The Cobra
03-04-2015, 11:12 PM
Mayweather-Pacquiao — Could “Super” Solution to Replay Question Be in the Offing?
March 3rd, 2015
By Charles Jay
Here is something that may surprise some people: the last thing that held up the negotiations for the Floyd Mayweather-Manny Pacquiao fight may well have been something that didn’t have anything to do with either fighter. On the other hand, maybe this shouldn’t be such a surprise at all, considering what a dominant role the television networks play in the general scheme of things.
In point of fact, it is absolutely fundamental in any major fight for the role of the networks to be addressed and satisfied, since they are, at the very least, the distributors of the pay-per-view programming, and at most, may be underwriting the event itself. You didn’t think the promoters would put their own cash at risk if they could possibly avoid it, did you?
In the case of Mayweather-Pacquiao, there was an unusual situation, in that there were two networks embedded into the situation, and there was no way to shake either one. In the past, when two fighters were married to different interests, it was the promoters, and while they may not have liked each other, they could somehow figure out a way to share the wealth. When you have the TV guys attached, it’s different, because the fight has to be shown over somebody’s air, so to speak, and that determination is not easily agreed-upon. Mayweather, famously, has that six-fight deal with Showtime, while Pacquiao has a long-term arrangement with HBO. They have the rights to televise all the bouts for their respective fighters, so there is a conflict unless one of them is willing to take “step aside money.”
So who will do the pay-per-view telecast? Well, thankfully there is precedent, as HBO and Showtime went down this road before and found a way to cooperate when putting together the Lennox Lewis-Mike Tyson fight in 2002.
They just split up the responsibilities and the revenues for the joint PPV presentation. And that model will generally be followed this time around. But what about showing the replay; i.e., the tape-delayed version of the telecast? Well in the case of Lewis vs. Tyson, that was settled in the ring. Lewis was HBO’s fighter. He won, so HBO got the right to go with the replay, with a payment of $3 million going to Showtime.
But things didn’t seem to go that easily this time. In fact, the network that would do the replay was said to be the final thing that had to be decided, and the two massive entities – Time-Warner (HBO) and Viacom (Showtime) were at loggerheads.
This is an important issue, because this fight will be shown over and over, and will have considerable shelf life; ultimately it will be identified with the network that replays it. It follows that a unique branding opportunity exists. And you better believe these people don’t take it lightly.
“Look, take the situation with Showtime,” one industry insider points out. “They guaranteed all that money to Mayweather and created a huge loss leader, so that they could create a stronger boxing brand for themselves, relative to HBO. Do you really think they are going to lie down and roll over when their guy is in the biggest fight of his career? This is the best chance they’ll get to reinforce the brand.”
Truth be told, deciding the issue based on the actual result in the ring (like Lewis-Tyson) is the most equitable way to do this. After all, these all-powerful networks have each cast their lot with a fighter; Showtime has out its resources behind Mayweather, while HBO has done so with Pacquiao. They are both confident in their fighter’s chances. They are “stakeholders” in a sense, so why shouldn’t they have anything at stake? There should be SOMETHING between these rival factions that isn’t guaranteed. They are asking an awful lot of money for this fight, and this is a great way to put a little bit more of their money where their mouths are.
It is not an unreasonable assumption that an agreement has been made, since we indeed have a fight signed. But as of early this week, there had been no official announcement about a replay. You can’t really blame them all that much, since the replay isn’t what they are trying to sell. One idea that has been floated is that both HBO and Showtime would have replay rights, and that they would show it initially at the same time. That seemed to be HBO’s preference, since they have the guy who is the betting underdog. It would be novel, and brings forth an interesting story that draws from the rich history of what would ultimately become the quintessential mega-event.
We’re not certain how many of you remember the first Super Bowl (which took place in January 1967, in case you’re wondering). It may not have been as big a deal as it is now, but it was a genuine battleground for two networks. CBS held the rights to the NFL, while NBC televised the AFL. In this NFL-AFL game, which represented an acrimonious rivalry as it was (even though the leagues had agreed to a merger), a dispute arose as to which network would have the rights to air the first confrontation. No one was budging, and the idea of flipping a coin was apparently not on the table for discussion.
So the decision in the end was to allow both networks to televise the event at the same time, creating a bizarre scenario indeed. CBS felt its past association with the NFL earned them the right to have exclusive rights first. They had paid $2 million for the NFL title game and wanted a rebate of some kind if NBC was going to televise the NFL-AFL Championship Game in any way, since they claimed their advertisers would be angered. Pete Rozelle, who was to head up the “new” NFL as created by the merger, turned them down flat. He determined that each of the two networks would pay $1 million for the rights.
And they went to war in the media. Both CBS and NBC took out a number of full-page advertisements in newspapers as the game approached. In fact, CBS heralded the idea of “Super Sunday” in its ads, which may have been one of the first times that term was used. Each network promoted its announcers (CBS had Ray Scott, Pat Summerall, Frank Gifford and Jack Whitaker, while NBC had Curt Gowdy and Paul Christman) as being the tandem more capable of bringing the event to the viewer. Both touted the fact that the telecast was in color (that’s right). They both sought the endorsement of various writers and included such plugs in their ads.
One CBS executive, who asked to remain anonymous, was quoted as saying, “The money is great, but we’re concerned with pride, not money. We don’t take them (NBC) lightly. But remember this – we didn’t come here to lose.”
And they didn’t (CBS won the battle with a 24.8 rating, compared with 17.4 for NBC). One can only speculate as to what kind of battle HBO and Showtime would wage over the Mayweather-Pacquiao (or should that be Pacquiao-Mayweayther?) replay if the situation arose. .
If you listen to some boxing fans, it might even present a better fight than they’ll see IN the ring on May 2.
March 3rd, 2015
By Charles Jay
Here is something that may surprise some people: the last thing that held up the negotiations for the Floyd Mayweather-Manny Pacquiao fight may well have been something that didn’t have anything to do with either fighter. On the other hand, maybe this shouldn’t be such a surprise at all, considering what a dominant role the television networks play in the general scheme of things.
In point of fact, it is absolutely fundamental in any major fight for the role of the networks to be addressed and satisfied, since they are, at the very least, the distributors of the pay-per-view programming, and at most, may be underwriting the event itself. You didn’t think the promoters would put their own cash at risk if they could possibly avoid it, did you?
In the case of Mayweather-Pacquiao, there was an unusual situation, in that there were two networks embedded into the situation, and there was no way to shake either one. In the past, when two fighters were married to different interests, it was the promoters, and while they may not have liked each other, they could somehow figure out a way to share the wealth. When you have the TV guys attached, it’s different, because the fight has to be shown over somebody’s air, so to speak, and that determination is not easily agreed-upon. Mayweather, famously, has that six-fight deal with Showtime, while Pacquiao has a long-term arrangement with HBO. They have the rights to televise all the bouts for their respective fighters, so there is a conflict unless one of them is willing to take “step aside money.”
So who will do the pay-per-view telecast? Well, thankfully there is precedent, as HBO and Showtime went down this road before and found a way to cooperate when putting together the Lennox Lewis-Mike Tyson fight in 2002.
They just split up the responsibilities and the revenues for the joint PPV presentation. And that model will generally be followed this time around. But what about showing the replay; i.e., the tape-delayed version of the telecast? Well in the case of Lewis vs. Tyson, that was settled in the ring. Lewis was HBO’s fighter. He won, so HBO got the right to go with the replay, with a payment of $3 million going to Showtime.
But things didn’t seem to go that easily this time. In fact, the network that would do the replay was said to be the final thing that had to be decided, and the two massive entities – Time-Warner (HBO) and Viacom (Showtime) were at loggerheads.
This is an important issue, because this fight will be shown over and over, and will have considerable shelf life; ultimately it will be identified with the network that replays it. It follows that a unique branding opportunity exists. And you better believe these people don’t take it lightly.
“Look, take the situation with Showtime,” one industry insider points out. “They guaranteed all that money to Mayweather and created a huge loss leader, so that they could create a stronger boxing brand for themselves, relative to HBO. Do you really think they are going to lie down and roll over when their guy is in the biggest fight of his career? This is the best chance they’ll get to reinforce the brand.”
Truth be told, deciding the issue based on the actual result in the ring (like Lewis-Tyson) is the most equitable way to do this. After all, these all-powerful networks have each cast their lot with a fighter; Showtime has out its resources behind Mayweather, while HBO has done so with Pacquiao. They are both confident in their fighter’s chances. They are “stakeholders” in a sense, so why shouldn’t they have anything at stake? There should be SOMETHING between these rival factions that isn’t guaranteed. They are asking an awful lot of money for this fight, and this is a great way to put a little bit more of their money where their mouths are.
It is not an unreasonable assumption that an agreement has been made, since we indeed have a fight signed. But as of early this week, there had been no official announcement about a replay. You can’t really blame them all that much, since the replay isn’t what they are trying to sell. One idea that has been floated is that both HBO and Showtime would have replay rights, and that they would show it initially at the same time. That seemed to be HBO’s preference, since they have the guy who is the betting underdog. It would be novel, and brings forth an interesting story that draws from the rich history of what would ultimately become the quintessential mega-event.
We’re not certain how many of you remember the first Super Bowl (which took place in January 1967, in case you’re wondering). It may not have been as big a deal as it is now, but it was a genuine battleground for two networks. CBS held the rights to the NFL, while NBC televised the AFL. In this NFL-AFL game, which represented an acrimonious rivalry as it was (even though the leagues had agreed to a merger), a dispute arose as to which network would have the rights to air the first confrontation. No one was budging, and the idea of flipping a coin was apparently not on the table for discussion.
So the decision in the end was to allow both networks to televise the event at the same time, creating a bizarre scenario indeed. CBS felt its past association with the NFL earned them the right to have exclusive rights first. They had paid $2 million for the NFL title game and wanted a rebate of some kind if NBC was going to televise the NFL-AFL Championship Game in any way, since they claimed their advertisers would be angered. Pete Rozelle, who was to head up the “new” NFL as created by the merger, turned them down flat. He determined that each of the two networks would pay $1 million for the rights.
And they went to war in the media. Both CBS and NBC took out a number of full-page advertisements in newspapers as the game approached. In fact, CBS heralded the idea of “Super Sunday” in its ads, which may have been one of the first times that term was used. Each network promoted its announcers (CBS had Ray Scott, Pat Summerall, Frank Gifford and Jack Whitaker, while NBC had Curt Gowdy and Paul Christman) as being the tandem more capable of bringing the event to the viewer. Both touted the fact that the telecast was in color (that’s right). They both sought the endorsement of various writers and included such plugs in their ads.
One CBS executive, who asked to remain anonymous, was quoted as saying, “The money is great, but we’re concerned with pride, not money. We don’t take them (NBC) lightly. But remember this – we didn’t come here to lose.”
And they didn’t (CBS won the battle with a 24.8 rating, compared with 17.4 for NBC). One can only speculate as to what kind of battle HBO and Showtime would wage over the Mayweather-Pacquiao (or should that be Pacquiao-Mayweayther?) replay if the situation arose. .
If you listen to some boxing fans, it might even present a better fight than they’ll see IN the ring on May 2.