Rumors that C5 might be pulling out of boxing

How does it cost allot to put on...?

I don't understand.

 

Because it is a live TV event, that means having cameramen, directors, technical staff etc. all working on a Friday or Saturday night, plus paying the promoter whatever their fee is and then hoping it all works out OK. The reality is often that the main event may be a disappointment and if it is over very quickly means they have to show unheralded fighters on the undercard at primetime TV slots.

Compare the cost of that whole thing to the cost of a reality TV show when you have one cameraman, one producer (that does everything) and then a runner that probably gets paid almost nothing and it makes sense. Plus they don't have to pay the participants anything for those reality shows, TV execs simply think like this:

"What is the cheapest thing I can put on, that will get decent figures, that will appeal to advertisers, that is least likely to blow up in my face or get me sacked that won't offend viewers?"

That's how they think, the money is all in the advertising revenue and there are only so many Army recruitment ads or lager ads that will take up the spaces for a 90 minute or 2 hour boxing show. It's too much of a risk for them and doesn't present any obvious rewards other than a few boxing fans giving them the thumbs up and maybe a small string to their bow in terms of backing sport and getting live sport back on their screens, which means little or nothing to their shareholders.

 

The problem for the BBC is that one of their weekend nights is taken up by Match of the Day and that isn't going to change any time soon. It's worth noting that a couple of the Bruno fights against no hopers in the early nineties (according to Dispatches back in the day) cost the BBC over 1 million quid each- much more than the Harrison contract in total.

I hope boxing can stay on terrestrial TV as it benefits the sport as a whole.

 

The issue with the BBC is that it's license payer's money and they don't have enough confidence in boxing to risk the wrath of the tax payer by investing it in a sport that is unpopular with a lot of people.

The BBC hardly has any sport any more anyway, if it is something considered to be "of national interest" though they are obligated to broadcast it, I would argue that a big world title fight or unification fight involving a British fighter is of national interest. They have had to sack a lot of staff though and relocate to Manchester too in a cost saving measure so it's unlikely they'll start splashing out millions on boxing anytime soon.

 

Agree with this. Sadly boxing is deemed as a niche sport in this country and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

Every household by law has to pay a TV licence fee of 145 pounds a year. Those of us who want boxing on the BBC contribute tens of millions to the annual licence fee. The casual fans who would tune in contribute a lot more.

500,00 households watching boxing = 72 million pounds a year.

At least 6 million of that could pay for live boxing. The BBC could also make the money back by selling the rights to foreign broadcasters.

Obviously other factors need to be considered. However the money is there to fund live boxing on the BBC.

Those people who don't like boxing are not paying for it. Boxing on the BBC would be funded by the people who want to watch it. People, who by law, have to pay a licence fee.

The BBC should make programmes for everyone. Regardless of politics, taste and opinion.

 

Sky should give Hennessey some dates. He has a decent enough stable to generate enough interest IMO.

 

You're preaching to the perverted I am afraid, obviously I would like to see boxing back on the BBC but the way that you have summed it up there is a little bit of a simple view of things.

Unfortunately we don't get a referendum or to fill in a survey on what we think our license fee should go towards, it's not as simply as just saying "this many fans = this much money" as a lot of it gets swallowed up in things production costs, staffing etc.


The BBC are also not really allowed to sell their content as they're not supposed to act like a private company, however, this is now changing. They have started to sell advertising space for programs screened abroad and also selling content to other foreign broadcasters in order to get some money in. If that continues and the BBC gets richer then maybe they'll make a foray back into live sport but for the time being it's not going to happen and if there really was such support for boxing then there would have been a big uproar about it being removed but there hasn't been!

 

BBC should be made to show a mixture of shows as whats the point having 4 channels of the same ****?

They could actually have a dedicated sports channel instead of BBC 4 and just show small hall fights with MOTD, 5 Nations, Ice Hockey, Basketball, NFL etc then highlights of old fights and things like the ESPN 30 4 30 films.
Wouldnt be that expensive and as somebody said earlier what is our licence fee's for? I watch maybe 2/3 shows a week on BBC rest i pay for thru my SKY subscription if BBC wont show a mixture then you should have the option of cancelling TV licence

 

Might be difficult to understand for a ****** like yourself but you can actually be a boxing fan without watching fights on Channel 5

why your bringing Khan into it? why do you have an obsession for khan?

 

U wouldnt be shocked if Channel 4 was to do something. They have money and were rumoured to want the F1 when bbc decided to cut down on there coverage and bid for it.

They show NFL at night and the horse racing. They could easily add boxing into if the right people were involved is my guess. They were always the mavericks in British tv with some of the content they have shown in the past and I guess there would be more interest in them picking up more sports for there station but what sport they go for is the biggest question.

 

i think itv could get back into boxing there sports portfolio is expanding they got the frech open last year, they have darts, and i read somewhere they just got snooker

 

ITV would like it back yes but what people need to understand instead of seeing things in such a straight forward manner is that ITV have shareholders. Their share price has fallen, they're making cuts, staff are being made redundant, they're in cost saving measures as we speak. Boxing is an expensive risk to them, the X Factor is their biggest show and that just had it's worst viewing figures for many years. That means next year when the viewing figures are down they may get stiffed by the advertisers and sponsors of that show which to ITV is an absolutely huge loss. Those are the reasons they won't be back in boxing any time soon, you don't have to take my word for it if you don't want to.

 

Are Sky allowed to make a deal with another promoter or will that void Hearn's current deal? Hearn's deal may have a clause in it where he is the sole promoter on Sky Sports and if Sky bring another promoter on board then Hearn could potentially sue Sky.

 

The BBC has made money from selling its shows and show concepts since the 60s. I don’t think it could make any money from licensing a third-party content owner’s (a promoter, in boxing’s case) material. The Beeb owns the broadcast, but not the rights to screen that fight outwith its original licensing terms.

Anyway…

This notion that the BBC won’t show boxing for political reasons is just stupid. The BBC doesn’t show boxing because it’s a pain in the backside for them. How often does it show one-off sporting events? Single-showing dramas?

It’s incredibly rare because the BBC’s strategy is based around serial content. So, football is a weekly sport, generating hours of content for the schedules. Wimbledon gives it two weeks worth of material, spread over its flagship channels (1, 2 and HD). Even the more obscure sports it covers are on a regular basis (curling, snooker, etc) with large, flagship events that last days or weeks.

Boxing is completely irregular and short-form by nature. It’s a single night of material and there’s no guarantee of its length or quality. In addition, it’s expensive to broadcast, you can’t build economies of scale when every new card requires separate mounting, publicising it is hard when there’s no rhythm to it, and the efforts of dealing with multiple promoters and, often disproportionate costs, mean it’s just not worth the Beeb’s while.

The left/right wing thing makes very little sense anyway. If the BBC is more left-leaning, it should be MORE inclusive of the lower classes (hence why socialism is a left-wing ideology). I suspect it points to how the “ruling class” are completely bereft of any political ideology other than that which supports their own personal gain.