(Main image credit: Getty Images)

On 3 February 2017, Australian boxers Danny Green and Anthony Mundine squared off under the lights of the Adelaide Oval. The rematch between the two was a long time coming, almost ten years in the making, with the Australian public being subjected to a constant, slow stream of bickering between Mundine and Green ever since the final bell of their previous bout back in 2006.

The rematch was billed as the most anticipated bout in Australian boxing history with Green edging his way to a somewhat controversial majority points decision. But as the two athletes duked it out in the ring, another fight was playing out in the background as the event’s pay-per-view broadcaster, Foxtel, went head to head against a group of brazen boxing fans.

Punters who purchased and tuned into the fight across Australia pointed their mobile phones at their televisions and began live streaming the broadcast on Facebook. One fight fan, Brett Hevers, quickly racked up 100,000 viewers before Foxtel scrambled to remotely shut down his television connection. Soon after, Facebook user Darren Sharpe picked up where Mr Hevers left off and quickly amassed a cool 150,000 viewers to his live stream before receiving a phone call from Foxtel HQ. Placing his mobile on speakerphone and continuing his makeshift broadcast, Hevers engaged in a comical back and forth with a Foxtel representative who threatened Hevers with legal action should he refuse to end his live stream. Eventually Hevers caved and terminated the recording but not before dozens of other Facebook users had begun streaming the fight themselves.

The problem of fight fans circumventing pay-per-view fees is not unique to Foxtel. The concurrent development of streaming technologies and social media over the past decades has meant that boxing, mixed martial arts and professional wrestling broadcasters now face a problem with the potential to drastically affect their profit margins.

The actions of Hevers and Sharpe also pose a unique legal issue. Given both parties purchased the fight legally and did not profit from their live streams, an argument could be made that neither party was in breach of copyright or piracy laws. The role of Facebook in allowing its users to stream the broadcast through their platform is also legally questionable. However neither of these arguments were tested before the courts in this instance. Instead Hevers and Sharpe both posted apologies to their Facebook pages acknowledging the investment made by the fight promoters and broadcasters as well as the illegality of their actions.

It seems that both parties will escape punishment for the time being. However, given that the issues of piracy and illegal streaming are not going away anytime soon, it is surely only a matter of time before pay-per-view broadcasters begin going after individuals who attempt to dodge payment of their product. The music, film and television industries have all managed to rework their business models to minimise losses caused by piracy and illegal downloads. Pay-per-view providers must do the same or risk becoming obsolete.