Mark Borkowski is the public relations maestro who has worked with everyone from Mikhail Gorbachev to Diego Maradona to Jim Rose, an American exhibitionist who used to hang weights from his penis. Borkowski also helped Ian Botham recreate Hannibal’s walk across the Alps with elephants, and, for his sins, was the mastermind behind Cliff Richard’s Saviour’s Day reaching Christmas No 1, despite minimal radio play. So who better to talk about the biggest sporting stunt of the year, Mike Tyson’s fight against Jake Paul, which will be streamed into 300m homes via Netflix this weekend?
Instinctively, as I told Borkowski, I hate the idea. Most boxing fans do. It sells a myth that wasn’t even close to being a reality in 2004, let alone 2024: namely that Tyson is one of the most ferocious warriors alive, not a 58-year-old who lost 26lb in May after an ulcer flare-up that left him throwing up blood and defecating tar. It risks Tyson’s boxing reputation and his health. And, Netflix’s lavish promotion aside, it feels more like a sham or a circus than a genuine sporting event.
But I may be wrong. Certainly Borkowksi thinks so. He believes the fight is straight out of the playbook of PT Barnum, the greatest showman of all and a curator of the absurd and extraordinary, who instinctively knew what the public wanted long before they did. And that it will cut through to the masses.
“Barnum understood how to engage the crowd – the great herd, the great unwashed,” he says. “This fight is about opportunism. It’s about creative thinking. And it is already generating the oxygen of publicity, which is always an indication that something is going to be very successful.”
As Borkowski points out, it taps into two big markets: Boomers and Gen Xers, who grew up watching Tyson, as well as the younger generations who worship Jake Paul, many of whom will want to watch.
“A lot of people, particularly boys, project themselves into male influencers like Paul,” he says. “In some ways, they are their best mates – whether it’s watching them play Call of Duty, or seeing the Jackass-influenced generation of pranksters doing outrageous things on social. So they will be watching this. And so will those who grew up with Tyson in his prime. So while purists might sneer, there’s a market for this. And Netflix knows it.”
But it’s not entirely sport, is it? Borkowski doesn’t demur. But he is not sure that it matters, as long as the fight – in the early hours of Saturday, UK time – delivers in some way. “The root of this fight is absolutely that of World Wrestling Entertainment,” he says. “It’s a fusion of sport and entertainment. You feel that part of it is staged. Will anybody get seriously hurt? I doubt it, given they are wearing 14-ounce gloves. So it is more WWE than WBA.”
He then delivers the ultimate endorsement. “I’d be only too pleased to come up with something like this,” he says.
Borkowski isn’t alone in believing Netflix is on to a winner. Adam Kelly, the president of media of the global sports rights agency IMG, feels much the same way. And, having worked closely with the Ultimate Fighting Championship and Al Haymon to help promote and stage Floyd Mayweather versus Conor McGregor in 2017, he sees Tyson versus Paul as having similar crossover appeal.
Kelly’s starting point is that in a world where TV ratings are falling, sport is absolutely bucking the trend with record ratings for the NFL, Olympics, the Euros and the Women’s NBA. So naturally the media and tech giants such as Netflix and Amazon are starting to focus more on live sport, using it to drive subscriptions and sell products. And given their business acumen, would you dare bet against them?
“This fight is much bigger than boxing,” he says. “This is the road, and the road map, that’s going to prove the model for Netflix when it comes to sport.”
Kelly predicts that Tyson vs Paul “will be one of the biggest fights there’s ever been broadcast”. Why? Because of a combination of Netflix’s huge subscriber base, the ability of its algorithm to nudge people towards new content, and the intrigue surrounding the fight.
And he has a message for purists, who turned their noses up at Mayweather against McGregor and continue to roll their eyes at influencers such as Paul in their sport. “These fights have encouraged new fans, and led to a fresh wave of interest in boxing,” he insists. “If boxing only appeals to a hardcore fan base, with technical fights, eventually it will die. Because its audiences will age, and then they’ll die.”
It is a warning that applies to all sports. “You have to be constantly looking to build your audience,” says Kelly. “And that means making a product that specifically appeals to people who are not your current fans. Unless you’re doing that, you’re on a shrinking iceberg.”
I don’t disagree. But I still flinch when I hear Netflix promoting the fight in Arlington, Texas, as the “biggest name in social media against the biggest name in boxing”, or when I see Muhammad Ali’s former manager Gene Kilroy tell Tyson recently: “This is the strongest I have ever seen you.” This is not just brazen hype. It is deluded nonsense.
It brings to mind that old adage, often misattributed to Barnum, of there being a sucker being born every minute. Barnum is also claimed to have once said: “Every crowd has a silver lining.” Which, when it comes to this uneasy spectacle, seems somewhat apposite.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
