Television C‑class High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why do the UFC get to use international buys while boxing has to use US buys only

Looks like the article is skewered to the UFC's favour here. A big chunk of the UFC's numbers come from international buys, most notably Canada and Australia. Canada is the bigger market, with the US in second, then Australia in third, then there's left overs from other countries. Why is it these international numbers are included for the UFC events yet the international numbers are completely ignored for boxing?

For example, Hatton-Mayweather is listed as 850k when in fact that's just the HBO number for the US ... in the UK the PPV provider was Sky which reported over 1 million buys. So the true number is closer to 1.8 or 2 million buys. Likewise Hatton-Pac did close to 2 million when the UK buys are included. David Haye also routinely sells over 1 million buys for his boxing matches. Also Ricky Hatton has sold over a million buys in the UK without Pac or Mayweather.

Surely if you want to use US buys only then the Canadian, Australian and global buys should be subtracted from the US. If you want to use North America only then Australian and global buys should be subtracted.

This is an unfair comparison. US vs US, NA vs NA, or global vs global. Don't skewer the numbers to make the UFC look bigger than it actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.102.156 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UFC surpassed HBO?

"matched the once-dominant World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. in pay-per-view revenues during 2006 and surpassed boxing titan HBO"

what does it mean by surpassed? Is it saying UFC has all round beaten HBO or that it beat HBO in one PPV event, or in one year? Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the highest boxing event over 2 million buys and the highest UFC event something like 1.5 million? In what way has it surpassed HBO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.102.210 (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They did more PPV buys in the year. HBO's biggest event surpassed UFC's biggest event, but the UFC sold more overall. It would be unfair to simply look at their largest events, since UFC has a successful PPV every month. HBO's record year for revenue was around 255 million, while the UFC in 2010 did an estimated 450 million. 80.45.152.173 (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

revert

sorry i reverted just now, didn't realize what i was doing. i was reverting all of User:Pokemon's vandalism and i didn't see that his last edit on this page was in May before i reverted it. sorry for the confusion.--Alhutch 23:49, 6 December 2005

PPV Wars

I have removed this poorly written section that was recently added. A whole section based on the competition between two wrestling promotions does not really belong in an encyclopedia article about pay-per-view itself. To the best of my knowledge there was only one ever real "PPV war", in 1987 when Starrcade and Survivor Series were on the same day. The content removed is covered elsewhere, such as Monday Night Wars. One Night In Hackney 02:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top page ad

The top page has an issue. It says a fake claim about free PPV's.

New sectioning

I've resectioned to reflect PPV in US, vrs Europe and Australia. History sections merged--Work permit (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

???

Why no latin american coverage? Bias? --190.121.239.135 (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

I doubt the following sentence is true and I want to challenge it: "In the United States pay-per-view broadcasters transmit without advertisements, unlike almost all other broadcasters", since when I watch either NBA, NFL Sunday Ticket or MLB matchups through DirecTV Argentina they are usually interleaved with a thousand commercials (N.B.: I'm using "a thousand" in the figurative sense here). It is also worth mentioning that, even though said programming begins with a disclaimer that it is available in Spanish, when I press the SAP button (the green button on my remote) nothing happens and the audio stays in English. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of clear description

Brief description leaves unclear actual nature of PPV service. In particular:

article doesn't make comparison with generic TV broadcasting (according to definition, PPV seems to be the same service), and derivative services (like TSTV, nPVR, PauseLive, etc.)
"pay-PER-view" seems to imply, that subscriber could watch particular event several times. But how it actually works, then article seems to say that subscriber isn't able to control playback moment ?

Detailed description chapter would probably suitable.Grain (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]