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 

A Boxing Wishlist For 2022

 

The time has come once again where this observer shares his “Boxing Wishlist” for the coming year. Unlike previous years where this annual feature here on The Boxing Truth® has usually begins the schedule at the beginning of a year, for 2022 that was not the case. This was due to the Premier Boxing Champions (PBC) group of promoters staging cards on Christmas night and a pay-per-view card on New Year’s Day. While this column has been written in advance of those cards and will be released after both cards have taken place that will be the subject of a feature next week here on The Boxing Truth®, in a coincidence, it leads to the first item on the 2022 “Boxing Wishlist.”  To see promoters that have relied on the pay-per-view model finally embrace the benefits of the subscription-based streaming model that has gradually populated much of the Boxing broadcast coverage throughout the sport over the last three years thanks largely to the success of digital sports streaming networks DAZN and ESPN+.

 

It should be no secret to longtime readers that a consistent theme of my coverage of the sport over the last several years has been to point out the benefits of the subscription-streaming model as compared to what is often an overpriced and undervalued model of pay-per-view where consumers are charged fees that in the current landscape usually begin at the $60 or above price range on a per card basis. Unfortunately, as the ongoing global COVID-19 epidemic has continued, there has seemingly been an increase in the amount of pay-per-view cards that has only furthered the decline of the model. This is due largely to multiple pay-per-view cards being scheduled within a narrow timeframe, which in addition to the price points has resulted in the returns of the majority of those pay-per-view events producing underwhelming numbers for the promoters who put the events on as well as for the networks that produce and distribute the broadcasts via the pay-per-view medium.  Although InDemand (Formerly Viewer’s Choice), the longtime number one pay-per-view cable distributor here in the United States has recently launched a pay-per-view-centric streaming platform under the PPV.com branding, which should be seen as the distributor’s attempt to transition to streaming in response to more consumers opting for streaming television and leaving traditional cable/satellite pay-TV providers behind, the mere amount of events at the aforementioned price points could make the potential success of such a service debatable.

 

Some reasons for that in addition to subscription-based options offering more value to consumers for the price of a subscription, there are other streaming-based pay-per-view providers such as FITE that have been established for several years, which could make it a challenge for InDemand to succeed in the streaming realm. Another aspect of the traditional pay-per-view model that will likely not fare well if InDemand is simply looking to transition their existing distribution model to streaming, that has proven beneficial for networks like FITE and those networks that operate on a subscription model is the feature of on-demand access being made available either with a PPV purchase or a subscription. Traditional pay-per-view distributors do not offer such a feature and if they are looking to transition to streaming as the cable/satellite model continues phasing out, they will likely need to add the benefit of on-demand access for those who purchase events live if they hope to compete effectively in the space.

 

While I certainly have no expectation that the pay-per-view model will disappear in 2022 as promoters and some networks that have been resistant to adapt to subscription-based streaming, those that yours truly often refers to as hold outs, despite mounting evidence that adaptation is likely a better option, if pay-per-view is to remain, I would like to see more value added for the price of a pay-per-view fee. The best way to add value regardless of who might be at the top of a card, would be to see every bout on a card broadcast on the pay-per-view feed. This is something that both DAZN and ESPN+ do with most of their Boxing events. It is also worth noting that FITE has done this before with many of the events they offer that are not also offered through the cable/satellite model. Typically, pay-per-view cards that are produced by networks such as Fox Sports and Showtime here in the United States only broadcast the top three or four bouts on a card that could have anywhere from eight to ten bouts. It should not take much explaining as to why such a model lacks value, though Fox has aired a portion of preliminary bouts on either the national Fox network or their cable sports networks, which depending on a consumer’s pay-TV provider may not always be easy to access.  Even though I remain firm on my stance that the PPV model needs to be done away with or significantly revamped, putting every bout on a card available on a pay-per-view channel for those purchasing an event rather than simply the top three or four fights on a card would be a step in the right direction simply by adding value for the price.

 

This brings me to the second item on this year’s list. Reducing the pay-per-view price points to make it more economically reasonable for consumers. The bottom line in addition to the other aforementioned flaws of the pay-per-view model that has resulted in a consistent decline in pay-per-view revenue on a regular basis, beyond the fact that there are subscription-based alternatives on the market that offer generally better value for the price is, the pay-per-view model has gotten to the point where it has priced out many Boxing fans who can simply not afford a $60 or above price point on a per card basis, that would likely be more willing to tune-in if those price points were more reasonable.

 

Some personal perspective for the reader. I grew up in the 1980’s and 1990’s during the boom period of cable/satellite television. I can recall more or less pestering my parents whenever there was a Boxing or pro wrestling pay-per-view event coming up during those days. Back then, pay-per-view offerings were not every month or every few weeks, but were reserved for the legitimate “Big Fights.” The type of fights that everyone even those with only a casual interest in Boxing would be talking about in one form or another. You would also see much more promotion for such bouts on television via late night talk shows, advertisements, as well as radio interviews and such, but the one thing that I remember perhaps more than most was that in many cases, the price points for pay-per-view Boxing did not exceed a $35 price point regardless of what the main event might have been. I do however, recall instances where pay-per-view providers like InDemand, then known as Viewer’s Choice would offer promotions in offering events at a slightly reduced cost if ordered in advance while keeping the full retail price in place for those who ordered an event on the day it took place.  I will not bother explaining which method my parents and I would use when such a promotion was offered as it should be self-explanitory.

 

While obviously some events/cards will always do better than others with regard to buys, I would be willing to say that those events at a lower price point tend to do better in terms of overall buys as compared to those that have a much higher price point.  In the current landscape, the only region in the world that offers pay-per-view at a reasonable price point that is similar to my youth and even my early days as a writer covering combat sports in the mid-1990’s is in Europe and more specifically the United Kingdom where most pay-per-view cards do not exceed a £25 price point.  As much as I have criticized the pay-per-view model and will continue to do so for the aforementioned reasons as well as in many cases today, the model simply being used as a source of potential revenue regardless of what might be on the card as opposed to the legitimate “Big Fights,” if the price points were lower, the model may be more successful even if those promoters and networks, the “Hold Outs,” refuse to air every bout on a card as yours truly has suggested would add more value for the price as well as allow those “Hold Outs” as stubborn as they might be, to compete with subscription-based streaming alternatives.

 

Now, the reader may be wondering since I have spent the majority of this column pointing out the flaws of the pay-per-view model as well as offering suggestions as to what I think might at least make it more viable, what else I could have in mind for this year’s “Boxing Wishlist.” Well, the third item on this year’s list is something that frankly needs to happen for the benefit of the sport. Promoters regardless of television network affiliation need to work together on a regular basis to make fights that have significant public interest occur in a more reasonable timeframe than is typically the norm.

 

It is something that is as old as the sport itself that has always been a source of frustration not just for me, but anyone involved in Boxing that truly has the best interest of the sport at heart. How many times throughout Boxing history has there been a scenario where two fighters in or around the same weight class are able to garner significant followings and drum up interest amongst both Boxing fans and experts alike in a potential fight between the two, yet for one reason or another whether it be rival promoters that do not want to work together for their own business interests if nothing else, rival television networks that would rather take cheap shots at competitors rather than offering the best bouts that could be made for their audience, or simply the perception that one fighter, a fighter’s team, and/or a fighter’s promoter ducking another fighter, for one reason or another it results in fights at times taking several years to be made.

 

While some might say that such tactics end up drumming up more interest and make fights even bigger in terms of making them an event, more often than not, when two marquee fighters finally get into the ring, it can and has left a bad taste in the Boxing fan’s mouth and thus leaves the sport open to more criticism and ridicule than really should be the case.  In recent times, despite the willingness of networks like DAZN and ESPN to work together to make fights happen, the PBC side of the equation does not always show such willingness and seems more content to only make fights happen if it happens under their promotional banner and on their broadcast platforms, even if it may be in the best interest of not only the sport, but also the fighters that compete under the PBC platform to face fighters that may not be attached to their platform.  Unfortunately, this serves as a detriment to the sport and benefits no one involved. Much like my thoughts on the pay-per-view model, I don’t expect things to change in 2022, but I hope steps in the right direction are taken, even if it came as a result of a promoter or network trying to survive in the sport.

 

This brings us to the fourth item on this year’s “Boxing Wishlist.” For Boxing’s respective sanctioning organizations to finally come up with an alternative to “Interim/Regular Championship” designations. Those who have followed this observer’s “Boxing Wishlist” for years probably know that this particular item is something that is pretty much a mainstay on the list every year. Although I spend much time during a calendar year pointing out that such designations are not world championships, but are in actuality a number one contender’s designation, the short answer here is though it is well-intended by the sanctioning organizations as a way of ensuring that a top contender gets an opportunity to fight for a world championship one way or another, it is something that needs to be revamped or preferably done away with outright. In 2021, the World Boxing Association (WBA) at least stated their intent to eliminate such designations in their respective rankings per weight division. It goes without saying to any knowledgeable observer that the WBA’s rankings and “Interim/Regular” designations have created more confusion than it has solved problems that more often than not are related to the business end of the sport. Much like the other items on this year’s list, the elimination of “Interim/Regular” designations is something that will not happen overnight and will take time. It is my hope however, that the WBA sticks to their word and that other organizations in the sport that use a similar structure in their rankings follow their lead.

 

The final addition to this year’s “Boxing Wishlist” is something that yours truly has long advocated for and if it were not for the detriment of the pay-per-view model, would have been listed as the number one item on this year’s list rather than the closer. To see Women’s Boxing finally be moved to three minute rounds.

 

Anyone who is familiar with Women’s Boxing knows that the sport for women is in a period of long overdue exposure and recognition. Although thankfully, it is no longer uncommon to see a women’s bout headline a Boxing card either here in the United States or internationally that also features men’s bouts, one thing that continues to be a drawback is the fact that rounds in Women’s Boxing are scheduled for two minutes in duration. While the argument some have used is the two minute round length all but ensures an entertaining fast-paced fight for women competing in the sport, it usually results in fights that may not otherwise go the distance if it were fought under three minute rounds, the same length as men competing in the sport, or very closely scored bouts that could end in draws.

 

When one keeps in mind that the sport of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) allows the women that compete in it to fight for either a three five minute round distance or a five, five minute round distance for world championship fights, the same distance as male MMA fighters, the argument that women boxers should not be allowed to fight for three minutes per round becomes less credible. One should also consider that during the delayed 2020 Olympics, which took place in the summer of 2021, women boxers were allowed to compete in three minute rounds and I personally felt that while there were still bouts that were very competitive and ended in close decisions, the women who competed in those Olympics were able to prove that women boxers are more than capable of Boxing for three minutes per round.  Those who read this observer’s coverage of those Olympics heard me state that it was my hope that those on the professional end of the sport would follow the lead of the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) Boxing taskforce and move women’s bouts to three minute rounds. While I would also like to see women allowed to progress to a twelve round distance for world championship fights, the same as their male counterparts, if those who regulate the sport from the respective athletic commissions around the world to the sanctioning organizations would take the step to three minute rounds for female fighters competing in the sport, it would be one more step in the right direction for Women’s Boxing.

 

Unfortunately, all of the items on this year’s “Boxing Wishlist” still comes under the midst of an ongoing global epidemic, which may or may not bring Boxing and the rest of sports to a halt at any given moment due to the several variants of the COVID-19 virus and the obvious uncertainties that come with it. Obviously, I hope that there will be no such pause and that the sport of Boxing will be able to have a full year of action in 2022 as was the case throughout much of 2021. We will have to wait and see what happens, but as a new year has now begun, yours truly is eager to see what is next for the sport of Boxing and to cover the events that unfold throughout 2022.

 

“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