Premier Boxing Champions Will Fail. Why? The Law Of Diminishing Utility Of Course

I don't think PBC is even meant to last and I feel sorry for the people who can't see through the Haymon-entity.

 

But surely you can admit that you're just guessing here? Diminishing utility dictates that there is a breaking point where the returns start to diminish. However, you don't know what that breaking point is, you couldn't possibly know. Predicting failure due to oversaturation of a brand new product that only airs a couple of times a month doesn't make sense.

It seems that you're argument is very subjective in nature. I'm not sure why you're trying to hide behind the facade of objectivity. When have you seen a Garcia/Salka match on PBC? Their cards have actually been pretty good. Instead of trying to use some faulty argument about diminishing utility, your thread title should be "I don't like the matchups on PBC and I think it will fail". That's actually an honest discussion right there. Time will tell if that's accurate.

 

So are you arguing that Haymon's fighters are not being paid properly? Are any of them complaining about how they're treated and/or paid?

 

Excellent point.

 

Haymon fighters make a lot of money. Leo Santa Cruz made 750K in his last fight. Golovkin made that vs Geale and he was headlining on HBO(of course GGG has other markets where his own company makes additional profits).
Mike Perez only got 60K on that card :-(

Haymon pays his fighters and puts on good fights.

 

i agree and also u have to add that people will just google "boxing champion"and GGG will show up or kov or klit or ward or froch.PBC is not sustainable and at the end of the day its a pyramid scheme.

 

I don't see how Haymon is not going to run out of money first he says he has a 5 year plan but he will run out of money unless he can figure out a way to start turning a profit and fast.

 

Agreed.I have espoused this from the beginning.Haymon has "investors" who have given him a war chest of a couple of hundred million dollars,but with the time buys on tv,production costs and the outrageous purse money he is paying he loses at least 5 million per broadcast,if not more.His events are papered and free tickets are given out to create an image of interest.The tv ratings are poor at best so unless he counts on Floyd's commission for his fights,he has not enough revenue to come close to breaking even.I have no idea what his end game is,unless it's a pay boxing channel in a couple of years but every time a "fight channel" has been proposed reality sets in and it's a no-go.
I would hate to be an investor in this scheme unless his investpors need a loss leader for tax purposes.It does smack of a pyramid scheme-or worse!

 

The Diminishing Utility thing is social science, not economics, and doesn't apply universally.

Let's take pizza as the commodity: when I was growing up, there were a couple of pizza joints in my town. Neither delivered. Dominoes opened up and delivered. The others started to deliver.

Now I guess we haven't reached the tipping point, because today -- some 35 years later -- there are about 20 or 30 pizza joints in town and they all deliver (except for one by-the-slice place). Now I'm sure there is a point where if 100 more pizza places opened they wouldn't all thrive and some of them would close ... but I don't think the demand for pizza would lessen.

So there are about 10 times as many pizza places in town and the city population has grown maybe 25 pecent in that time.

That's your "macaroni" argument.

When I was growing up, you got a couple of NFL games on Sunday and then Monday Night Football. Now you get Thursday, three games on Sunday and Monday night ... and more people are watching football and the NFL is thriving more than ever.

PBC will either fail or it will not, but the idea that adding boxing on free TV and putting more boxing on cable will "kill it" is silly ... because it hasn't exactly been thriving with maybe two or three HBO/Showtime shows per month, Friday Night Fights and the odd cable show here or there. If one applies the reverse of this model to an extreme, you'd get the idea that if they only showed boxing once every year on TV then it would be more popular than ever ... which isn't the case.

 

i don't like the pbc brand but its here so i will ride out the wave. i see pbc as somewhat of a filler. extra content for hardcores.

think about if there was no pbc at all but haymon still managing all those fighters. haymon can stack every hbo and showtime card, maximize profits for his clients, have promoters/networks bidding on his best fights.

it is the pbc brand that drove haymon to decide for his boxers to not fight certain fights or turn down offers, etc hence all the hate for haymon.

 

This is THE POINT.Network tv has NOT invested in this project.Haymon is PAYING for network time and I have noticed little to NO sponser ads on his broadcasts.Tell me how he is making money for himself and his "investors".In addition I would love to know just who these investors are!:deal

 

yes, but pbc was in the works. he was consolidating power and signing boxers while prepping those boxers to run out their contract, protect their belts/0's, save fights for pbc, etc. haymon was clearly going to be a rival to the promoters and networks. without pbc, haymon is just another cog, albeit very big and influential cog, in the already set system. with pbc, haymon is creating a whole new system that competes with the old and never shall the two meet except when there are purse bids.

 

And if what Haymon is offering ends up as sub-par entertainment then the networks loose buisness.

PBC is obviously a long time investment and i personally feel that all it comes down to is content quality in the eyes of those who watch.

So far Haymon has delivered some good fights but he needs to up his game even more.
Risk captivizes ones imagination and glues eyes to the TV sets.

P.S PBC will also be on Radio now :!: