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
