Sky monopoly on British Promoters - Good or Bad thing?

[robpalmer135]

If Sky added Hayemaker and Hennesey to its roster, would it be such a bad thing.

Surley then Sky would be able to pick and choose the best domestic match ups as all domestic fighters would be on Sky.

[Losfer_Words]

NOOOOOOOOO. It'll serve as a platform for more PPV fights. Competiton is very good for the sport- surely Setanta's brief stint was a good example of this.

[TBooze]

British boxing worked perfectly well for all (but the fighters, who were royally screwed), until the 80s with a Monopoly (the last being Duff, Astaire and co).

If you liked boxing pre mid 80s, then I do not think you have anything to worry about.

If I was a fighter, get the bloody Union in gear and go on strike to get a better deal for yourself!

[TBooze]

NOOOOOOOOO. It'll serve as a platform for more PPV fights. Competiton is very good for the sport- surely Setanta's brief stint was a good example of this.

What is the issue with Pay per view (PPV)?

it is an excellent solution to a big problem.

PPV gets you fights you cannot see live, on the TV. And why if the fancy are paying £50+ for a ticket at the show, should you not pay £15 for the best ticket in the house?

If boxing is to survive in the mainstream, we need to accept PPV's are the way foward, not backwards.

[Losfer_Words]

What is the issue with Pay per view (PPV)?

it is an excellent solution to a big problem.

PPV gets you fights you cannot see live, on the TV. And why if the fancy are paying £50+ for a ticket at the show, should you not pay £15 for the best ticket in the house?

If boxing is to survive in the mainstream, we need to accept PPV's are the way foward, not backwards.

You seem to have missed my point entirely. If something is worthy of PPV then that's alright- it it's a case of Sky building some dude up solely to use him as a cashcow then.... well you do the maths. We're gonna be the ones finding ourselves short-changed.

[TBooze]

You seem to have missed my point entirely. If something is worthy of PPV then that's alright- it it's a case of Sky building some dude up solely to use him as a cashcow then.... well you do the maths. We're gonna be the ones finding ourselves short-changed.

SKY is not stupid, they will not go though the cost of a PPV if it is not going to make them any money.

There are certain fighters that will never headline PPV's, there are others than can do it from almost day one.

We, the boxing fancy, tend to have a few more £'s, so we are always going to get stung that little bit more in a capitalist society.

But we are not alone, you now have to pay for Football and Golf as well, that is life in this era.

Personally, I am not prepared to go back to three channels and having to go to Closed Circuit viewings of big fights.

I think some forget, Setanta or no Setanta we pretty much have never had it so good. The glass is very much half full, if you believe otherwise, you are simply not being realistic about the sport.

[Losfer_Words]

SKY is not stupid, they will not go though the cost of a PPV if it is not going to make them any money.

There are certain fighters that will never headline PPV's, there are others than can do it from almost day one.

We, the boxing fancy, tend to have a few more £'s, so we are always going to get stung that little bit more in a capitalist society.

But we are not alone, you now have to pay for Football and Golf as well, that is life in this era.

Personally, I am not prepared to go back to three channels and having to go to Closed Circuit viewings of big fights.

I think some forget, Setanta or no Setanta we pretty much have never had it so good. The glass is very much half full, if you believe otherwise, you are simply not being realistic about the sport.

I'm obviously not being realistic then:patsch. I can't agree with you at all on that one. It's nothing personal but I just don't see your logic. Add to that that Sky's boxing coverage is god awful and them getting yet another monopoly is simply not a good thing at all, IMO.

[TBooze]

I'm obviously not being realistic then:patsch. I can't agree with you at all on that one. It's nothing personal but I just don't see your logic. Add to that that Sky's boxing coverage is god awful and them getting yet another monopoly is simply not a good thing at all, IMO.


Hey, I am all for a strong socialist society (that is my job, I am as far as politics go, basically Marxist in opinion), but if we are not going to rip down the capitalist society we live in, today, we need to accept, the sport as a minority sport, is only going to be viable if we pay for it.

That is going to mean an increase in PPV's. You can rant and rave about Setanta all you want, but it was losing at least £70 Million a year. Sky makes a profit, it does that by being more realistic.

So as far as boxing goes, that means at the moment, PPV's to supplement the SKY Sports Ringside series.

[superfly98]

NOOOOOOOOO. It'll serve as a platform for more PPV fights. Competiton is very good for the sport- surely Setanta's brief stint was a good example of this.


Completely agree. Competition with setanta also upped the qualit of Sky sports fights I personally believe. I think sky could fall back into its sloppy old self. Remember there were alot of fights Sky didnt show...i.e German bouts is one example

[Jeff Young]

I wish boxing had its own channel.....if some millionaire that was a real die hard would just do this....it would be a great thing...

[pathmanc1986]

terrible thing!

small hall shows with limited tv and ringside audiences, doing everything on the cheap! showing fights from america a week after they happen, totally ignoring anyone who isnt on their channel.


they hinder the growth and popularity of the sport and their manner of presenting fights plays to the non boxing fan and play up to all the worst aspects people who dont know about boxing believe it to be. no skill, two thugs tryin to kill each other



hbo has its critics, but the manner they put together commentating and presentation gives the sport a class and dignity that many channels lack


apart from al bernstein-----this guy needs to be on tv more often, great analyst

[slip&counter]

sky monoploy would be terrible, anyone who knows how these things work would not say it was good, competition is good especially in a field like this

they can take the piss knowing they don't have to compete with anyone and so don't have to attract subs, you'd just have to take what they give like the bbc

not only would we miss out on so many cards (especially overseas) but domestic cards aswell as they wouldn't find enough dates or make excuses similar to it, plus their presentation would get worse if it was possible with even more of a dilapidated studio and shabby presenting in order to do things on the cheap

[robpalmer135]

But if Sky did it properly wouldnt it be great. Imagine is every fighter was with the same promoter, like the UFC, you would always have the best fights.

If ****** was with Sky when Calzaghe was fighting Bika and Manfredo, sky would of put it PPV and orderd the Froch fight.

['Ben']

I wish boxing had its own channel.....if some millionaire that was a real die hard would just do this....it would be a great thing...


When I become a multi-millionare in a few years time.... I'll see what I can do for you :good

[felix]

When I become a multi-millionare in a few years time.... I'll see what I can do for you :good
chop chop m8 we can't be left with no boxing for a few years.

[jonnytightlips]

If Sky added Hayemaker and Hennesey to its roster, would it be such a bad thing.

Surley then Sky would be able to pick and choose the best domestic match ups as all domestic fighters would be on Sky.
I wouldnt mind it but they need to show more American fights live like they used always do and not fuckin on PPV. Remember we had De La Hoya-Mayweather for free those were the days. Also were they planning on having Maywether-Marquez on PPV aswell