If a boxing only channel would not pay

Discussion in 'British Boxing Forum' started by colinthfc, May 12, 2009.


  1. colinthfc

    colinthfc Guest

    Many of us have requested a boxing only channel whereby it is pointed out repeatedly that because we are in a minority such a channel would not work commercially or financially.

    The problem for Setanta is they went all out for football and soon realised that need very deep pockets to take on Sky, and us boxing fans pay the price.

    Therefore how would advise a future broadcaster who wanted to set up a Sports channel which included boxing?

    I spoke to a non boxing friend who said that he signed up to Setanta solely for the golf - How many people are like him.

    I am not in the slightest interested in Angling and find it pointless to catch a fish and put it back again later, but accept there are more anglers than big fight fans. If there was a channel with lots of angling programming this would be low budget, but would attract a massive market.

    Secondly I would go for the petrol heads. High quality in depth coverage of a wide range of non F1 motor racing (F1 would eat any budget and BBC cover for free). Rallying, motorcross etc

    Possibly athletics, and some minority sports. I would avoid football, rugby and cricket as other channels do it.

    A channel set up like this could afford to be the 'Home of Boxing'
     
  2. Haglers barber

    Haglers barber New Member Full Member

    52
    0
    Nov 8, 2008
    I think the difficulty for a boxing channel relates to sponsorship. Certain sports will let the TV have the shows for free (many extreme sports do this) so the sponsor of any particular event will be guaranteed advertising exposure. To a certain extent this is how Golf works and why sponsors like it. 4 Days of your brand being splashed over TV screens around the world and hitting your chosen demographic.
     
  3. robpalmer135

    robpalmer135 Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,342
    0
    Jun 29, 2007
    Its quite simple Boxing does not make the TV channels enough money to justify spending there budget on it. If it did, we would be seeing as much boxing as we do football.

    Sky do not show any US boxing because they do not gain or loose enough subscriptions from it and do not sell enough advertising space to cover the cost of buying rights.

    Setanta are buying less boxing cards for the same reason.

    Golf, F1 get massive viewers and subscribers.

    Tennis, Rugby, Cricket, UFC get decent viewers and are not as expensive as boxing.

    Boxing get decent viewers but is nearly as expensive as Golf, F1.
     
  4. PaddyD1983

    PaddyD1983 Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,919
    2
    Dec 24, 2007
    Unfortunately Rob is nailed on.
     
  5. Haglers barber

    Haglers barber New Member Full Member

    52
    0
    Nov 8, 2008
    The main crux is how much does it cost to show the different sports not how high the viewing figures are. Boxing gets highrer viewing figures than golf but most golf you can buy in from the states for sweet FA. The major channels show it in the states due to being able to get advertising revenue for it. Lets face it were boxing on terrestial tv a big fight would get loads more viewers than an F1 race or the British Open but the costs are prohibitive as has been mentioned
     
  6. chrisfinch

    chrisfinch Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,173
    638
    Mar 21, 2009
    Highly doubt it to be honest. Not got any stats to back it up unfortunately as big fights havent really been on terrestrial TV recently. Boxings popular, but nowhere near so as F1 or Golf.
     
  7. Haglers barber

    Haglers barber New Member Full Member

    52
    0
    Nov 8, 2008
    What I meant Chris was a mjor fight on terrestial such as a McGuigan v Pedroza 17 million and the Eubank v Benn fights 10 mill +

    I can guarantee F1 and Golf would struggle to get even close to this given equal advertising and sture of event
     
  8. chrisfinch

    chrisfinch Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,173
    638
    Mar 21, 2009
    Well yea they wouldn't get close to 10 million, but those figures are from years ago and there aren't any British Boxers with that high a profile to draw that many viewers. Possibly only Hatton, if he had the years of build up (WBU, beating Zoo and those early american fights on terrestrial tv), but he didn't.

    And of course with a heck of a lot more channels than in the early 90's there are more things to watch and viewing figures are down in all forms of TV.

    When in the late 80's/early 90's (before the major, major sky take off) there were only four channels. Casual viewers (not neccesarily even boxing fans, just those who are aware of eubank and benn) may watch the likes of Eubank and Benn due to their public standing. However these days, if you were to put a Hatton or a Calzaghe in that slot, yes the viewing figures would be great but there would only be Boxing fans watching. in 2009 people would watch CSI, Lost, The Simpsons, Football etc that are available on sky.

    I think that would make it a lot more even between a big fight scheduled on a saturday evening when people may be out, to that comfortable weekend afternoon slot that is perfect for golf, F1, Rugby, Football and the like.
     
  9. robpalmer135

    robpalmer135 Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,342
    0
    Jun 29, 2007
    If a fight like Benn vs Eubank was on now it would be Sky Box Office or Setanta. Sky were barley around back then. Also back then channels got more viewers as there was less choice. BBC and ITV cannot afford to outbid Sky or Setanta. Also any fight recently that has gained even close to as much intrest as those (Calzaghe vs Hopkins, Jones and Kessler, Hatton vs Mayweather and Pacquiao, Khan vs Barrera, Haye vs Enzo) have been on at past 2am.

    Hamilton winning the world title last year got 10mil+
    When Faldo was top of his game golf was getting 10mil+
    Federer vs Nadal got 8mil+
    If Murray got to the Wimbledon final it would get 15mil+




    Say there are as many hardcore golf fans as there are boxing (infact theres far more into golf). Golf is an upper to middle class sport whereas boxing is a lower class sport, meaning a company like Sky is more likley to get Joe the golf fan to spend £20 a month and Dave the Boxing fan.
     
  10. robpalmer135

    robpalmer135 Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,342
    0
    Jun 29, 2007
    Also a big boxing match that get 5mil plus (i.e a genuine world title fight) happens maybe twice a year at the most.

    F1 you get 18 races I think and they get 5mil plus each time.

    Golf and Tennis you have the 4 major events each year and that gives you 2 weeks worth of programmeing that covers 8 hours a day.

    Boxing you get 1 fight that lasts between 3 minutes to and hour.
     
  11. LosG

    LosG Member Full Member

    160
    0
    Feb 22, 2009
    Boxxings biggest problem in terms of TV advertisement is its unpredictability. A fight could end in round one, or round twelve. If the fights only lasts twos rounds, then the ad space latter on becomes worthless.
     
  12. robpalmer135

    robpalmer135 Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,342
    0
    Jun 29, 2007
    Boxing get huge money from advertisers in the US. A major problem is Sky, Setanta, ITV do not know how to market boxing to advertisers, and the promoters have the same problem.

    Look at HBO and Showtimes broadcasts. Chocolate Bars, Energy Drinks, Films, Computer games all being advertised on there broadcast and at the event.

    Friday fight night is sponsers by SkyBet (meaning no one else has come in). All the ads are for car insurance.
     
  13. noonan

    noonan Guest

    How do the Germans get such good viewing figures? apparently 15m plus??
     
  14. PaddyD1983

    PaddyD1983 Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,919
    2
    Dec 24, 2007
    Have you ever seen German television?

    There's nothing else on.