Date: 29th May 2013 at 4:35pm
Written by:

The advent of satellite television has seen coverage of sport become far more slick, sophisticated and far more available to the masses than ever before, but at what cost?

As a youngster, Boxing was spilt between the BBC and ITV. The former had Harry Carpenter as its voice whilst the latter had Reg Gutteridge as its voice.

But coverage was often restricted to the big promotions, plus the occasional amateur series, plus of course the Olympic Games.

When Rupert Murdoch and his Sky Sports hit the screen, Boxing became available to a far wider audience, but at a price.

Murdoch decreed that a fee (subscription) had to be paid to receive anything other than the basic channels.

Naturally, with audience levels not matching those that terrestrial television enjoyed, Sky decreed that additional funds could be accrued, showing the ?bigger? fights by enticing more money out of the pundits by the use of a Box Office channel.

Slowly but surely, the cost of watching our favourite sport was escalating.

But, if you also throw into the mix the advent of the likes of ESPN, also coming onto the scene, you reach the stage whereby the pocket of the working man is being severely stretched by subscription demands.

Pausing to catch breath, I?d better throw in some positive aspects to this debate as well, by saying that Frank Warren?s involvement with Sky Sports did our sport enormous benefit with almost a promotion being shown every week, whilst also allowing our younger talent to be showcased.

But, and here we get to the contentious bit, has the very man who did so much to make Boxing become accessible to so many now moved it out of the reach of many of those same people?

In setting up his own channel, going under the label of Box Nation Frank is to be commended. The channel provides a platform for Frank to showcase his shows whilst also getting additional revenue into his portfolio, but at what cost?

Boxing fans are inevitably football supporters, for some strange reason they seem to go hand-in-hand. Two male dominated sports for the masses. Football too requires subscription charges for it to be viewed with the introduction to the scene of BT?s coverage of Premier League football being another financial cross to bear.

Slowly but surely, the disposable income in the average man?s pocket is being chipped away at, it?s now at a point whereby choices are having to be made, does the viewer opt for his football or stick with his boxing?

I?m sure you?re starting to see where I?m coning from, amongst the choices perhaps having to be made relate to sticking with a channel that provides coverage of football and boxing, such as Sky Sports or ESPN, or do you opt for something like Box Nation whereby its excellent coverage can be somewhat limited compared to what the other alternatives have?

Over to you Frank!

 

4 Replies to “Over to You Frank?”

  • some good points raised, my Sky subscription is going through the roof keeping everything I want, sooner or later something has to give!

  • I have Box Nation but considering disposing of it – some months are great but others are dominated by repeats and mediocre shows. This will always be the case unless all promoters are on the same channel which will never be the case. I’m not sure one promotional company is ever going to have enough shows and boxers to single-handily support a whole 24/7 channel. In some ways I prefer Box Office because at least you can pick and choose the shows you go for. Although for every £15 bargain like Froch v Kessler there is a Khan v Prescott!

Comments are closed.