By Billie Sloane

Netflix’s foray into live boxing with the Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson exhibition fight has sparked debate across the sport. With 60 million reported streams, it was undeniably a massive event, but does it signal the start of a new era for boxing, or has it exposed critical flaws in the streaming model? From the PPV dilemma to piracy, technical reliability, and the sustainability of multimillion-dollar fight purses, Netflix’s big night has raised more questions than it answered.

So, what have we really learnt from this experiment, and what does it mean for the future of boxing?

The Numbers: 60 Million Streams—But at What Cost?

Netflix proudly announced that 60 million people streamed the Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson fight. On the surface, this figure dwarfs traditional pay-per-view (PPV) numbers, such as the 4.6 million buys for Mayweather vs. Pacquiao or the 2.4 million for Mayweather vs. De La Hoya. But let’s dig deeper—how many of those viewers were already Netflix subscribers? More importantly, how many new subscribers did Netflix attract?

Boxing has always thrived on PPV revenue, where fans pay a premium for marquee events. With subscription-based platforms like Netflix, the economics are different. Did the fight generate enough value to justify the reported $30 million combined purse for Paul and Tyson? Without new subscriptions, is this model sustainable for Netflix—or boxing—long term?

Promoter Frank Warren raised a critical point during an interview with IFL TV: “Big fights aren’t cheap, and they shouldn’t be. If you’re not charging fans directly, how do you cover those costs? Streaming platforms need to figure that out.”

And then there’s the elephant in the room: Netflix doesn’t typically cater to live sports. Reports of buffering issues and technical glitches during the fight highlight the challenges of delivering seamless live events on platforms not built for it. Can Netflix compete with broadcasters and platforms like DAZN, who’ve already invested heavily in live sports infrastructure? 

The Decline of Traditional PPV

Netflix’s move into live boxing reflects broader shifts in consumer behaviour. Fans today are increasingly resistant to paying for expensive PPV events, especially when they’re already subscribed to multiple streaming services. In the U.S., PPV fights often cost $80 to $100, while UK fans pay a much more affordable £25. This disparity has fuelled frustration, with many fans turning to illegal IPTV services to watch fights for free.

But the PPV model remains the financial backbone of boxing. Eddie Hearn, speaking to BoxingScene, argued: “Without PPV, fights like Canelo vs. Bivol simply wouldn’t happen. The purses, the production costs—those rely on fans paying to watch.”

Netflix’s subscription model challenges this, offering fans access to fights at no extra cost. But here’s the problem: PPV doesn’t just fund headline acts; it supports undercards, venue costs, and promotional campaigns. If subscription platforms can’t generate comparable revenue, what happens to the sport’s ecosystem?

Piracy: The Silent Saboteur

One of the biggest challenges for both PPV and subscription platforms is piracy. Illegal IPTV services have become alarmingly widespread, offering HD streams of major fights for a fraction of the cost—or even free. During Netflix’s Tyson-Paul fight, social media platforms lit up with links to pirated streams, further eroding the event’s revenue potential.

Bob Arum highlighted the issue in an interview with The Guardian: “Piracy is killing boxing. You can’t compete with free. We need better enforcement, but we also need to make fights more accessible to fans.”

So, while Netflix may have attracted 60 million viewers, how many of them bypassed legitimate channels to watch the fight illegally? This is a question both streaming platforms and traditional broadcasters must grapple with if boxing is to remain financially viable.

The Problem with Big Purses

One of boxing’s biggest selling points is its megafights, with star fighters earning eye-watering sums. Jake Paul and Mike Tyson reportedly pocketed $30 million between them for their Netflix showdown. But without PPV revenue, how do platforms like Netflix justify such payouts?

DAZN, once marketed as “the Netflix of sports,” initially promised a subscription-only model but has since pivoted to hybrid pricing, charging extra for premium events. Why? Because subscription revenue alone couldn’t sustain the sport’s biggest fights. Netflix may face a similar reckoning if it plans to continue hosting live boxing.

Frank Warren summed it up during a talkSPORT interview: “If you’re not paying fighters what they deserve, you lose talent. But if you pay them too much without the revenue to back it up, the whole system collapses.” 

What Does This Mean for Boxing’s Future?

Netflix’s foray into live boxing has highlighted both the opportunities and challenges of moving away from traditional PPV. On the one hand, it proves that boxing can attract massive global audiences when barriers to entry are lowered. On the other hand, it raises critical questions about the sustainability of subscription-based models.

If streaming platforms like Netflix want to become major players in boxing, they’ll need to address several issues:

1. Revenue Streams: How do they generate enough money to fund big fights without relying on PPV?

2. Technical Reliability: Can they deliver flawless live events, or will buffering and glitches alienate fans?

3. Piracy: What measures can they take to combat illegal streaming and protect the sport’s financial future?

The Verdict: A Game-Changer or a Gimmick?

Netflix’s entry into live boxing is a bold move, but it’s too soon to declare it a game-changer. For now, traditional PPV remains essential for funding boxing’s biggest events, even as streaming platforms offer intriguing alternatives. The challenge lies in finding a model that balances accessibility for fans with the revenue needed to sustain the sport.

As fans, we need to ask ourselves: Are we willing to pay for the fights we love, or do we expect platforms to subsidise them through subscription fees? And if Netflix-style streaming becomes the norm, can it deliver the quality and consistency boxing deserves?

What do you think? Is Netflix’s move into live boxing a sign of the future, or just a one-off experiment? Share your thoughts below.

Billie Sloane takes a ‘no holes barred’ approach as he has his say on some of the major talking points in the crazy world that is boxing.