I m all for boxers getting the biggest chunk to a certain level. But we,re no longer in the days when don king would steal your money or the days when boxers we,re getting their brains smashed in for peanuts. We,re talking about 1 guy getting 200 million pound for what was basically an exhibition match. And we wonder why boxings in the state its in. Especially in terms of guys trying to make it in the sport. I seen something the other day boy won something like 38 amatuer fights lost 2 wanted to go pro. The advice was go semi pro. The pro game you dont make any money unless you sell something like 200 tickets. What chance have you got. You ve got a few guys taking all the money out the game to the detriment of everyone else. I m not saying if you earn a million they take off 500,000. I m saying if guys start making 5 plus million for a fight. Thats obsene money for a boxing match. Take a percentage off everything involved in these superfights and filter it down the sport. It,ll never change but you d make a much better sport if they one day sorted it. You say dont pay the price but they ve got them over a barrel really. A lot of working class folk who probably make up the bulk of the sales live pretty simple lives. Work away hard all week. The weekend comes and its time to follow their football club or the boxing or pub etc. The answers not forcing them to give it up...but by sorting it out. I say the problem lies with the boxers or footballers that are demanding 300 or 400 thousand a week or boxers who demand 200 million rather than the working class guys that want to watch football or boxing. No ones talking about boxers living in poverty here. But its got out of control since the days before don king came on the scene.
Your missing the point though, Floyd demanded 200 million because people paid to watch him. He earned it basically. People like his product. 200 million was his pride and people pay it. I no hairdressers who charge £1000 for a haircut, but I only pay £10 for mine. Are the people paying £1000 being ripped off? No, they're happy to pay that for that product. I understand what your saying, and yes 200 million is obscene for a fight for one person, but it's impossible to implement a rule where a boxers maximum earning is capped, its just impossible to implement this. Do you believe boxers, who are world champs and P4P top 10, should earn big money just because of how good they are? What if they couldn't sell a single seat? What if no one tuned in to watch them? Do you still believe they should be paid well?
The thing I find that is a shame, the Smith fight on the 16th, ITV have said the program starts at 9.30pm. So probably getting the main fight plus maybe 1-2 undercards. Also, if the Usyk fight is not being shown live, i imagine that could mean all of the Cruiseweight 1/4 finals could fall the same way? Also, would have to doubt whether any of the undercards will be available for the Usyk fight?
Crazy decision by ITV to put Groves and Eubank's first fight on PPV. Eubank's last PPV's were poor and can't see many people forking out for Groves PPV given most of his previous fights haven't been on PPV. Surely it would have made a lot more sense to put them both on primetime ITV then create massive hype for a semi final PPV between any of Eubank, Groves or Smith and then a final and try and make a massive deal about it being a tournament to find the best Super Middlewieght something that no other network has. Shooting themselves in the foot here and it's so obvious a blind man could see it. .
Interesting to note that Cyclone/Channel 5 are running a show on October 7th at York Hall which will clash with the Eubank fight. I hope that common sense prevails and at the very least the main event starts at 9pm.
Arguably the fight sells itself and doesn't need a build up?, but also one of them could lose in the QF and they won't get the pay day any way
I don't think any of them sell themselves. Groves v Eubank maybe in the fact that people with a causal interest in boxing will have seen Groves v Froch and heard of Eubank because of his name but Eubank v Smith or Groves v Smith won't do well PPV in my view either unless it's the final. If one of them loses then ITV are in a worse position because try explaining the significance of a Groves v Skoglund or Cox v Smith semi final to a public that didn't even know the first round was on.
I was talking about Groves vs Eubank, I don't think putting the QF's on free tv would effect anything tbh
It would at least make the public aware that the tournament exists. Personally think they are making the same mistakes that were made made for the Super Six World Boxing Series. Stuck the early fights behind a pay barrier so nobody outside hardcore boxing fans knew the tournament was even on. Sales go that bad the channel goes bust and then when it comes to the final it doesn't even merit PPV as nobody has a clue who Froch and Ward are so the fight just goes out on Sky Sports 1.
Cant get my head around it tbh. Seems like for some reason making money from the tournaments not the agenda here. Scafhuer and sauderland arent exactly idiots. Yet you,d think so with how they ve marketed the tournament. Something doesnt quite add up.
Callum Smith has the easiest path to the finals, first get rid of an average LHW who drained down to 168 then take on aging Braehmer or Brand.
I suppose if one of them loses in the QF the sell for the SF would be much easier as the average joe would have seen Yildirim/Cox. Kind of think Groves vs Eubank Jr will get huge publicity and they are already well known