ESPN has just bought up the rights for the UFC , is this a good or a bad thing for boxing , surley they have a duty as a sports channel to show some boxing http://www.techwatch.co.uk/2009/07/31/espn-signs-up-the-ufc/
Sorry to disappoint you, but they don't "have a duty" to show Boxing in the slightest. They have a duty to make money, and UFC makes a lot of it. Boxing unfortunately doesn't.
This is good, i like the UFC. I think its up to Hayemaker, Warren, Hennesey and co to approach ESPN rather than the opther way round..
Correct, and cable customers will get ESPN free for the first month. Sky might have it free for a month, but not confirmed yet.
Well if that's the case then why was Setanta so keen to show it? If that's he case then why is the most a UFC fighter has ever been paid is less than half a million.... yet in Floyd Mayweather's last two fights he generated a quater of a billion? UFC has never sold a stadium before has it? Hatton can fight Juan Laz...who? and 60,000 seats have been sold what do you think really generates more money then?
**** espn until i hear they are definitely showing boxing. if they have ufc and nothing else this is terrible news as i like mma but there is no way i am going to subscribe just for that
The half a million figure is complete rubbish mate. After PPV cuts, the top stars earn far more, well into 7 figures. UFC hasn't sold out a stadium but that is not to say it couldn't. They are very cautious about running a stadium show but as soon as MMA is regulated in Hawaii or Toronto, they will run a stadium. Could they do 60,000 in Manchester, no but seriously, how many boxers draw 60,000 people? UFC 100 just did 1.5 million PPV buys in the US. Only a handful of boxing shows have ever beaten that number. I'm not burying boxing, it has a lot to offer a channel but don't bury your head in the sand to the merits of other sports and the weaknesses of boxing in 2009
I'm not.... Calzaghe can also sell that many tickets, along with a host of Maxican stars like Morales and Barrera have I beleive. Top stars in the UFC could never sell that many tickets with the brand 'UFC' above their shoulders.... and if they are earning in the millions, which I'm not sure if they actually are.... then they certainly don't get anything like somone like Mayweather gets. If you got Anderson Silva's earnings and put them against Floyd's the difference would be staggering! By the way Mayweather vs Pacquiao over in this country I beleive would sell out a stadium, maybe even Wembley?.... and they're not even British fighters! By the way I have nothing against UFC, I love watching Anderson Silva who fights like an artist. But ESPN only won't be interested in boxing in this only going by they're own countries viewing figures for the sport, which isn't very good due to the fact they don't have any stars like HBO and showtime do.:bbb
More than the amount of MMA fighters that could? Im glad ESPN have rights to the UFC, although if the chances of boxing being shown on it become lesser. Than **** ESPN. As said above, promotions such as Hayemaker, Henessey need to approach them.
I'm talking currently. Obviously boxers have drawn big crowds. Absolutely more boxers could draw 60,000 people than MMA fighters. In fact, no MMA fighter alone could touch that figure. It would have to be a UFC show with the right ticket pricing but they still do $5 million plus gates for the top shows in Vegas and 7 figure gates around the world. And then on PPV, there is no comparison right now. Mayweather-Marquez won't touch UFC 100 on PPV and there is far more money in PPV than ticket sales. To say that ESPN aren't showing boxing because of how boxing is viewed in the US is ridiculous. What is your excuse for BBC and ITV not showing it then?
The thing the UFC offers that boxing boxing hasn't is consistency. Shows are already planned through the middle of next year. Boxing goes on a fight by fight basis. BUT, now with the Super Middleweight Tournament, with the fights planned till early 2011, a network could be more willing to pick it up.
