Sky taking advantage?

The reason why Sky ditched PPV was the PR farce that was Wlad/Haye- Sky had to refund people and show the repeats for free because they underestimated demand/technological issues.

PPV should only happen for the biggest fights- it would be incredibly easy to put on half the current PPV shows on regular Sky Sports if the cards weren't "stacked" with names.

 

What the hell are you on about?

BT snatched the CL rights. The pick one of premiership is still with sky. English football league coverage is still with sky.

Sky still have the majority of men's tennis and have the majors. US and European PGA golf still with sky.

All golf majors on sky plus the Ryder cup. BT snatched Australian home cricket tests but sky still hold the majority of cricket rights around the world. More importantly sky hold the rights to English cricket.

Rugby league from the UK still on sky. BT have no rugby league coverage at all.

Sky hold the major international rugby union rights.

F1 is on sky, NFL is on sky, PDC darts still with sky.

Sorry dude but you have been proven wrong completely.

 

do you honestly think BT won't be doing PPVs at the first moment they can?

 

Box nation have already said they will do PPV's. I suspect only Tyson Fury fights for now though.

 

This.

If BT has AJ on there books it would be PPV. If BT had Haye v Bellew it would of been PPV.

This idea that Sky are the only ones who are pushing PPV is laughable. Sky have the fighters and promotion to make PPV successful.

FW would be doing plenty of PPV's if he had the chance its just he doesn't have the fighters to do so right now.

 

I believe Sky have limited dates/budget for regular boxing shows and PPV is a way around that.

PPV means we get more boxing than we would otherwise.

 

Good article/post.

We've been saying it for plenty of time, some fights we don't mind paying for - but too often is a good main even then littered with a rubbish card. And to make it even worse, you're still spammed with adverts between rounds!

"Don't like, don't pay" is the most reductive response to this I can imagine, does absolutely nothing to address a genuine concern. Just because you can pay for it, doesn't mean you should.

 

Exactly. Same with HBO in the US. There is only so much money on the table to pay for all of these fights. Without PPV some of them are not possible unless people just expect promoters to lose money just to please the fans.

 

I am happy to live in a world where Bellew- Clev II, Brook-Gavin, Haye-Bellew and Joshua-Breazeale didn't happen.

 

Maybe you are but the numbers that buy these fights suggest plenty of people want to see them.

Put yourself in the promoter/Network shoes and ask yourself if you would be making the same fights if you was in the same position.

 

Hit the nail on the head mate, we finally get a genuine 50/50 fight between two of the best in a division with one being a Brit and still people complain that it's PPV? Like you say I would much rather pay £17 to watch it live at a reasonable time than have to stay up until 4am to watch these kind of fights. To compete with the Americans we need a PPV model and lets just thank our lucky stars we don't have to fork out 50-60 pound to watch a PPV like those poor souls across the pond.

 

Nah, not until Hearn puts himself into a pair of Reebok Classics and thinks "hang on, this fight is a bit shite and until I drummed up some imaginary rivalry absolutely no one was interested. I'll try and only make competitive fights at world level PPV going forward and I'll make sure the card's next best fighter is David Allen". Maybe then I'll be a bit more empathetic of poor Eddie