Just saw that Ali Spinks 2 was watched by 90 millions americans (that's superbowl numbers) and that.it is estimated that 2 billions watched worthwhile (probably inflated but still). Makes me wonder if boxing missee the boat with PPV. Id wonder how much money they could get from such a big fight from network/cable tv
It is a difficult question for sure. I thought about this same as I recently read Roone Arledge's memoir. He talked a lot about producing sports, but not that much about boxing. I believe boxing is more star-driven sport than most. Ali's or Tyson's fights would still draw enormous crowds, but boxing as a TV product isn't as good. If you have relatively unknown fighters, the aesthetics of the sport itself doesn't fascinate that many people. Another thing is boxing's schedule, which doesn't exist. The advertisers would need clear and regular dates for the fights to happen. In boxing there are plenty of postponements compared to any team sport, which is a problem for the channels. Furthermore, a local study here showed that boxing fans are keen, but that the sport also divides people. If a channel takes up boxing, it will get boxing fans to follow, but "regulars" don't order a channel because of boxing. Also, the keen boxing fans are more ready to pay extra, compared to most sports. Few want to pay extra bucks for seeing a single basketball game Thus, in a business sense, making fans pay separately for each fight is the most profitable model. The segment of the people watching is very clean-lined, which is exactly what the advertisers want
Boxing thrived for years on network TV, like ABC's Wide World of Sports. As PPVs became more prevalent, the sport became more exclusive - those two trends clearly coincide. Speaking for myself, I'd be much more inclined to tolerate the prevalence of PPVs if they weren't so damn expensive. Instead of trying to encourage more people to buy the events with lower prices, promoters just want to squeeze as much money as possible out of each individual buy. I'd be much more willing to purchase PPVs if they cost between $20-$40 (like they used to) instead of $80-100 like they currently are. As it is, I've only purchased a single PPV in the past 5-6 years (Pacquiao-Thurman, because it was so historic).
PPV makes sense in the short term but it might in fact hurts the sport in the long run imo. Is it really a coincidence that the sport has became more more marginalized since they have became widespread ?? And as boxing is so decentralized and has no organisation with a long term vision, the sport's mantra has basically been to pimp the fans as much as possible and get the quick bucks. This doesn't translate to a dedicated nor growing fanbase. Furthermore, contrary to other major sports, since it's mostly the fighters, and not the sport, that is promoted, most casual boxing fans are in fact fans of specific boxers, not of the sport itself.
Ali-Spinks happened when the US had 12 TV channels (three that actually mattered.) Many Americans still had only three channels. And it goes without saying, no internet, no VCRs. You could watch TV, break out the projector and watch home movies, or sit in a chair and read a book. So most watched TV and had three choices of what to watch. These days people are all over the place. 300 channels on digital cable plus three or four streaming services.
