Great post, 100% agree. it's similar to the darts which you referred to. now with constant switching of players from the bbc/bdo to the pdc the difference in talent is obviously going to be noticeable, but that is not the most important thing for me. the whole bbc/bdo production is awful - the lighting, that ninety year old 'lets play darts' horrific announcer, tony green, the score announcers etc - compare that to sky (matchroom) and it is awful. as i am not much of a dart player, if the players were to swap codes, but the production to each stayed the same, i think i would still watch the sky darts over the better players as it is just a much more enjoyable product. obviously to me, boxing is a bit different and i do want to see the best fighters on show - but as you said, the casual fan would probably prefer the better product. now i know, sky/matchroom will have a bigger budget for their events, but i always look forward to an eddie event - even when the best 2 fights are removed from a card - that xmas ******* was still an enjoyable watch
i understand what your saying icemax and im not saying that your wrong but boxing is a buisness and as i said before win the WBA then go after broner and make more money in a unification fight . Just look at ricky burns when he was supposed to fight broner he was offered 200k then the second time they tried to match them up because it was a unification fight his wage doubled ( 400k ). rees will be lucky if he is making 100k for the fight . Add another belt in the mix and he could ve been offered the same as ricky.
Great post. Another example is UFC. Boxing is a far more enertaining and asphetically apealing as a pure sport. Yet UFC is trumping it in almost all aspects because of the way the product is presented on TV and at the live event. Go to a ***** W*rren show and there playing "Who the f*ck is Alice" before the ring walks. Watch a ***** W*rren show on TV you see two overweight journolists who have never boxed a pro round making up jokes that nobody finds funny! The reason why I back matchroom is becauae I beleive they can change the perception of boxing in this country the same way they did with Darts. Big Events, Packed Arenas, Household Name fighters and most of all Competative match making. So far everything they have done points towards this happening, it just won't be over night like some seem to demand.
The UFC also benefits from having a virtual monopoly in the sport of MMA, if such a thing could ever be implemented in Boxing it would be amazing. Even in the domestic scene its tough to put fights on with rival promoters even worse when you look at the international scene with TR/GBP. On the production side of things its no contest, the cards that Frank and co produce are poor in comparison to Matchroom, people want to feel like they're at an event, something special. Happy new year new age promoting.
There has never been a monopoly that's been good for its respective industry. UFC is a great example - great fights not being made because of rival promoters happen all the time. UFC also pays its performers pretty poorly. But what Dana White has done is reduced the sport to its core, spent more on production and built his product with regular cable access shows, leading to regular PPVs. It's a good model, but Eddie and co aren't quite there yet.
I should be more specific - a lot less that the top performing boxers get. There's a huge disparity between the sports: Overall Top Ten Earning Fighters in 2012 (data updated to UFC on Fox: Henderson vs Diaz) 1 Jon Jones* $ 865,000 2 Rashad Evans* $ 710,000 3 Michael Bisping* $ 700,000 4 Vitor Belfort* $ 554,000 5 Anderson Silva* $ 475,000 6 Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira* $ 470,000 6 Georges St-Pierre* $ 470,000 8 Mauricio Rua $ 415,000 9 Forrest Griffin $ 350,000 10 Cung Le* $ 340,000 http://www.mma-manifesto.com/ufc-fi...ain/2012-fighter-salaries-top-10-earners.html And here's the top ten of all time's COMBINED CAREER purses: 1. Chuck Liddell - $4,320,000 2. Tito Ortiz - $4,075,000 3. Quinton Jackson - $3,240,000 4. Michael Bisping - $3,135,000 5. Georges St-Pierre - $3,102,000 6. Randy Couture - $3,045,000 7. Anderson Silva - $2,871,000 8. Brock Lesnar - $2,825,000 9. Rashad Evans - $2,697,000 10. B.J. Penn - $2,650,000 Now, that's the top guys, can you imagine the relative pittance the rest get, even when televised?
Dana White is the same guy who recently said Bob Arum was an idiot for risking Pac against Marquez the 4th time and should have gone for a Bradley rematch which would have been the safer option. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ufcs-dana-white-bob-arum-dumbest-promoter-history-072300632--box.html So don't buy this bollocks of the UFC model being fantastic and exactly what boxing needs. Just look at the figures Dft has posted.
Those numbers are not the full paydays for the fighters. UFC fighters, unlike boxers, get paid a percentage of what the card does on PPV, so the final numbers are a lot higher than the numbers posted. However, you have to consider the fact that the UFC is profitable and most boxing promotions are not. Frank is losing money, Hearn is losing money, most US promoters are losing money. Unless a promotional stable has a golden goose, they tend to lose money, so how can anyone argue that the boxing model is superior to what the UFC have? The UFC makes money, most boxing promotional companies are losing money right now. You might think that the UFC underpays it's fighters but it's far more likely that boxing promoters overpay their fighters. That is not good business sense and it's part of the problem boxing has right now. The UFC isn't perfect but boxing could learn a lot from it.
I think this is an interesting debate. What should a top fighter get paid? What should an undercard fighter be paid? The table at the bottom of this link shows what performers were paid for ufc 152, I am a big fan of their bonus structure, what do you guys think? [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_152[/ame]
No one's ever provided stats on what these "extra" earnings are. It also doesn't account for promotional deals, etc. But you can argue the exact same about top level boxing - Mayweather was guaranteed something like $32m for the Cotto fight and took a percentage of PPV sales. *Note: Marlow's link did give details!* And yes, UFC is very profitable, but almost entirely on the business side - fans don't always benefit. That's something of a myth perpetuated by how UFC grew so quickly. But it's not growing so fast now and it's still nowhere near as popular as boxing. But, we're talking about how Hearn embodies "new age promoting" and you've just agreed that he's still not making money. Hardly "new age", is it, which was my point at the beginning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_152#Payouts The additional money isn't actually that huge.
Could we not deem Eddies social netwoking presence as new age? Isn't trying to change the perception of Boxing in this country new? Trying to put on stacked cards with competitive undercards must surely be new in Britain without the help of ppv.