this is true but if it becomes a never ending cycle, who knows how high it could go up to if every time its hiked up by £3
We have been paying for heavyweight boxing for almost 30yrs ... When Sky first stated to watch the big early morning fights in Vegas including Bruno v Tyson in 89 you also had to subscribe to the movie channels ... Get over it ...its £20 to watch , if you ain't interested don't get it.... It's like moaning at the pass back rule in football..
£19.95, I can see it happening, Sky and Hearn know they can take liberties and they will. I will repeat something I've said before, if they want to do a PPV scale similar to football matches I would probably suffer it. For example, a star rating system , 3* event £10, 4* event £15 and 5* event £20. That to me is a little fairer, because if they raise the price for this Joshua Vs Klitschko fight then I don't think they will go back to £16.95 afterwards, even really poor PPV cards will be that price.
Problem with this model is there are no guarantees of what will happen in the fight. A great fight on paper could suck.
Looking back at Sky Box Office over the past 3 years, nearly every top of the bill PPV fight has been an absolute stinker. PPV now includes one sided Joshua or GGG fights and no consequence fights such as Bellew v Clev or Bellew v Dave TV Star wearing a nappy. Never buying another PPV again regardless of who is fighting as simply Sky Sports subcribers should not be fleeced for more money on top of a stiff Sky Sports Subscription. Can understand PPV for non Sky Sports subscribers but Sky taking the urine big time and enough is enough. Surely soon, there will has to be a change to the Sky/Matchroom internal logo 'Fools and their money easily parted'.
Sky Sports are some of the worst channels on Sky, IMHO. Eurosport is much much better. Sky Sports is mainly montages and replays. The best of Johnny Nelson? Eric Bristo? Nick Faldo? Who cares? I can see all their highlights EVER for literally nothing courtesy of Youtube.
LOL you are off your head. Of course there is times when there is no live stuff to show but it pumps out way more live stuff than Eurosport could. They just spread it out over 5 channels ( 6 with mix) so there is hardly ever any clashes. I'd rather that and meaning they have filler shows than for stuff to be hidden on a red button or online only.
I have a TV Guide in front of me. Let's start... Sky 1: Darts Gold/Darts/Darts Gold/Premier League Legends Sky 2: Time of our Lives/Premier League World/Mat Le Tissier story Sky 4: Seniors Golf/PGA Golf/Great sporting moments Sky 5: Time of our lives/Footballs greatest players/PL100/FGP/WWE That's a great deal for what you pay is it? You talk about live, but there's more re-runs there than there is live stuff! Filler? YOU PAY for filler, idiot. Let's say that you're NOT a Darts fan, what will you watch tonight that you couldn;t find on Youtube?
The narrative Hearn et al spin these fights can't happen if not on PPV is total bull****. Yes they can. They can't without talentless scum like him and Warren pocketing the same amount as fighters who put their lives on the line for our entertainment. There are many models to make money. If the event is big enough, the platform accessible, advertising pre-sold by viewing figures anything is possible. Louis CK stopped taking guaranteed fees 'purses' and reduced ticket prices by cutting out middle men, their fees and he made way more money and fans paid less. There are no journalist anymore just huge corporations' mouthpieces and dumb fans with camcorders kissing promoters asses. I've never heard one ask why there are ads between rounds when fans pay £70 subscription and then £15 PPV. They even apologise after asking is Joshua v Molina PPV. Everyone is slating Eubank but if he gets a unification fight with Groves on ITV he could make more than Joshua by doing 500k buys at £15 and none going to Matchroom or BoxNation middle men/ second hand car salesman.