What Makes A Fight/Card PPV?

This isn't a smart answer, but it's a PPV fight if it's on PPV.

What makes a fight a success is another thing, and what makes a fight popular are separate questions, but for me, there's absolutely no question that Frampton v Warrington represents the higher standard of boxing but Chisora Whyte will be far more popular.

 

World class fighters on top of their game fighting to prove who is the best in the division. Anything less is theft.

 

Sky and BT wont pay the rights fees for fights to not be on PPV. Its a necessary evil for big fights to happen. People say US wouldnt be expected to pay for these fights, but Showtime/Fox/ESPN pay millions for cards, UK its hundreds of thousands. Until DAZN come along and chuck a few hundred mil at UK boxing were stuck with it this way.

 

If you can only arrange a fight with two boxers by the ppv format. This is why i have an issue with two fighter from the same promotion being ppv, they should always be a way to these fights.

 

2 world class fighters, in their prime, fighting for a belt

 

It will be ppv if they think people will buy it. Simple as that really.

Some fights appeal to me which I buy some don't which I don't there doesn't have to be any formula.

I paid for haye Bellew and I will pay for Whyte chisora but won't pay for frampton Warrington. Which will make no sense to some as one is a title fight but it just doesn't interest me.

 

The US is just entering the point the UK is in, where fighters purse demands go beyond what the networks want to pay. The answer becomes PPV for any relevant fight. Its why DAZN will ultimately win. UK doesnt have the DAZN option yet, so we have to put up with it.

 

A PPV fight is any old turd the PPV Mugths are willing to pay for a smell.

Forget about elite fighters, world title belts or any other criteria which could be used to justify PPV fights.

It is simply Broadcasters, Promoters and Millionaire Boxers sucking every possible penny out of PPV Mugths.

 

The problem with PPV is that is used to top up the money of the bigger fighters on the bill but in turn you get. Complete stacked card without many 50/50 fights.

Generally PPV cards mean more money for the 2 main fighters, more money for the broadcaster/promoters and half dozen eastern europens fighting for a packet of beef monster munch and a can of lilt.

 

The best vs the best.

 

This is a silly way of thinking imo. To say it's a necessary evil isn't right

What are the boxers going to do if their extraordinary purse demands arent met? Retire? Are they hell, they need to fight to survive and make a living. So soon as everyone stops paying for PPV the sooner it will die and we will see all the fights for free

I don't get why people don't see that

 

It should really be a world title fight or at least an eliminator as the main attraction. Then a pretty good undercard that involves a British/ebu/commonwealth title fight as well plus a few prospects.
As of now something like this would be ideal....
AJ vs Wilder - world title
Johnson vs Buatsi - British title
Matthews vs Cameron commonwealth title
Tetely vs Mckinson international title
Joe cordina
Katie Taylor

 

I think PPV fights themselves as an individual idea should be hard to come by. If you've got two elite fighters or at least two of the best in a top tier division (with public interest) then you can talk about PPV. But it still needs a card to prop it up for the most part.
AJ-Wlad had a poor card, but that fight in itself I don't mind being PPV. GGG-Canelo the same, although the rematch had a more respectable card which was cool to see. It really ought to be for a world title as well, otherwise I feel it's hard to justify paying extra money for.

The reality is that very few of these fights couldn't happen without the additional revenue generated by PPV sales, and that's the problem for me.