming network DAZN and at least for now to United States premium cable network Showtime, which for Berlanga, who recently signed with Eddie Hearn of Matchroom Boxing, who had promoted several of Alvarez' recent fights, now finding himself without what seemed like an obvious path towards facing Alvarez.

While this could obviously change given not only the state of the PBC's deal with Showtime, and the network's merger this  week with parent company's Paramount  and it's digital subscription streaming network Paramount+ as part of a major corporate restructuring, which leaves the future of Boxing programming on the soon to be renamed Paramount+ with Showtime up in the air, for the immediate, the news regarding Alvarez had to at minimum cause a distraction for Berlanga prior to what should have been viewed as a step up in his career. The elements of the business end of the sport notwithstanding, the bout between Berlanga and Quigley was one of youth versus experience.

It was the experience of Quigley that stood out early as he implemented a strategy with an emphasis on movement, giving angles, and trying to counter Berlanga as he came forward. Though such an approach is not always appreciated, particularly amongst fans that prefer more toe to toe action, it did establish, despite the belief based on his knockout loss to Demetrius Andrade in November 2021, that Quigley was not interested in cooperating with the stance of some that he was an opponent designed to give the young unbeaten rising contender Berlanga a showcase win and potentially a quick knockout after being forced to go the distance in his previous four fights. What was also noticeable about Quigley's strategy was his willingness to try to catch Berlanga in between the punches he was throwing, which seemed to be effective in spots throughout this fight.

Beelanga's pressure and harder punches when he was able to connect however, gave him an edge. Despite how effective Quigley's tactics appeared to be, what turned out to work against him were four knockdowns throughout the course of the fight. In rounds three, five, and two knockdowns in the twelfth and final round, Beelanga's punching power and pressure were able to get to Quigley and put him on the canvas. Although the knockdowns in rounds three and five appeared to be what are often referred to as "Flash Knockdowns" where Quigley did not appear to be significantly hurt, those knockdowns prove more often than not to be detrimental in terms of scoring for the fighter that is knocked down because it creates a deficit in points that without being able to score knockdowns of your own, can prove to be difficult to overcome. In this case, the knockdowns could give a false sense that this fight was one-sided in Berlanga's favor simply because they created a significant deficit in terms of scoring that Quigley could not overcome in losing a unanimous decision.

In actuality, Quigley's approach throughout this fight succeeded in keeping Berlanga from being able to dictate how it was being fought, unable at times to get into a consistent offensive rhythm, and at times appearing to make Berlanga look discouraged. While with the exception of the four knockdowns he was able to score, this probably was not the type performance Berlanga was looking for in terms of trying to make a statement as a potential challenger for Saul Alvarez down the line, sometimes a win is a win and his victory was still convincing albeit without the knockout that most were probably looking for or expecting.

Although this victory over Jason Quigley marked the fifth time Berlanga has had to go the distance after starting his career with sixteen straight knockouts, this observer does not necessarily see that as a negative. It is indeed true that if a fighter scores knockouts and can do so in devastating fashion that said fighter will almost always move up the ladder of contention quicker, receive more attention, and likely get an opportunity to fight for a world championship quicker than those who take a more measured approach. The potential drawback for those fighters who are able to carve out reputations as "Knockout Artists" is they do not necessarily get the chance to fully develop their skills, nor do they get the experience needed to learn how to adapt as a fight progresses into the middle and late rounds against fighters of varying styles, who will not always cooperate with the desired scenario of a rising star or his/her team of a quick knockout. While going the distance on a string of several fights may be seen as a red flag in the eyes of some, it is to be expected when a prospect turned contender steps up in the caliber of competition as they approach challenging for a world championship. Criticism no matter what a fighter might do or how they perform is something that will unfortunately also come with the territory, but the experience fighters gain at these stages is invaluable and no doubt will benefit Edgar Berlanga as he continues to move forward in his career.

"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 

Should Networks Look At Recent Cancellations As A Sign To Change?

 

One of the many frustrations that unfortunately comes with the territory of not just Boxing, but all of combat sports are the potential for postponements/cancellations to occur that can put a halt to the plans of not just the fighters involved, not just the promoters, but more specifically the platforms, which broadcast the bouts. Recently, two events that were scheduled to take place during the month of August were cancelled both due to failure of conditions stipulated in a contract to be met by one fighter in a bout and an injury forcing the cancellation of another bout. 

 

This observer is referring to two Boxing events that were to be headlined by two separate YouTube celebrities in separate bouts. The first bout that saw the ax of cancellation come down upon it was the scheduled August 6th bout between undefeated Cruiserweight/ YouTube star Jake Paul who was scheduled to face Heavyweight prospect Hasim Rahman Jr. in a catchweight bout that stipulated that Rahman could not weigh more than 200lbs. prior to the bout. As most Boxing fans know, the bout was cancelled as it was deemed by the New York State Athletic Commission (NYSAC) that Rahman would be unable to make the weight in a safe manner resulting in the bout, which was due to headline a pay-per-view card broadcast on Showtime Pay-Per-View from New York’s Madison Square Garden being cancelled.  

 

The second was a scheduled bout to take place between YouTube stars KSI and Alex Wassabi, that was scheduled to take place on August 27th in the United Kingdom was cancelled due to Wassabi suffering what was deemed a serious injury in training. Much like the Paul-Rahman bout, this bout was due to headline a Boxing card from the United Kingdom broadcast by DAZN Pay-Per-View in several countries including the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.  

 

Out of respect for the reader, I will not go into the various grandstanding that has taken place in regard to both bouts prior to and since each respective cancellation because the fact is, it does little to change the fact that both bouts were cancelled and simply yours truly feels it would be a waste of both my and the reader’s time to rehash such grandstanding. What this observer will go into however, is what should be viewed as an opportunity for both networks Showtime and DAZN to view these cancellations as both a blessing in that they will not lose money on those events, but also an opportunity to change course. 

 

While this observer has frankly made a name for himself over many years in pointing out the flaws of the pay-per-view model, which in regard to the United States and Canada in 2022 has seen price points get out of control where it no longer is of value to the consumer and does little if anything to benefit and grow the sport of Boxing, in this case, we had two pay-per-view attractions mainly aimed at attracting the casual sports fan. Although that should be the aim of any network or promoter to increase the exposure of the sport, the fact that it was aimed for the outdated and often overpriced model of pay-per-view as opposed to more reasonable subscription-based streaming options exposes the flaw of those making decisions as to what qualifies as a pay-per-view attraction. 

 

Now longtime readers should know that I can and will when appropriate call out the flaws of the pay-per-view model and will do so until such a model either changes significantly or is done away with in favor of a model that serves not only to benefit the sport better, but also the consumer in the process. In most cases particularly when this observer was growing up in the 1980’s and even through most of the 1990’s when I began covering the sport of Boxing as well as combat sports as a whole where the pay-per-view concept was reserved for the legitimate major Boxing events, which normally saw the best fighters in the sport pitted against each other, that standard no longer exists and has done little to benefit the sport in the process. 

 

At this point in this column I feel it important to point out to those who may not remember or those who are reading this observer’s work for the first time that when the influx of social media/YouTube celebrity began to enter the sport of Boxing, I did say that those who entered the sport from those mediums would get a fair shake from me so long as they treated the sport with the respect it deserves. After all, Boxing is a combat sport, and I should not have to explain the inherent dangers that come with stepping into the ring. As someone who has covered more career ending injuries and unfortunately more deaths related to fights inside the ring than I would like to admit in my career covering the sport, it is important to me as one who does have Boxing’s best interest at heart that the sport be taken seriously by all and not treated as a joke by those who come into the sport from other mediums and more specifically the critics of Boxing that all too often have way too much ammunition given to them by way of decisions that are made, flaws in the sport’s regulation, and other aspects that continue to keep the sport from reaching its full potential.  

 

Although such criticism more often than not is justified, the sport for whatever reason continues to get in it’s own way as far as progress to increase exposure and grow. For the purposes of this column, the obvious flaw is a continued reliance on the pay-per-view model, despite continued underwhelming returns in the form of buys. In this case, while folks like Jake Paul and other YouTube celebrities have served a role in drawing attention to the sport amongst those who may not have been attracted to Boxing otherwise, we have yet to see one of these fighters compete against someone with a legitimate Boxing background and the fact that such bouts featuring such celebrities are continued to be pushed as pay-per-view attractions rather than fighters at the beginning stages of their careers as any other fighter at similar stages in their careers are regarded, is an indication that something needs to change. While it is important to point out that Jake Paul was scheduled to face a boxer in Hasim Rahman Jr., and that the cancellation should not be viewed as his doing, the cancellation does not serve him well as one who wants to be taken seriously as a boxer and unfortunately for him, the label of a novelty as well as one who is known primarily as a YouTube celebrity will follow him until such time as he boxes those with legitimate Boxing experience and proves that he can be viewed as a serious boxer even if his entry into the sport was in a word unconventional. 

 

What I am referring to when I say something needs to change is a broader subject regarding the pay-per-view model and more specifically, what networks like Showtime and DAZN should be focusing on. It should be no secret to longtime readers that yours truly has been supportive of digital streaming networks like DAZN and ESPN+ primarily for offering a viable alternative to the pay-per-view model with subscription-based options. Despite this, both have dipped their toes into the pay-per-view model, with DAZN insisting that their use of the model would be sparingly and would not dilute the value of a monthly or annual subscription to their network in insisting that it would be only used for legitimate big events that they could not make possible without the aspect of pay-per-view.  

 

It is understandable however, despite what the network claims, as to how consumers may be jaded by having to shell out pay-per-view fees on top of their subscription options, particularly because prior to the COVID-19 global epidemic, DAZN had been marketed as having more value providing competitive pay-per-view quality Boxing cards “Without The Pain of Pay-Per View” prices. While such marketing was legitimate and did succeed in showing that Boxing could succeed under a subscription-based model, the effects of the ongoing epidemic and likely the demands of fighters who have been conditioned to believe that the only way they can make significant money is via the pay-per-view model, despite continued evidence that it is the opposite, DAZN has for the time being been forced into using the pay-per-view model.  

 

Although I am on record in saying that I hope that their use of the model will be temporary and have even suggested that if returns are underwhelming in terms of pay-per-view buys that they need to show the fighters that insist on the model that it is not viable both for the network and for them to continue using pay-per-view, I will admit I was surprised when the KSI-Alex Wassabi bout was announced as a DAZN Pay-Per-View attraction. In no disrespect intended to either fighter and keeping in mind that the event prior to cancellation was actually priced at a reasonable $9.99 price point, it did not strike me as an event that would be seen as a “Big Fight” that necessitated the use of the pay-per-view model that DAZN has stated that they would only use when needed to make those “Big Events.” When one considers that the upcoming third fight between Undisputed Super-Middleweight world champion Saul “Canelo” Alvarez and two-time Middleweight world champion Gennady Golovkin, which will take place on September 17th will be a DAZN Pay-Per-View attraction at a $64.99 price point for current subscribers and a $89.99 price point for non-subscribers, the decision to put a card featuring YouTube celebrities on what they insist will be a selective model at any price point, it should not be hard to understand how an existing subscriber could have cause for concern. 

 

Even though DAZN’s entry into the pay-per-view model can be attributed to the impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 epidemic, there will come a point where they will need to make a decision as to what master they want to serve. The master of what has been proven to be a more economically reasonable model for consumers, or a master of a dying model that many involved with the sport refuse to acknowledge that needs to change. As supportive as I have been and will continue to be of a reasonably priced subscription-based model, I would be lying to the reader if I said that a network in DAZN’s position currently was not walking on eggshells because one decision that proves to be costly in a negative way can obviously affect their existing subscription model.  

 

While the ills/flaws of the pay-per-view model will take some time to solve, a question is should networks look at these recent cancellations as an opportunity to change and if so, how? In thinking about how those fighters who came to Boxing from establishing themselves as YouTube celebrities, I thought of the possibility that networks like Showtime and DAZN as well as others could use the YouTube platform as well as other social media platforms to stage these fights. Although some have used YouTube as a pay-per-view platform, perhaps what they should do is put one of these bouts that in honesty probably would not do well on pay-per-view on their respective YouTube and social media pages and use advertising as a vehicle to make up for hoped for pay-per-view revenue.  

 

Not only will this allow more eyes to be attracted to the sport that may not have viewed Boxing otherwise, but it would also draw in more viewers without the price tag that comes with pay-per-view. Although in regard to Showtime, I have said for a while that they and their parent company Paramount should consider using their parent company’s existing streaming network Paramount+ to do a Showtime Boxing on Paramount+ concept that would be an alternative to the network and parent company losing money on the pay-per-view model, using a fighter like Jake Paul to market a card streamed via Showtime’s YouTube channel and social media platforms could be used as a way to test the waters not only in terms of seeing how viewership across those platforms might do, but also as a way to see how advertising/sponsorship revenue can be monetized towards a potential use of the Paramount+ network to replace their use of the pay-per-view model. When one considers that Paramount has invested significantly in sports rights for Paramount+ including UEFA Soccer leagues as well as Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) programming from the Combate Global MMA promotion, the potential exists to move those Boxing events that have been showcased on Showtime Pay-Per-View could be transitioned to Paramount+. Such potential is likely increased by increasing subscriptions to Paramount+ as more consumers move away from cable/satellite pay television. 

 

While these remain only suggestions by this observer again with the best interest of Boxing at heart, it is clear as I have said in other writings discussing the pay-per-view model over the years that something needs to change. Although some may not view cancellations featuring YouTube celebrities as a catalyst that could lead to meaningful change for the sport on a much bigger scale, the opportunity to use the cancellations as potential opportunity by the networks involved to turn negatives into positives is certainly there. The question is whether network executives recognize the opportunity and will seize it or if they will allow Boxing to continue to be limited to a paywall structure that unfortunately will continue to limit the sport’s growth. 

 

 
“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