Connect with us

Culture

For Canelo-Bivol, DAZN Pivots to Pay-Per-View

Published

on

For Canelo-Bivol, DAZN Pivots to Pay-Per-View

LAS VEGAS — At their last information convention on Thursday, Saul Álvarez, often called Canelo, glared up at Dmitry Bivol, who was posed for a routine prefight photograph.

For Saturday’s bout on the T-Cellular Area, Álvarez, the undisputed world champion at 168 kilos, will soar to the 175-pound weight class to problem Bivol. The matchup has excited avid boxing followers curious to see if the 5-foot-8 Álvarez’s talent and energy will translate to a better weight class towards the 6-foot Bivol. And it has a built-in viewers with Álvarez, a local of Guadalajara, Mexico, headlining a struggle card on the weekend after Cinco de Mayo.

The occasion will stream to DAZN, the service that just lately signed Álvarez to a two-fight deal. Solely, DAZN subscribers must pay a further $60 for Saturday’s card. Nonsubscribers might be charged $80 for the struggle, which comes with a one-month subscription.

DAZN is promoting Saturday’s struggle card as a pay-per-view, in a significant strategic shift for an organization that positioned itself as a sports-centric model of Netflix, the place subscribers pay a month-to-month charge to entry the corporate’s total content material library. When DAZN started its boxing operation in 2018, its then-CEO, James Rushton, known as the pay-per-view mannequin overpriced and inefficient.

The pivot to pay-per-view suggests to DAZN’s critics and rivals that the monetary actuality of high-level boxing has hit the streaming service like an Álvarez uppercut.

Advertisement

“Calling for the tip of pay-per-view is a pleasant advertising angle, however the actuality may be very completely different,” mentioned Stephen Espinoza, president of Showtime Sports activities. “They didn’t have the quantity to have a constant subscriber base.”

However Joe Markowski, DAZN’s govt vice chairman, known as the transfer to pay-per-view a pure response to an evolving market.

“It’s not a case of we miscalculated,” Markowski mentioned. “That is about DAZN entering into a brand new part of its development within the U.S. If we need to proceed delivering fights like this to struggle followers, we have to take some selections like this often.”

At its launch, DAZN entered the boxing market with two huge transactions. First, it signed an eight-year, $1 billion contract with Matchroom Sports activities, to offer a gentle provide of high quality fights that will justify shoppers’ determination to subscribe. Then it introduced a $365 million cope with Golden Boy, Álvarez’s then-promoter, that will ship 11 of his bouts to the streaming service, securing the presence of boxing’s largest particular person attraction on DAZN’s platform.

DAZN had hoped the deal would culminate in a 3rd bout between Álvarez and Gennady Golovkin, who had additionally partnered with the streaming service. The primary two Álvarez-Golovkin bouts totaled 2.4 million pay-per-view buys, an enormous quantity in a sport the place 300,000 is taken into account a hit.

Advertisement

However since these blockbuster contracts, Álvarez’s relationship with Golden Boy fizzled in a collection of lawsuits. As a promotional free-agent, Álvarez fought a collection of bouts underneath Matchroom and DAZN, considered one of which attracted 73,126 spectators to AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas.

Final November, Álvarez jumped to Showtime and knocked out Caleb Plant to win the undisputed super-middleweight title and gather a reported $40 million payout. These huge ensures made Álvarez’s return to pay-per-view inevitable, whatever the platform, mentioned Matchroom chairman Eddie Hearn.

“It’s unattainable to do Canelo Álvarez fights as a part of a tiny subscription price with out hemorrhaging tens of millions and tens of millions of {dollars},” Hearn mentioned. “Instances evolve. Issues change. The market’s modified. If you wish to do a Canelo struggle, that is how you need to do it.”

There’s no team-sports analogue for boxing’s pay-per-view mannequin. The N.F.L. doesn’t put the Tremendous Bowl behind a paywall, nor does Netflix cost further for the brand new season of “Ozark.” However subscriptions, sponsors and rights charges don’t generate sufficient income to help the eight-figure ensures Álvarez instructions.

Espinoza suggests considering of pay-per-view as a crowdfunding program, financed by struggle followers.

Advertisement

Álvarez, 31, drew a reported 800,000 pay-per-view buys for the November bout through which he dismantled Plant, he expects a extra difficult problem this Saturday. In his first struggle at mild heavyweight, a knockout win over Sergey Kovalev in November 2019, Álvarez, who stands 5-foot-8, wanted a number of rounds to regulate to 6-foot-tall Kovalev’s dimension. Bivol shares Kovalev’s peak, however is a greater tactical boxer, with an extended, well-timed jab that would disrupt Álvarez.

“He’s a light-weight heavyweight, and probably the greatest within the division. A terrific fighter,” Álvarez mentioned in a Zoom interview. “It opens the opportunity of me perhaps being the undisputed champion at 175, too.”

Bivol, who’s undefeated in 19 professional fights, additionally enters Saturday’s bout with bulletproof confidence.

“I imagine in me,” Bivol mentioned at a information convention. “I had an extended journey to this second, and now I’ve to do my job.”

Boxing aficionados would possibly discover the matchup of types intriguing, however promoting the bout to a wider viewers nonetheless will depend on Álvarez’s star energy. His $15 million assure is a fraction of his upfront pay for the Plant bout, but in addition hints that Álvarez expects a windfall when he receives his lower of pay-per-view income.

Advertisement

After Katie Taylor and Amanda Serrano drew 1.5 million viewers for his or her predominant occasion on DAZN every week in the past, Markowski expects sturdy gross sales for Álvarez and Bivol.

“We’ve bought targets to hit,” Markowski mentioned. “We’ll be monitoring Saturday and the times to observe.”

The evolving market has modified the definition of pay-per-view success. In 2015, Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao’s long-awaited showdown drew 4.6 million buys; earlier than that, every fighter routinely drew greater than 1 million pay-per-view buys. However Mayweather and Pacquiao had been generational stars with mainstream fame. For many different headliners, Espinoza mentioned, 100,000 buys is respectable, and 300,000 is spectacular.

Espinoza and Markowski each say pay-per-view is greatest used as an occasional complement to programming, lest broadcasters fatigue or insult prospects by charging a premium for lackluster occasions.

“So long as, after we cost filet mignon costs, we’re delivering filet mignon content material, then I feel it’s OK,” Espinoza mentioned. “The issue is once you’re charging filet mignon costs and delivering floor beef.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Culture

Book Review: ‘Original Sin,’ by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson

Published

on

Book Review: ‘Original Sin,’ by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson

ORIGINAL SIN: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson


In Christian theology, original sin begins with Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge. But Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s “Original Sin” chronicles a different fall from grace. The cover image is a black-and-white portrait of Joe Biden with a pair of hands clamped over his eyes. The biblical story is about the danger of innocent curiosity; the story in this new book is about the danger of willful ignorance.

“The original sin of Election 2024 was Biden’s decision to run for re-election — followed by aggressive efforts to hide his cognitive diminishment,” Tapper and Thompson write. On the evening of June 27, 2024, Democratic voters watched the first presidential debate in amazement and horror: A red-faced Donald Trump let loose a barrage of audacious whoppers while Biden, slack-jawed and pale, struggled to string together intelligible rebuttals.

Trump’s debate performance was of a piece with his rallies, a jumble of nonsensical digressions and wild claims. But for many Americans, the extent of Biden’s frailty came as a shock. Most of the president’s appearances had, by then, become tightly controlled affairs. For at least a year and a half, Biden’s aides had been scrambling to accommodate an octogenarian president who was becoming increasingly exhausted and confused. According to “Original Sin,” which makes pointed use of the word “cover-up” in the subtitle, alarmed donors and pols who sought the lowdown on Biden’s cognitive state were kept in the dark. Others had daily evidence of Biden’s decline but didn’t want to believe it.

Tapper is an anchor for CNN (and also served as a moderator for the presidential debate); Thompson is a national political correspondent for Axios. In an authors’ note, they explain that they interviewed approximately 200 people, including high-level insiders, “some of whom may never acknowledge speaking to us but all of whom know the truth within these pages.”

Advertisement

The result is a damning, step-by-step account of how the people closest to a stubborn, aging president enabled his quixotic resolve to run for a second term. The authors trace the deluge of trouble that flowed from Biden’s original sin: the sidelining of Vice President Kamala Harris; the attacks on journalists (like Thompson) who deigned to report on worries about Biden’s apparent fatigue and mental state; an American public lacking clear communication from the president and left to twist in the wind. “It was an abomination,” one source told the authors. “He stole an election from the Democratic Party; he stole it from the American people.”

This blistering charge is attributed to “a prominent Democratic strategist” who also “publicly defended Biden.” In “Original Sin,” the reasons given for saying nice things in public about the president are legion. Some Democrats, especially those who didn’t see the president that often, relied on his surrogates for reassurance about his condition (“He’s fine, he’s fine, he’s fine”); others were wary of giving ammunition to the Trump campaign, warning that he was an existential threat to the country. Tapper and Thompson are scornful of such rationales: “For those who tried to justify the behavior described here because of the threat of a second Trump term, those fears should have shocked them into reality, not away from it.”

Biden announced that he would be running for re-election in April 2023; he had turned 80 the previous November and was already the oldest president in history. Over his long life, he had been through a lot: the death of his wife and daughter in a car accident in 1972; two aneurysm surgeries in 1988; the death of his son Beau in 2015; the seemingly endless trouble kicked up by his son Hunter, a recovering addict whose legal troubles included being under investigation by the Justice Department.

Yet Biden always bounced back. The fact that he defied the naysayers and beat the odds to win the 2020 election was, for him and his close circle of family and advisers, a sign that he was special — and persistently underestimated. They maintained “a near-religious faith in Biden’s ability to rise again,” the authors write. “And as with any theology, skepticism was forbidden.”

In 2019, when Biden announced a presidential run, he was 76. It was still a time when “Good Biden was far more present than Old Biden.” By 2023, the authors suggest, that ratio had reversed. Some of his decline was hard to distinguish from what they call “the Bidenness,” which included his longtime reputation for gaffes, meandering stories and a habit of forgetting staffers’ names.

Advertisement

But people who didn’t see Biden on a daily basis were increasingly taken aback when they finally laid eyes on him. They would remark on how his once booming voice had become a whisper, how his confident stride had become a shuffle. An aghast congressman recalls being reminded of his father, who had Alzheimer’s; another thought of his father, too, who died of Parkinson’s.

The people closest to Biden landed on some techniques to handle (or disguise) what was happening: restricting urgent business to the hours between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.; instructing his writers to keep his speeches brief so that he didn’t have to spend too much time on his feet; having him use the short stairs to Air Force One. When making videos, his aides sometimes filmed “in slow motion to blur the reality of how slowly he actually walked.” By late 2023, his staff was pushing as much of his schedule as they could to midday.

When White House aides weren’t practicing fastidious stage management, they seemed to be sticking their heads in the sand. According to a forthcoming book by Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager and Isaac Arnsdorf, Biden’s aides decided against his taking a cognitive test in early 2024. Tapper and Thompson quote a physician who served as a consultant to the White House Medical Unit for the last four administrations and expressed his dismay at the idea of withholding such information: “If there’s no diagnosis, there’s nothing to disclose.”

Just how much of this rigmarole was desperate rationalization versus deliberate scheming is never entirely clear. Tapper and Thompson identify two main groups that closed ranks around Biden: his family and a group of close aides known internally as “the Politburo” that included his longtime strategist Mike Donilon and his counselor Steve Ricchetti. The family encouraged Biden’s view of himself as a historic figure. The Politburo was too politically hard-nosed for that. Instead, its members pointed to Biden’s record in office and the competent people around him. The napping, the whispering, the shuffling — all that stuff had merely to do with the “performative” parts of the job.

Tapper and Thompson vehemently disagree. They offer a gracious portrait of Robert Hur, the special counsel who investigated Biden’s handling of classified materials and in his February 2024 report famously described the president as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Biden and his team were incensed and tried “to slime Hur as an unprofessional right-wing hack,” but the authors defend his notorious line. They emphasize that it is incumbent upon a special counsel to spell out how the subject of an investigation would probably appear to a jury — and that what Hur wrote about Biden was true.

Advertisement

Of course, in an election like 2024, when the differences between the candidates are so stark and the stakes are so high, nearly every scrap of information gets viewed through the lens of “Will it help my team win?” Even competently administered policy could not compensate for a woeful inability to communicate with the American people. In a democracy, this is a tragedy — especially if you believe, as Biden did, that a second Trump term would put the very existence of that democracy in peril.

Earlier this month, in what looks like an attempt to get ahead of the book’s publication, Biden went on “The View” to say that he accepts some responsibility for Trump’s victory: “I was in charge.” But he was dismissive about reports of any cognitive decline. In “Original Sin,” Tapper and Thompson describe him waking up the morning after the 2024 election thinking that if only he had stayed in the race, he would have won. “That’s what the polls suggested, he would say again and again,” the authors write. There was just one problem with his reasoning: “His pollsters told us that no such polls existed.”


ORIGINAL SIN: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again | By Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson | Penguin Press | 332 pp. | $32

Continue Reading

Culture

Book Review: ‘Death Is Our Business,’ by John Lechner; ‘Putin’s Sledgehammer,’ by Candace Rondeaux

Published

on

Book Review: ‘Death Is Our Business,’ by John Lechner; ‘Putin’s Sledgehammer,’ by Candace Rondeaux

Western complacency, meanwhile, stoked Russian imperial ambition. Though rich in resources, Rondeaux notes, Russia still relies on the rest of the world to fuel its war machine. Wagner’s operations in Africa burgeoned around the same time as their Syrian operation. In 2016, the French president François Hollande “semi-jokingly” suggested that the Central African Republic’s president go to the Russians for help putting down rebel groups. “We actually used Hollande’s statement,” Dmitri Syty, one of the brains behind Wagner’s operation there, tells Lechner.

“Death Is Our Business” provides powerful descriptions of the lives that were upended by the mercenary deployments. Wagner is accused of massacring hundreds of civilians in Mali in 2022, and of carrying out mass killings alongside local militias in the Central African Republic. “Their behavior mirrored the armed groups they ousted,” Lechner writes. As a Central African civil society activist whispers to Lechner, “Russia is no different” from the sub-Saharan country’s former colonial power, France.

Both books are particularly interesting when they turn their focus toward Europe and the United States. In Rondeaux’s words, the trans-Atlantic alliance does not “have a game plan for countering Russia’s growing influence across Africa.” Lechner, who was detained while reporting his book by officials from Mali’s pro-Russian government, is even more critical. He notes that, whatever Wagner produced profit-wise, the sum would have “paled in comparison to the $1 billion the E.U. paid Russia each month for oil and gas.”

And, while Wagner was an effective boogeyman, mercenaries of all stripes have proliferated across the map of this century’s conflicts, from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Yemen. “The West was happy to leverage Wagner as shorthand for all the evils of a war economy,” Lechner writes. “But the reality is that the world is filled with Prigozhins.”

Lechner is right. When Wagner fell, others rose in its stead, although they were kept on a tighter leash by Russian military intelligence. In Ukraine, prisoners are still being used in combat and Russia maintains a tight lid on its casualty figures. Even if the war in Ukraine ends soon, as President Trump has promised, Moscow’s mercenaries will still be at work dividing their African cake. Prigozhin may be dead, but his hammer is still a tool: It doesn’t matter if he’s around to swing it or not.

Advertisement

DEATH IS OUR BUSINESS: Russian Mercenaries and the New Era of Private Warfare | By John Lechner | Bloomsbury | 261 pp. | $29.99

PUTIN’S SLEDGEHAMMER: The Wagner Group and Russia’s Collapse Into Mercenary Chaos | By Candace Rondeaux | PublicAffairs | 442 pp. | $32

Continue Reading

Culture

Test Yourself on Memorable Lines From Popular Novels

Published

on

Test Yourself on Memorable Lines From Popular Novels

Welcome to Literary Quotable Quotes, a quiz that challenges you to match a book’s memorable lines with its title. This week’s installment is focused on popular 20th-century novels. In the five multiple-choice questions below, tap or click on the answer you think is correct. After the last question, you’ll find links to the books themselves if you want to get a copy and see that quotation in context.

Continue Reading

Trending