Sky weren't the highest bidders for Joshua v Usyk

Discussion in 'British Boxing Forum' started by Punchdrunk1, Jul 30, 2022.


  1. Punchdrunk1

    Punchdrunk1 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,295
    3,764
    Mar 2, 2019
    I've just watched an interview with Ben Shalom where he states that Sky weren't the highest bidder for Joshua v Usyk but the Saudis own the rights and chose Sky anyway.

    If this is true it must have been a massive kick in the teeth for Eddie and DAZN, as they would have presumably been the highest bidder.

    They would have had to work closely with the Saudis to sort out the fight expecting it to be a massive showcase for DAZN. Then they have had the carpet pulled from under their feet.

    Maybe even the Saudis are more careful with their money than DAZN. They want to get as much PPVs as possible and DAZN isn't gonna do that.

    It will be interesting to see if by any chance Joshua does get the win against Usyk whether Eddie will be as quick to make any money grabbing fights with the Saudis for Joshua in future
     
  2. I Shot JR

    I Shot JR Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,621
    1,765
    Feb 17, 2012
    This does happen occasionally- Channel 4 were not rumoured to be the highest bidders for the Nations League games but won the rights because of their reach. DAZN in it’s current form doesn’t do big numbers at all for the sponsors etc hence why they went with Sky.

    This could be Shalom bluffing just to annoy Eddie.
     
    destruction and aaaaa like this.
  3. Punchdrunk1

    Punchdrunk1 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,295
    3,764
    Mar 2, 2019
    It seems like there has been some stuff bubbling in the background.

    Sky were supposed to have got the rights weeks ago but it's only been officially announced over last few days.

    Maybe Sky weren't happy with the short time to build up the fight and didn't want to pay their original offer?

    Either way, something must have gone on behind the scenes and Eddie hasn't been hyping the fight as much as it deserves.
     
  4. kobashi

    kobashi Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,533
    811
    Jan 2, 2010
    DAZN did not go higher than sky. DAZN felt the price was too high and the numbers didn't work out. If Shalom is right then who could it have been. Only BT sport has the PPV platform but I would be shocked if they were bidding that high.
     
  5. londonboxingess

    londonboxingess Active Member Full Member

    904
    1,034
    Nov 30, 2012
    It was the same with Drive to Survive, Netflix wasn't the highest bidder but F1 choose it as they though that would be the best exposure and they were right
     
  6. chrisbonnie

    chrisbonnie Active Member Full Member

    1,382
    579
    Oct 14, 2009
    It was shite though
     
    Punchdrunk1 likes this.
  7. Bob Flaps

    Bob Flaps Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,110
    5,781
    Mar 30, 2019
    Subjective opinion and nothing to do with the rights allocation. Same for most peoples’ views on Sky vs DAZN.
     
    Wizbit1013 likes this.
  8. kevin-novice

    kevin-novice Active Member banned Full Member

    772
    404
    Mar 19, 2016
    I'm 40 years old and I don't know or care enough about these online things.

    I just want my boxing on one of my TV channels on the virgin/sky box or I go out to a pub.

    Not signing up and mucking around with online stuff especially if it doesn't cover all the fights. Imagine there be many people (or households) in a similar situation.

    TV on ,feet up.
     
    Greg Price99 likes this.
  9. Brumsongs

    Brumsongs Member Full Member

    464
    527
    May 29, 2021
    The Saudis have money. What they want is western eyeballs looking at a positive image of their corrupt, murderous nation.
     
    Saintpat, Clarkey and BaronSamedi like this.
  10. nurological

    nurological Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,517
    10,697
    May 25, 2012
    Well we all look at our corrupt murderous nation everyday so another one won't be too bad.