How did Boxing slowly fade away from terrestrial TV?

I think Audley's deal with the BBC turned the terrestrial network's away from the sport.

 

two things that have removed boxing from terestrial; satelite TV and greed, which are inextricabily bound these days. Now greed was always there but the sport was showcased right so it could afford the scars from that greed, Have greed in the form of PPV and you end up with a flat linning business and a stagnant fanbase...what people have to understand is its all about being visible.

PPV: years ago guys like Hatton and Calzaghe would've been on terestrial and you can imagine some of the numbers their big fights would've drawn, those are things that keep the sport alive and generate and add new fans...

promoters who only care about lining their pockets, over valuing the product, guys like Benn and Eubank were lucky to make a million against eachother and it was two of the biggest British fights ever, you couldn't get more mainstream then them and now you've got guys like Khan and Froch complaining of being "low balled" if an terestrial TV offer comes in.

in short it has to be the appearence of satelite TV thats had the most impact on the sport disappearing from "free TV", lets take Calzaghe again a fighter who should and would be a huge cross over star in a different era but is not and comes round at the worst possible time just when the "golden" era is ending and the satelite age is beginining, Calzaghe symbolizes the effect of digital TV on boxing what made it even worse for him is that when he came on the scene those networks weren't as big so they'll pay just more then the terestrial TV networks to get the event and therefore attract subscribers, the promoter then doesn't look at the long term and takes the money for less exposure.

The effect is the masses are not able to see the sports best doing their work, I always say this but imagine the biggest tennis games being so limited to such a small audience would that sport be as big? would their participants be known or cared about? of course not, to me its a miracle the boxing is not even in more dire straits.

The only hope in the future is that subscription TV will get bigger and have a wider viewership which will allow more people to see and follow fighters careers.

 

I think the emergence, growth and eventual dominance of Sky in the uk sports market is the biggest factor. The terrestrial stations cant compete financially with sky, its that simple. If the BBC, ITV, Channel4 or 5 could have afforded to get the likes of Hatton, Hamed, Haye and Calzaghe they would all have been on terrestrial telly. But they cant afford to match what sky offers, especially when fights are often starting at 3 or 4 am if they are from the states, or when you consider they could pay out a lot of money for a fight that ends in a single round, or in a terrible decision.

 

I do not think this is true. I am not sure how old you are but if you are talking about 20 years ago, your very much mistaken. Fights from the states were rarley shown live and you mostly got highlights a week later. Last year there were probably 100 live boxing shows shown on Setanta and Sky, no way were there that many 20 years ago when there were only 3 channels.

Khan was getting very good numbers, as have all boxing shows on Free TV in the past couple of years. For advertisers its not all about ratings, its the demographic of viewers. They want women aged 18-30, which Boxing does not attract in great numbers.

Part of the reason the Olympians will not be as popular is less tv exposure by being on subscription and ppv tv. However the fact that Harrison was a heavyweight gold medel winner, and Amir Khan was the only boxer in the 2004 Olympics, and is a British Muslim meant they both gained allot more publicity than any of the current Olympians could ever achieve.

As I said above, its not all about viewers. Boxing is more expensive to show than other Sports. If boxing made ITV money they would show it ahead of other programmes, it obviously doesnt. Its partly to do with being in a credit crunch, but also because promoters demand to much for a poor product.

Its paticuarly irritates me when people on here slag of other sports. To be a profesional in all of these sports requires dedication and a high level skills. Tennis in paticular at the top level pushes the body to its limits, just like Boxing.

The tennis shown by the BBC includes Wimbledon and the French Open, two of the biggest tournements where the best players in the world competem,along with the Davis Cup which features the best 4 players from each country in the World. Men, Woman and Children all watch and play tennis.

The only Golf that you see on Free-TV is the European and US Tours, along with the major championships where the best players in the world.

Moto GP is the top Motorbike racing, only the best 22 riders in the world compete. The rights are also very cheap and you get a guarenteed amount of races each year.

The Snooker gets massive figures on the BBC. The rights are cheap, and they show the last 16 of major tournements which involve the best players in the world. These means that the majority of matches our close 50-50's

In all the sports you mentioned we reguarly see the elite level competing agaisnt eachother. In the past 4 years of boxing on ITV, only 2 world class boxers have been shown (Joe Calzaghe and Carl Froch). Only twice were they in fights against world class opposition (Lacy and Pascal) and they were never for the "Undisputed Title". The cost of showing a fight between 2 world class fighters, especially when it invovles a British fighter, is astronomical. What we get to see is domestic level. They do not bother showing domestic level Bike racing, golf or tennis, so why should they show domestic level boxing?

All of the sports you mentioned have one governing body, who look out for the best intrests of the sports and not themselves. All athletes perform under the banner of that governing body. The governing bodys put on the major events. In Boxing you have severall governing bodys, all with different rules, and every single fighter is fighting under a different Promoter who put on there own shows and have little interest in matching there fighter with a fighter who is with a rival promoter.

In Boxing, you cannot guarentee the amount of time a contest will last. The majority of fights are mismatches, even when you do get a world title fight, its for a versain of a world title, of which there are 4+, not an actual world title fight.

On saturday night we saw John Murrary fight a guy that had lost his last two fights to average opposition. It was a complete mismatch. The reason for this is that John Murray is still a prospect, so he still needs to learn. Andy Murray had only just turned profesional and he was playing at wimbledon and facing the like of Federer and Roddick. Andy Murray has to learn but he does so by facing the best and learning from it.

Before the Murray vs Thaxton fight, the undercard involved fighters most boxing fans has never heard off, and a guy that is only being shown becuase his cousin is a famous fighter, who is not even famous for his boxing skill but for being a tall loud mouth with a cool name. Even when you do get good fights, you cannot be sure that of a correct outcome due to bias judges and corrupt promoters.

Boxing is the most ****ed up sport. The only reason i watch it is because the fighters themselves show more courage to enter that ring than most of us could ever comprihend. They are all warriors and will always get my support. But i fully understand why the public and the TV companies do not want to touch the sport.

Rant over....going to bed.

 

National football looks to be possibly slowly falling into a similar type fate.

 

They want young men and women.

 

Greed