Show me your examples of Sky winning back any of the plethora of sport now on BT. It is one way traffic from Sky to BT and long may it continue.
I do agree but it has to be looked at from hearns point of view too. If he doesn't put this on ppv he cannot deliver brook home advantage and every fight would be over in the states. You have to understand the difference between haymon and other promoters, wasn't he given funding by an investor? meaning he doesn't have to do a ppv to pay people good money... it's a different model to what other promoters are dealing with. No other promoter could pay his 2 fighters $2m each whilst also putting an undercard on all on normal tv, the networks do not put enough money in the pot.
I understand but he admittedly said that Matchroom made a loss to give Bellew the stadium fight on normal Sky. So he is prepared to suffer a loss or just break even in order to get his fighter an advantage. If Brook beats Spence he is arguably the hottest property in the division and a mega fight could then follow on PPV. Look at Brook's previous PPV fights, one against Gavin FFS and then a beatdown by GGG. There's absolutely nothing that's happened in his career so far that make Kell Brook a PPV fighter and I'm a big fan. But anyway like I said, none of this matters to me personally because there are many legal ways to watch without paying.
I have both and am more than happy with both broadcasters but other than BT's app and its chromecast ability it's second behind sky. The only rights where it trumps sky is the Champions league and lets be honest from a english perspective its not that many games! The ashes in the winter are a big win for them but the viewing numbers will be pretty small for that. Sky is still the king and by miles.
As the months go by, BT's portfolio of sport increases with a reduction at Sky. Compare Sky's portfolio to what it broadcast 10 years ago and you realise people are paying far more for much less.
Cannot understand why Eh Day's Kelly Brook is considered PPV when Ant Crolla is not. The post above is correct - the top fighters are grossly overpaid. David Haye got at least £6m for that Bellew farce yet we read that a young Scots fighter died last year in the ring earning nothing from the fight after expenses.
If anyone is going to get the money it should be the fighters. Are they overpaid? Surely fighters get there share of the revenue to which a fight generates. Haye and Bellew would of earned a fair amount but that's what people paid to see. Where else should the money go? All in the promoters pocket?
The issue is that they are screwing far too much money out of the fans and overpaying the top fighters. In particular, the PPV mugs being conned time after time yet they come back for more. Mugs and their money are easily parted so Matchroom continue to fleece until they wake up.
Does my nut when people go on about Brook Gavin being PPV. I paid for that card and the reason weren't that fight!
Because you do not think something is worth a PPV purchase it doesn't mean those that do are all mugs. You anti ppv followers need to understand that you are not the ones who decide what is value for money and what isn't. This has been said hundreds of times already. Nobody is forced to buy a PPV!! Clearly you anti ppv followers are not shouting loud enough as people keep buying.
So sky stance to fans is: pay your subscription to watch boxing but every few months pay an extra £17, for fights that should really be part of subscription. But hey, "if you don't like it don't buy it"
