UK
Thanks for that Brekkie - that is a very interesting development. When Sky announced their exclusive F1 contract that runs from 2019 it was notable that there was no mention of exclusivity over streaming. That could have been an oversight but maybe it lines up with what’s happened in the US. I think it’s probably the former, especially as Bernie got that deal done before he was out the door - and the impression from interviews is that Liberty aren’t very happy with it but there isn’t anything they can do.
I’m torn about events moving to OTT - I can see it benefits people who just want to pick and choose an event or two. There are a couple of issues though. If you don’t have a good FTA presence as well (same goes for sports on subscription /PPV) you’re very much playing to the existing - often most dedicated a fans. You’re not growing the sport, you’re not bringing it to the next generation whose parents aren’t into it. Most of the sports I enjoy watching I dsiacovered through FTA coverage. The other issue is for people like me who enjoy a range of sports - it doesn’t take that many for it to end up costing more than a subscription based multi sport channel / channels would have. Just because you can now pick and choose doesn’t mean it’ll be cheaper. In an ideal world OTT pacakges are about extending / adding to what a FTA or subscription broadcasters are able or willing to provide. In the US the likes of MLB.TV and NHL.TV show the way - you get the games of your local team on FTA or basic cable as well as a selection of other / the biggest games from elsewhere. If you want all the other games you buy the OTT (or via your pay TV provider) package.
To take this back to boxing they’ve started to go down the OTT line with the recent fight on You Tube as well as the likes of Box Nation being available to subscribe to and stream directly. Boxing seems very happy playing to it’s niche audience, but it’s been strugggling for a long time to break out of that.
Boxing isn’t one of the sports I most readily watch so I don’t have the greatest insight but to me a lot of the issues stem from the fragmented nature of the governing bodies meaning there are often multiple world champions so to the average viewer it’s confusing. The different promoters don’t help matters making it difficult for the best to fight the best because so and so are signed with HBO, but so and so is with Showtime and has to fight this other person first. It’s a labyrinthine world.
If the boxing promoters and fighters are happy being solely on PPV then so be it- they’ve managed that way over 60 years or so in the US, but that relys on having enough big names to keep up the public awareness. It seems to me it’s now far rarer for a ‘name’ to break out and come to the attention of the wider sporting (let alone general viewing) public.
The fighters aren’t household names and fights that have been on FTA TV don't rate very well because people haven’t become familiar with those competing. So the FTA broadcasters have little incentive to buy them unless they are going cheap because the promoters wouldn’t make enough from PPV. The fighters only become well known figures when they do something outrageous (ie Tyson Fury) or in the rare case a fight happens between two of the very best happens - as with Anthony Joshua and Vladimir Klitschko. That was the first fight I’ve considered paying to watch in about 15 years (since Lewis v Tyson) - as it happens I didn’t because there wasn’t anyone around to split the PPV with and Mrs UK News is very anti boxing. The 5 Live coverage was - as I’d expect - fantastic. Anyway, how much more public awareness might there have been had it been shown the next day FTA? I wonder if it really would have affected how many people shelled out for the PPV to see it live? Might they have made that up from a good figure from a FTA channel? Presumably they think not.
I say all this but then you look at the ‘buy rates’ for PPVs (the estimates or the actual figures when they are announced) and they must be generating enough money. Can’t be hard to at up to $100 for HD coverage of a fight in the US, but if your sport is relying on inter sport gimmicky match ups between a retired fighter and someone who hasn’t really (in the classic sense) ‘boxed’ to generate enough hype and sales then something can’t be too healthy somewhe. The contrast between that and the Anthony Joshua fight was stark. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised - there have been ‘interesting’ characters involved in the sport (inside and outside the ring) throughout its history!
I’m torn about events moving to OTT - I can see it benefits people who just want to pick and choose an event or two. There are a couple of issues though. If you don’t have a good FTA presence as well (same goes for sports on subscription /PPV) you’re very much playing to the existing - often most dedicated a fans. You’re not growing the sport, you’re not bringing it to the next generation whose parents aren’t into it. Most of the sports I enjoy watching I dsiacovered through FTA coverage. The other issue is for people like me who enjoy a range of sports - it doesn’t take that many for it to end up costing more than a subscription based multi sport channel / channels would have. Just because you can now pick and choose doesn’t mean it’ll be cheaper. In an ideal world OTT pacakges are about extending / adding to what a FTA or subscription broadcasters are able or willing to provide. In the US the likes of MLB.TV and NHL.TV show the way - you get the games of your local team on FTA or basic cable as well as a selection of other / the biggest games from elsewhere. If you want all the other games you buy the OTT (or via your pay TV provider) package.
To take this back to boxing they’ve started to go down the OTT line with the recent fight on You Tube as well as the likes of Box Nation being available to subscribe to and stream directly. Boxing seems very happy playing to it’s niche audience, but it’s been strugggling for a long time to break out of that.
Boxing isn’t one of the sports I most readily watch so I don’t have the greatest insight but to me a lot of the issues stem from the fragmented nature of the governing bodies meaning there are often multiple world champions so to the average viewer it’s confusing. The different promoters don’t help matters making it difficult for the best to fight the best because so and so are signed with HBO, but so and so is with Showtime and has to fight this other person first. It’s a labyrinthine world.
If the boxing promoters and fighters are happy being solely on PPV then so be it- they’ve managed that way over 60 years or so in the US, but that relys on having enough big names to keep up the public awareness. It seems to me it’s now far rarer for a ‘name’ to break out and come to the attention of the wider sporting (let alone general viewing) public.
The fighters aren’t household names and fights that have been on FTA TV don't rate very well because people haven’t become familiar with those competing. So the FTA broadcasters have little incentive to buy them unless they are going cheap because the promoters wouldn’t make enough from PPV. The fighters only become well known figures when they do something outrageous (ie Tyson Fury) or in the rare case a fight happens between two of the very best happens - as with Anthony Joshua and Vladimir Klitschko. That was the first fight I’ve considered paying to watch in about 15 years (since Lewis v Tyson) - as it happens I didn’t because there wasn’t anyone around to split the PPV with and Mrs UK News is very anti boxing. The 5 Live coverage was - as I’d expect - fantastic. Anyway, how much more public awareness might there have been had it been shown the next day FTA? I wonder if it really would have affected how many people shelled out for the PPV to see it live? Might they have made that up from a good figure from a FTA channel? Presumably they think not.
I say all this but then you look at the ‘buy rates’ for PPVs (the estimates or the actual figures when they are announced) and they must be generating enough money. Can’t be hard to at up to $100 for HD coverage of a fight in the US, but if your sport is relying on inter sport gimmicky match ups between a retired fighter and someone who hasn’t really (in the classic sense) ‘boxed’ to generate enough hype and sales then something can’t be too healthy somewhe. The contrast between that and the Anthony Joshua fight was stark. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised - there have been ‘interesting’ characters involved in the sport (inside and outside the ring) throughout its history!
