I really wish we would move towards the Japanese model, they only sanction the WBA and WBC (I would accept IBF and WBO being added to the equation) for World Title bouts and below that they only recognise the Japanese and OPBF titles. And don't even get me started on the way they promote and match make, if all of Boxing used the Japanese model the sport would be a lot healthier.
That was not my quote. My point was Benn, Eubank et al will tell you, they made a ton more money off of SKY, than if they had stayed on Terrestrial TV. Pro Boxing is a minority sport, it is unlikely to get mainstream Terrestrial (BBC/ITV) coverage anytime soon. The best need SKY, to make good money.
x2. BBBofC do so much good but they make themself look like mugs by sanctioning the top 4 AND the IBO!
Apologies, I must have combined them then forgotten they were separate. That being as it may, Sky basically ****ed the sport over. The fighters got paid but people stopped watching. It's like a great singer only playing Vegas - they get $ but their record sales slump. When they finally leave, they've nowhere to go that will keep them in the lifestyle to which they're accustomed. And that's exactly what's happened. Frank, Hearn, Maloney, et al ran to Sky when times were good, there was money on the gate because of years on terrestrial TV and the first flush of new investment. But slowly the viewers dwindled. The majority were unable to see boxing because it wasn't protected by the Crown Jewels of Sport agreement. Slowly it disappeared from the back pages of the papers (even those owned by News Int'l) and out of public consciousness. Sky lost interest because boxing wasn't generating subscriptions the way it once did. But when the promoters went back to terrestrial, ITV was struggling, the Beeb had moved on still resentful from the Audley debacle, and the star names weren't there. However, Frank sold Calzaghe and Khan to ITV. Calzaghe became big business and Setanta eventually offered silly money for the Kessler fight but restricted viewership to less than half-a-million people. Joe made a fortune but the sport cut itself off from a genuine crossover opportunity. Eventually, the Setanta experiment failed. ITV wouldn't forgive Frank and couldn't be bothered with Hennessey's arsey bhaviour behind the scenes. It was done with boxing again. Too expensive and too much work. Frank ran back to Sky, but the cupboards weren't as full as they once were. Boxing didn't drive subscribers any more because it had lost its mainstream appeal through being on Sky. They wouldn't fund crap and they couldn't justify low-profit PPVs that barely covered production costs. So they limited the shows they'd put on and, with it, the money Frank and co could make. If the promoters hadn't been so greedy they wouldn't be in this mess now. Boxing needs Sky because the sport is so poorly regulated that its own Board exerts no influence on what TV deals are in place. Frankly, **** Sky.
Sorry for the long post, but the history is important when people parrot the "Sky is good for boxing" bollocks. Sky, and the promoters' greed, is responsible for boxing becoming a minority interest.
Very nice post that chronicles the events of recent years very well, the only thing I would add is **** the Promoters they did the real screw job here not Sky who after all only care about their bottom line.
I for one have never said that,I totally agree with what you say here.Sky took the sport away from most people,they priced pubs out and took boxing off anyone who did not have sky(which back in the 90s was most people).They started the horrible p.p.v. **** we now have and to be honest I could go on all day about how horrible they are.
Hopping into bed with one promoter takes away any incentive to put on good fights. Honestly, Sky have been shameful with some of the **** they've funded. Between Maloney's afrobum of the month club and Frank's stable of **** for poor Ricky Burns... Making deals is just silly. Matchroom will not be any better. They provide an inordinate amount of Sky's output and will take advantage of it when they need to.
Bad example, as the likes of Celine Dion/Tom Jones get silly money and it is in their interests, as they maybe popular singers, but creatively they were always poor. So it does not matter, when the gigs finish, they can just go around the non Vegas cabaret circuit. But that happened to all of non Football, remember the only live football you got pre 1983 was the Cup Final and the England/Scotland game. Football just exploded, and after the Taylor report/The Premier League and Euro 96 it had the ingredients to dominate. The likes of ******, who for all the grief he gets, broke though the British boxing cartel and helped pave the way for the new generation of promoters, recognized the need for change. Boxing even in the last boom of Benn and Eubank and the coming of a young Naseem was losing market share to Football, the promoters could not give away boxing for free on TV anymore. SKY was still the major player in the British market at the time. The Regan's and Neary's were not working, and SKY had created its first truly homegrown star in Hatton Joe, outside of Wales was never loved. Having respect for a good fighter is one thing, but being genuinely loved is quite another. Lloyd Honeyghan had the respect and a BBC contract, but when it came down to it, Bruno had to be used as Honeyghan was not attracting the audiences on Saturday nights. Grade was pragmatic, if the deal could of been made, then there would of been forgiveness. Boxing costs a fortune to produce, and having even 6/7 million on a Saturday night is not going to cover that cost. How comes The Premiership keeps its appeal despite never having shown a live match on Terrestrial TV? SKY did not ruin boxing, football did, the sport is simply not as popular as it once was. Coverage wise, we have never had it so good as fans. Promoters are always going to try and make money. Boxing since the beginnings of the modern sport has always been poorly regulated and nothing has ever really been done to sort that out, because it is very hard to do so. The British Boxing Board of Control is as good and as strong a Commission in the boxing world.
If we teamed up with other related sports surely BoxNation could compete with Challenge TV for TNA Wrestling, they could also show British Wrestling at the old Saturday tea time slot. I would put on lots of amataur shows from clubs all around the country and get judo, karate etc on in the daytime
Blaming it all on sky is way to simplistic. Isn't darts a minority sport which was dead on terrestrial tv yet is now more popular than ever and has been on sky for 15 years. Nobody gives a damn about the darts shown on bbc every January. Look at other sports like golf, cricket, and rugby. They are rarely on terrestrial TV but they are no worse off. In a sport like boxing you are always going to only have a few select stars with cross over appeal whether it's on terrestrial or sky TV.
TBooze, I won’t reply to everything you’ve said because a lot of it is ass-backwards. I will reply to a couple… Ok, so first the costs: Boxing is not a massively expensive sport to broadcast. Often there are three to four mobile cameras and a static one for crowd shots. The crews number around 10-15 people. The reason ITV didn’t make much money out of it was the bizarre decision to bump it on to ITV4 with a tiny audience share and little advertising revenue to cover costs. Audley’s fights with Danny Williams and Michael Sprott drew huge numbers, as did Khan and Calzaghe’s. The advertising revenue was substantial and why the network signed a multi-year deal. ITV spends much more on original dramas that draw similar numbers yet remain profitable. Second, boxing’s audience share “dwindling”. Eubank-Benn II was in 1993 and represents a high watermark for audience share of boxing on terrestrial TV. Naturally those numbers were lower afterwards because the sport had peaked, but Hamed was ascending and numbers were good. That was the reason Sky swooped in – it was a popular sport, it was easy to control since there was only one major promoter and he’d bring all the talent. They simply offered more money but with less viewers. Frank didn’t see the “need for change”, he saw a “way to make more money”. Tennis somehow managed to survive in the UK as a major sport. Why? Because at the very least Wimbledon has always been on terrestrial TV (and looks like it always will be thankfully). That gives access and allows the audience to be familiar. If Mitchell-Murray had been on ITV that Saturday night the whole country would have been talking about it. Those two would have been stars. DeGale and Groves would have been a huge event seen by millions and building their careers rather than disappearing on Sky PPV. Sky is bad for boxing’s long-term health. Until promoters get their **** together and work on long-term solutions rather than short-term profit it will stay that way.
Because no one really cares about darts. It’s a pub sport for fat alcoholics. Bollocks. Golf benefits enormously from its BBC coverage – it wouldn’t have half the profile in the UK if it was solely on Sky. Same for the cricket and the rugby. The Six Nations is the biggest rugby even in Europe in terms of the money and viewership it generates. What's it broadcast on? BBC and ITV. See a pattern? The point is that those stars were built on ITV or the BBC. Calzaghe wasn’t a crossover star for any of his tenure on Sky but, soon as he moves to ITV, he becomes huge.
