Originally Posted by shaunster101
Don't know what it has to do with Hearn. Any other British promoter would face the exact same situation. If Froch was promoted by any other British promoter who had the same deal with Sky, it would be the same.
The purses have to be paid for out of the money generated for that fight? Promoters are not going to pay for purses that surpass the money made by the fight.
So the options will be use PPV, come up with a system that has yet to be invented by anyone else in sports broadcasting history, or don't have the fight.
I'm not a fan of PPV by any stretch of the imagination - but it has obviously become a necessary evil to generate the revenue required to set up certain fights in this country. I can stomach it if it is used purely as a means of making fights that others wise would not be made for financial reasons - the only problem is it soons turns in to a way of fleecing the sportsfan who already pays through the nose for multiple sports channel subscriptions.
I'm surprised you even asked that question. Eddie is the promoter, yes? So it has everything to do with him. Whether others are in the same position is irrelevant, we're talking about this fight.
There's no point promoters complaining about low margins and then setting up fights they can't afford. And there wasn't any real need to make this fight, it means nothing of great significance. It's on ppv because Eddie can't afford to pay his two fighters without it.
Genuine ppv fights make big money from tickets to tv, they don't require one to shore up the other. That's why this isn't ppv.