When one considers how exciting boxing is, how easy it is to follow even with only a rudimentary understanding of what it takes to win a fight, and the incredible characters involved who shape the drama, it’s frustrating that the sport isn’t (universally) regarded as one of the biggest on the planet.
Some will argue that it is, particularly after the exceptional opening six months of 2024. But only those promoting their own businesses from inside of the boxing bubble, and thus enjoying something of a lucrative period, are making those claims with any validity. Outside of that bubble, where the widespread public’s interest is generally pricked only once or twice a year, the view is somewhat different.
Notwithstanding colossal events like Tyson Fury-Oleksandr Usyk, boxing simply doesn’t move the dial frequently enough. It’s a sport known for having the occasional big fight but who, besides the likes of you and me, is taking notice of the thousands of other fights often enough for the sport to become a household staple?
The lack of interest can in large part be explained by a longstanding, albeit understandable, reluctance to turn boxing into a structured enterprise. After all, this is not a team sport, nor has it ever been a slave to the clock, the calendar year or a fixture list, and thus the tried and tested format of mainstream sports – the kind that ensure league competitions, cups and tournaments are easily digestible at set times and on certain dates – simply does not exist here.
Though it guarantees extra interest when the showstopping fights are suddenly made – simply because they occur so rarely – the more familiar chaos often prohibits the making of the best fights and though the inane number of belts on offer might indeed mean a greater occurrence of ‘world title’ fights, it only creates confusion for the general sports fan. If you disagree, go and tell one of the million or so who bought into the hoopla surrounding Fury-Usyk that Daniel Dubois is now a world heavyweight champion and watch their eyes glaze over as you attempt to explain why, barely two months later, there is no longer an undisputed king.
In recent months, thanks almost exclusively to the involvement of Saudi Arabia’s General Entertainment Authority – headed by Turki Alalshikh – the number of competitive fights at elite level has risen sharply. So, too, the unification of titles. It’s a welcome trend. As boxing goes, there can be little argument that it’s in a good place so it may appear a little churlish to criticize here, particularly with further plans from Alalshikh at advanced stages.
But is the sport really healing, or has a gigantic silk plaster merely been placed on old wounds? After all, it will take more than sporadic injections of cash from the Middle East for the changes to be permanent, for any improvements to be widespread, and for the implementation of them sustainable in the long term. Further – though we can dress the windows with lavish, eye-catching contests, it’s also just as important to ensure that the rest of the shop is well stocked and being managed correctly for the business to really prosper.
Here are six points that boxing needs to address to really become a leading sport.
1. ONE WORLD CHAMPION PER DIVISION
There are four sanctioning bodies (WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO) recognized in the sport – five, if you include the IBO. All have different rankings, and none have any controlling body, aside from the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC), to whom they must answer.
So, and bear with me here, the champion of one organization cannot be ranked by the other organizations, and therefore there is not a single rule, commission or sanctioning body in place that demands that the best take on the best.
The rules of the WBC, arguably the most influential of all rankings organizations, state: ‘No champion from another boxing organization will be classified within the top 10, since their boxing obligations do not allow them to fight for a WBC title, and therefore such opportunities will be granted to those fighters who are willing to fight for a WBC championship.’ No sport could thrive under such ludicrous circumstances.
Though seasoned boxing fans have begrudgingly accepted this system, studied the conflicting rankings and lost their minds at the sheer lunacy of it all, it is exceptionally difficult to explain to those with only a passing interest why certain weight classes might feature five or more ‘world’ champions.
Frequently, several world-title fights from the same division occur within a short timeframe, sometimes even on the same bill, all featuring different boxers, with each belt-holder introduced to the crowd – via a straight face – as the world champion. A case in point would be the three-week period in 2020 between October 17 and November 7 when Teofimo Lopez, Gervonta Davis and Devin Haney all paraded versions of the world lightweight title. Imagine, for a moment, you were new to the sport, had thoroughly enjoyed Lopez defeating Vasiliy Lomachenko and invested in the story of him being the new 135-pound supremo, and were then presented with not one but two more who supposedly also rule the world at lightweight mere days later.
Although Dubois-Anthony Joshua is a tremendous matchup at heavyweight and was likely finalized at the negotiating table thanks to an IBF strap being involved, are we really going to try and dress it up as a world-title fight barely five months after we all went gaga over an undisputed champion being crowned for the first time in 25 years? Those at the heart of the promotion may believe an IBF title adds extra lustre to the contest. The truth is, Dubois-Joshua sells big – with or without the red leather belt.
The bottom line is the existing championship system is too convoluted to understand, and if the public at large can’t understand it and in turn invest their time and money into something, that something will struggle to grow. Very simply, the sport of boxing should have a championship system that is as easy to follow as the fights themselves.
One world champion per division would erase that confusion and in turn make our sport an inviting one – not only for fans but also the widespread media who, aside from specialized outlets, are only aware that boxing exists when a truly massive fight occurs.
So how did we get into this mess? The proliferation of titles is appealing to both promoters and broadcasters because they can dress up more fights as ‘world-title’ fights. Some have argued that one champion would restrict the opportunities for the contenders and there’s some truth in that. But do other sports suffer because only a select few get to win the ultimate prize?
That so many title fights go by unnoticed outside of the boxing bubble illustrates that all the extra belts do is dilute both interest and quality. And it’s not just the fault of promoters, broadcasters and sanctioning bodies – the belts are now so ingrained in the entire sport’s consciousness that changing the system will take a monumental effort from the entire industry.
Is there a solution? With four (or five) sanctioning bodies in place, perhaps just recognizing one of them would help. For that to happen, however, the one left standing would need to address their current policies – on rankings, sanctioning fees, cosy relationships with certain powerbrokers and their attitude to performance enhancing drugs – to really stand out from the crowd. And though there are better organizations than others, expecting one to rise and the others to fall is unrealistic.
There have frequently been murmurs that a superpower – i.e. Saudi Arabia or even Dana White – might buy all the bodies in an effort to gain complete control. But then what?
A more sensible solution would appear to be the creation of a superior system – one that in time would make the old one completely irrelevant. “That will never happen,” everyone groans. But why not? If half-a-billion can be spent on one event – which was reportedly the fee to stage Fury-Francis Ngannou last year – then surely there’s money available to overhaul a broken system?
By creating a title that only the best fighters can contest would go some way to winning fans over quickly. And being the definitive best fighter in the world would appeal greatly to the ego and competitive spirit of the leading boxers – particularly if there is a clear path to that status. Elimination bouts would become huge events – think quarter and semi-finals of major tournaments – and ruling that championships must be contested three times a year would ensure regular top-notch action.
Attaching extra prize money to winning and defending the title – as opposed to the sanctioning fees that boxers wishing to fight for the alphabet titles are currently obliged to pay – would sweeten the process, too.
2. ADOPTION OF INDEPENDENT RANKINGS
In June 1981, the brilliant but now defunct KO Magazine reported the New York Post creating their own boxing ratings with derision. “We have ratings. Other boxing magazines have ratings. The WBA and WBC have ratings. And now, the New York Post is threatening to issue a complete set of boxing ratings all its own,” the report read. “Boxing is inundated with ratings. It doesn’t need any more.”
If that was the case in 1981, before the sanctioning body explosion multiplied the number of rankings and the internet and social media came along to generate even more, one could reasonably argue it’s a point that’s even more pertinent today.
However, given that the ‘official’ rankings of the four sanctioning bodies rarely represent reality, perhaps it’s time to implement one set of independent rankings that the entire industry can use as a source of valuable clarity in the short term and, longer term, install as the solitary means of ranking boxers. Boxing is crying out for that context. Furthermore, it might buck up – or at least expose – the ideas of the sanctioning bodies who persist in rating boxers who should not merit inclusion among the world’s best. If ever a sport needed to be held accountable when mismatches at the top level are made, it’s boxing.
The current rankings of the sanctioning bodies do not guarantee such quality control. As was pointed out in Part I, because they fail to rank champions (including ‘interim’ titlists and sometimes even those in mandatory positions) from their rival organizations they essentially discourage the best from fighting the best – which is truly absurd.
The WBC, which is the most front-footed of organizations when it comes to peddling change and arguably the least guilty when it comes to making mismatches at the highest level, have promised to discuss the possibility of ranking titlists from rival organizations at the end of the year. Yet at the same convention they will also listen to pleas from fighters’ representatives as to why those fighters should be higher in their ratings. The process of ranking fighters need not be so complicated. Rankings, surely, should be based solely on accomplishment, irrespective of what their promoter, manager or housemate may have to say.
When they’re all privy to the same results and form, how can one organization place Fighter A at number two yet the other organizations don’t rank Fighter A at all?
By creating various ‘intercontinental’ titles and the equivalent – which allow fighters to rise through certain rankings if they win one regardless of the quality of opposition – certain sanctioning bodies invite accusations of corruption by charging fees for the privilege.
In short, boxers ‘buy’ a higher ranking by fighting for a bogus title. Next time you’re perplexed as to why a fighter you’re not familiar with is occupying an exceptionally lofty position in one set of rankings, go and check their record – nine times out of 10 they will have won bouts involving the equivalent of an ‘intercontinental’ title. And even to fight for those belts, which mean very little, sanctioning fees are charged. Win two or three of those, while paying two or three sets of sanctioning fees to the sanctioning body in the process, and – hey presto – the ‘world’ ranking improves dramatically. What’s perhaps worse is how those intercontinental straps have affected the genuine national and continental championships – once crucial building blocks to world titles.
Though it’s presumed that all promoters are in bed with the sanctioning bodies – whether remaining faithful to one for special favours or shamelessly rolling around with all four – most are acutely aware that a solitary set of rankings would make the sport a more appealing prospect to the public.
“You create something that is bigger than the sanctioning bodies,” Eddie Hearn told me in 2021. “I’m the only person capable of doing that. I am the only one that has the balls; the energy; the vision to do it.
“There has got to be less focus on the belts moving forward. I’ve been guilty of not doing that. I’ve promoted WBA ‘regular’ titles when they’re not real-world titles. But we’re not at a point – yet – where we can say just say, ‘Let’s get rid of the belts’.”
Are we now at that point?
One of the key powerbrokers in the sport, who preferred not to be named within this article, doesn’t believe so. “What would help is if the sanctioning bodies changed their rules and worked alongside each other so that the rules were in line with each other and brought up to date,” he said. “It’s difficult to work to so many different rules.” For example, the IBF demand that mandatories occur every nine months, which is hard to implement every time – particularly when some of those mandatories are clearly not the most deserving or marketable contenders, and nearly always threatens the status of undisputed championships.
“But the sanctioning bodies are ultimately responsible for making the right fights happen,” he continued. “If belts were not on the line, the fights would not get made.”
That is undeniable for as long as everyone accepts that the four sanctioning bodies, and all their conflicting rules and rankings, are here to stay. He did agree, however, that a completely independent rankings system could help the sport and provide fans with a greater understanding of where the fighters really stand.
Turki Alalshikh of the General Entertainment Authority is reportedly plotting an alternative to the current system. The Saudi Arabian paymaster is widely regarded as the most influential individual in the entire sport – certainly one with the balls, energy and vision to rival Hearn’s and, crucially, one with even more money at his disposal. Anyone who has discussed boxing with Alalshikh will tell you how much he yearns for a simpler and fairer rankings system – one that will take the sport back to its glory days.
“In the 70s and in the beginning of the 1980s, the number one sport in the world was boxing,” he said in an interview with DAZN five months ago. “Now, I am very sad. The last result I have… boxing was 14th. There is a lot of reason. Some of it is there is not a lot of fighters that are charismatic and character now, there is a lot of problem with the promoter – they don’t want to do the strongest fight because it costs a lot. Some fighter doesn’t want to do the strongest fight. And there is four companies; four belts.”
One by one, Alalshikh is addressing each of those problems. Since that interview was conducted, Oleksandr Usyk fought Tyson Fury in Saudi Arabia to (oh so briefly) clear up the longstanding mess at heavyweight and he oversaw a terrifically matched bill promoted by both Hearn and Frank Warren. What next, we wonder? Ideas for tournaments and new championships are no longer mere whispers.
Completely independent, justifiable and explainable rankings are the obvious starting point. They already exist in the form of the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board (TBRB), which is made up of more than 50 completely independent journalists and experts from all over the world. Even though one may disagree with certain placements – like, let’s say, Fighter B really should be third and not fifth – at least the thought process can be outlined to the public, and boxers cannot suddenly be airlifted into the rankings on request (Jonathan Guidry, anyone?). In short, the decision-making process for each ranking is completely transparent.
On the surface, the implementation of these or similar rankings would appear a no-brainer. Yet broadcasters and promoters might resist because of those issues with the sanctioning body rankings; consistently marketing contests between champions and those who are not deemed worthy of inclusion in the independent rankings is not the best look for their businesses, after all.
Should anyone be trying to take over the sport, however, one set of independent rankings – which can spawn tournaments and provide insight on the quality of matchups – would make an immediate impact.
When fights take place between fighters in the top 10, their ranking will be known and the significance understood. The number five versus the number eight, for example, is far more appealing – and easier to digest – than a nonsensical international belt, and provides fans with the context of which they’ve been starved during the current ‘four-belt era’.
Implementing these rankings would ensure that better fights are occurring almost overnight. The desire from boxers to get into the Top 10 and climb the ladder towards a lucrative and authentic world championship would cut out so many of the mismatches that occur all too frequently. And those mismatches are happening in world-title fights – nearly always between the belt-holder and the aforementioned Fighter A with the unjust and paid-for ranking.
Should the WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO want to retain relevancy it wouldn’t take long before obscure fighters were removed from their own ratings. Their survival would depend on it.
3. STAMP OUT UNFAIR DECISIONS
Alongside the convoluted championship system that exists, the number of controversial decisions that occur cause the most annoyance to followers of boxing. Though it is understood that human error on the part of the judges can take place, the fact that nearly every bad decision comes and goes with little discernible punishment for those responsible is maddening.
Not least for the fighters such outcomes most affect.
It would be pointless – and take up far too much space – to list every recent controversial decision but, for context, it is nonetheless worthwhile pointing out the consequences of a few.
- Gennadiy Golovkin’s record will forever say he did not beat Saul “Canelo” Alvarez and, therefore, one of the greatest middleweights of the modern era is without the defining victory his efforts (in at least fight one) deserved.
- Jack Catterall should have woken up on the morning of February 27, 2022, as the undisputed junior-welterweight champion following his first fight with Josh Taylor and, in his next outing, been rewarded with the kind of life-changing purse that owners of all four belts command. More than three years later, he is yet to compete for another title.
- As recently as July 7, O’Shaquie Foster, after producing superhuman efforts to win and retain the WBC junior-lightweight title, saw the belt that had turned his life around and made his family so proud cruelly taken from him through no fault of his own. A rematch is his only hope of getting that title back.
- The future of Olympic Boxing remains unknown after a series of investigations proved that corruption was at play among the officials, and accusations of mismanagement remain unresolved.
Though it should be stressed that there is no suggestion the judging shenanigans that have long blighted amateur boxing have in any way been replicated in the professional code, it is important to understand the damage that the perceptions of unfairness can cause.
Accusations of corruption are ugly and far-reaching. Should boxing regain its place among the sporting elite it’s imperative that there are not frequent headlines suggesting foul play. Its reputation as a somewhat murky sport is longstanding and can be traced back, by and large, to playing fields frequently favoring one fighter over another.
Though we can say, with some justification, that those exciting moments as we await the verdict of the judges are unique to boxing, it is not remotely helpful for the sport’s image when they’re too frequently followed by a verdict that defies belief.
Solutions to this are regardless not easy. The reluctance of both governing (e.g., state athletic commissions; the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBoC)) and sanctioning bodies to implement transparent investigations and overturn clearly unfair results can surely be eradicated. This may be a question of resources and time, so, should Turki Alalshikh be looking to make a splash beyond the making of show-stopping fights – and really drill into and repair some of the sport’s problems – offering assistance and support to governing bodies in this regard would be a worthwhile place to start.
Robert Smith, head of the BBBoC, has frequently told me that to start overturning decisions would be akin to opening cans of worms and, should they overturn one, even more of his time will be taken up dealing with appeals. But in certain situations, the reversal of a result would ensure that the right person won and all that comes with victory – like championships and future earning potential – was ultimately secured.
It is also worth noting that not all bad decisions are that bad. We live in a social-media age in which opinions can snowball in minutes. It is easy to get swept up as those opinions gather pace, and though plenty come from educated places, an awful lot do not. The vast majority, in fact, have not undergone one second of training in the intricacies of scoring a fight. Furthermore, just because the co-commentator saw it one way and spent the best part of an hour telling the audience about it, it doesn’t then mean that one of the judges – with a different view to everyone else – couldn’t have justifiably seen it another.
The process of investigating contentious judging should, therefore, at least in this boxing utopia of which we speak, be made as transparent as possible. Though a commission might rule that the official in question performed satisfactorily, it is just as important to tell the public – and the fighters involved – exactly why. Perhaps we might all learn something along the way.
Officials who are deemed to have made a mistake should be made to explain themselves and punished if those explanations are not satisfactory; such a process is only fair on the fighters at the heart of the controversy and the officials in question.
Though appeals can be made currently, those who are making them are rarely privy to the processes of the decision-making – nor are they called to offer their point of view. Though it’s perhaps too much to expect a court-style hearing with a judge and jury, the fighters who feel like they’ve been cheated out of a life-changing victory deserve more than they’re getting in 2024.
Perhaps the biggest bugbear of all is repeat offenders. A recent case in point might be Paul Wallace, who on Saturday night scored Robson Conceicao a 115-113 winner over Foster, almost one year to the day that he calculated a 95-95 tally between Savannah Marshall and Franchon Crews Dezurn. That’s not to say that Wallace was wrong, necessarily, but it would certainly help to be able to understand his reasoning.
A performance table of officials, so that those who are making mistakes lose ground and those consistently scoring fights correctly are rewarded with jobs at the biggest fights, is something else to consider.
The bottom line is that boxers should no longer be the only ones punished for the incompetence of officials.
3. STAMP OUT UNFAIR DECISIONS
Alongside the convoluted championship system that exists, the number of controversial decisions that occur cause the most annoyance to followers of boxing. Though it is understood that human error on the part of the judges can take place, the fact that nearly every bad decision comes and goes with little discernible punishment for those responsible is maddening.
Not least for the fighters such outcomes most affect.
It would be pointless – and take up far too much space – to list every recent controversial decision but, for context, it is nonetheless worthwhile pointing out the consequences of a few.
- Gennadiy Golovkin’s record will forever say he did not beat Saul “Canelo” Alvarez and, therefore, one of the greatest middleweights of the modern era is without the defining victory his efforts (in at least fight one) deserved.
- Jack Catterall should have woken up on the morning of February 27, 2022, as the undisputed junior-welterweight champion following his first fight with Josh Taylor and, in his next outing, been rewarded with the kind of life-changing purse that owners of all four belts command. More than three years later, he is yet to compete for another title.
- As recently as July 7, O’Shaquie Foster, after producing superhuman efforts to win and retain the WBC junior-lightweight title, saw the belt that had turned his life around and made his family so proud cruelly taken from him through no fault of his own. A rematch is his only hope of getting that title back.
- The future of Olympic Boxing remains unknown after a series of investigations proved that corruption was at play among the officials, and accusations of mismanagement remain unresolved.
Though it should be stressed that there is no suggestion the judging shenanigans that have long blighted amateur boxing have in any way been replicated in the professional code, it is important to understand the damage that the perceptions of unfairness can cause.
Accusations of corruption are ugly and far-reaching. Should boxing regain its place among the sporting elite it’s imperative that there are not frequent headlines suggesting foul play. Its reputation as a somewhat murky sport is longstanding and can be traced back, by and large, to playing fields frequently favoring one fighter over another.
Though we can say, with some justification, that those exciting moments as we await the verdict of the judges are unique to boxing, it is not remotely helpful for the sport’s image when they’re too frequently followed by a verdict that defies belief.
Solutions to this are regardless not easy. The first step is a review of the 10-point-must system. Can that be blamed? Throughout history, new methods of scoring fights have been implemented with the current one in place since the 1970s.
The reluctance of both governing (e.g., state athletic commissions; the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBoC)) and sanctioning bodies to implement transparent investigations and overturn clearly unfair results can surely be eradicated. This may be a question of resources and time, so, should Turki Alalshikh be looking to make a splash beyond the making of show-stopping fights – and really drill into and repair some of the sport’s problems – offering assistance and support to governing bodies in this regard would be a worthwhile place to start.
Robert Smith, head of the BBBoC, has frequently told me that to start overturning decisions would be akin to opening cans of worms and, should they overturn one, even more of his time will be taken up dealing with appeals. But in certain situations, the reversal of a result would ensure that the right person won and all that comes with victory – like championships and future earning potential – was ultimately secured.
It is also worth noting that not all bad decisions are that bad. We live in a social-media age in which opinions can snowball in minutes. It is easy to get swept up as those opinions gather pace, and though plenty come from educated places, an awful lot do not. The vast majority, in fact, have not undergone one second of training in the intricacies of scoring a fight. Furthermore, just because the co-commentator saw it one way and spent the best part of an hour telling the audience about it, it doesn’t then mean that one of the judges – with a different view to everyone else – couldn’t have justifiably seen it another.
The process of investigating contentious judging should, therefore, at least in this boxing utopia of which we speak, be made as transparent as possible. Though a commission might rule that the official in question performed satisfactorily, it is just as important to tell the public – and the fighters involved – exactly why. Perhaps we might all learn something along the way.
Officials who are deemed to have made a mistake should be made to explain themselves and punished if those explanations are not satisfactory; such a process is only fair on the fighters at the heart of the controversy and the officials in question.
Though appeals can be made currently, those who are making them are rarely privy to the processes of the decision-making – nor are they called to offer their point of view. Though it’s perhaps too much to expect a court-style hearing with a judge and jury, the fighters who feel like they’ve been cheated out of a life-changing victory deserve more than they’re getting in 2024.
Perhaps the biggest bugbear of all is repeat offenders. A recent case in point might be Paul Wallace, who on Saturday night scored Robson Conceicao a 115-113 winner over Foster, almost one year to the day that he calculated a 95-95 tally between Savannah Marshall and Franchon Crews Dezurn. That’s not to say that Wallace was wrong, necessarily, but it would certainly help to be able to understand his reasoning.
A performance table of officials, so that those who are making mistakes lose ground and those consistently scoring fights correctly are rewarded with jobs at the biggest fights, is something else to consider.
The bottom line is that boxers should no longer be the only ones punished for the incompetence of officials.
4. INVITE THE WORLD TO WATCH
Boxing is the only ‘major’ sport in the world that puts its biggest events behind paywalls, thus alienating vast numbers. Also, though we all know the strict starting times of other sporting events, with boxing you can sit down at 10pm ready for the main event and discover you’re at least two hours away from the opening bell.
If the mission here is to increase boxing’s audience and turn it into a sport to rival those that can boast viewing figures of millions every single week, it’s natural to compare boxing to those sports and identify where it’s falling down. If those wishing to watch the biggest games in football, basketball or baseball paid a premium to do so, and then once they’d paid discovered that what they were paying for wasn’t going to start until midnight – rather than the advertised 10pm – it would come as no surprise if audience figures dwindled.
A football match in the UK, for example, is known to begin at exactly 3pm. Ticketholders know when to arrive at the ground, when to finish their drink in time for kick off, and exactly which train they’ll be getting for the journey home. For televised games on a Saturday, all fans know they can switch on at 12.30pm or 5.30pm and the game will begin; likewise at 2pm and 4.05pm on a Sunday. Without question, that routine breeds both familiarity and consumer loyalty.
The scheduling – or apparent lack of – in boxing is a common grumble on social media among followers of boxing, pretty much every single weekend. Though the seasoned hardcore stick around and post their fury about another late night on socials, numerous wannabe fans – whether young or old – may start out with the best intentions of watching the boxing but, by 11pm, have had enough and gone to bed.
The obvious issue is that it’s much easier to plan one match than the nine or 10 fights that typically make up a big-fight card.
BoxingScene spoke to a leading UK-based powerbroker, who explained the difficulty in getting a main event to start at a specific time.
“Number one, you know there is going to be a Premier League game starting at 5.30pm, and boxing is traditionally a Saturday night sport,” he explained. “If you go on a Friday, your ticket sales are down, and Sunday has been trialled but hasn’t really worked. So, it has to be a Saturday.
“You want eyeballs on the younger fighters because they’re the stars of tomorrow; the public need that familiarity with them and the only way to get that is to see them fight. So, they might not be on until after the football has finished but it’s very difficult to get it all right.
“I often say those early fights [involving emerging stars] are a bit like an under-18s game between Manchester United and Arsenal. Even the most ardent football fan isn’t going to watch that, but we have no choice but to include them as part of our product to ensure the audience becomes familiar with them.”
The balancing act between appealing to both ticket-buyers and those watching at home is understandably tricky.
“The cost of tickets isn’t cheap,” he continued. “They go from £40 and can be more than a thousand for the best seats. You must provide value for money. It would be far more cost effective to not have as many fights, particularly the supporting 12-round fights, but if the main event is over in two minutes, where is the value for those who have paid to be there? And if you don’t put those 12-rounders on when will the fighters involved in them get the exposure required to progress?”
It’s a good point. However, it is also a modern trend. Before there were dedicated rolling sports channels, and boxing was shown on standard terrestrial television, the main event would be the priority and always begin when it was scheduled to do so, give or take a few minutes, due to the strict scheduling pattern.
These are different times and the need for, and benefits of, exposure is certainly understood. Yet one wonders if the solution would be to ensure that the main event always begins at 10pm after the best of the undercard – to ensure the widest possible reach across different demographics for the star attractions – with the rest of the bill occurring afterwards.
Though I can already hear the collective groan of those hard-working souls at the coalface who do their best to ensure bills run quickly and smoothly, it’s worth noting that when promoters are given curfews by certain stadiums they always manage to stick to them.
The PPV pandemic is harder to cure.
Those responsible can boast about frequent financial triumphs but they should also shoulder the blame – alongside the embracement of multiple sanctioning bodies – for turning boxing into a niche and marginalized sport. Furthermore, the existing illegal streaming trend may not be such a problem for boxing if fans didn’t have to pay fortunes to watch.
That’s not to say there’s not a place for PPV. There might be for the crème de la crème of contests – and it’s true that attaching a price to an event creates a sense of excitement if the product is genuinely top drawer. However, the key to building boxing’s profile is to invite as many people as possible to watch in the first place. Otherwise, it’s something of a closed shop.
For further context, Channel 5 in the UK regularly boast more than one million viewers for domestic-level contests. Sky Sports have had similar success when they place fights on their non-subscription channels. However, the current cost involved in staging the big fights – more specifically, the purse expectations of the leading boxers – means simply chucking everything on free-to-air is not feasible.
But surely there is a way to ensure that not every vaguely decent fight ends up behind a paywall. Furthermore, the cost – particularly in the US – is wildly expensive and not conducive with audience growth.
If only there was a highly influential organization, for whom money is no object, looking to stage the biggest fights with which to snare the biggest of audiences.
Though it’s a myth that those in Saudi Arabia are mainlining cash into the boxing industry without a care in the world for what’s coming back, it’s certainly true that making a profit – at least in the short-term – is secondary to making a good impression.
The oft-rumoured Saudi takeover was the inspiration behind this study and therefore within every section is a nod to things that such a takeover, if real or even feasible, should focus upon.
Turki Alalshikh is all about the numbers. He wants to reach as many people as possible and, in the process, to present his vision of boxing – the General Entertainment Authority way – to the world.
There are certainly more effective ways than PPV platforms and subscription channels with which to do that.
5. INVESTMENT FOR GRASSROOTS AND FALLEN HEROES
Boxers tend to peak in their 20s and 30s but there’s an awful lot of learning that comes before then, and many years of life to negotiate afterwards.
The pandemic was an exceptionally difficult time for many, yet the need for investment in grassroots boxing and the implementation of a sustainable boxing aftercare system became glaringly apparent during the various lockdowns.
For every state-of-the-art gym on an affluent city center corner there are countless others struggling to make ends meet. And these are the gyms, predominantly in economically challenged areas, that provide purpose to children and youths who would otherwise lose their way to crime.
The English Institute of Sport in Sheffield is the home of England Boxing and provides funding for the leading amateurs in the country who hope to represent their country at Olympic Games. Should boxing lose its place as an Olympic sport – still a real possibility – it’s doubtful the program, which has spawned numerous world champions that have brought great interest to boxing, would continue. The consequences of that shouldn’t need spelling out.
However, it is the aforementioned blood and sawdust gyms, in towns and cities up and down every country, that face more extreme day-to-day challenges. Reliant on training fees from families without the means to pay them, hundreds of gyms operate solely on the goodwill of the proprietors. High-profile boxers like Anthony Joshua have invested their own money in certain institutions but, contextually, there’s barely any money filtering down from the top of the sport to ensure the gyms that harvest future talent are financially stable.
Even those coaches who are producing national amateur champions, like Steve Newland of Powerday Hooks ABC in London, are reliant on fundraising events to keep clubs alive. “We need money to keep us going,” Newland said. “We don’t have a lot of luck getting grants and we have been hit with some big bills.
“The gym is in a very old building and if we don’t have the heating on it will fall apart… It’s been a battle. It will cost us £10,000 to get through next season and I don’t want to put the subs [fees] up. We want to make it affordable for everyone. We only had one show last year so fundraising is the only way we can raise money.”
At the other end of the scale, numerous former boxers – plenty of whom were once household names – are struggling in the fighting afterlife. Some are too proud to ask for help and most certainly don’t want their physical and mental deterioration made public. Regardless, it’s help they need.
“I feel like I’ve wasted the last five years of my life,” Dave Harris – the head of UK charity Ringside Charitable Trust (RCT) – told BoxingScene recently.
Selfless in the extreme, Harris is one of the most decent people in boxing. He has dedicated huge chunks of his life to training youngsters, managing and developing up-and-coming professionals, making the British Boxing Hall of Fame a reality, and, above all, doing all that he can to help ex-boxers who’ve fallen on hard times. In 2018 he set up RCT, and within a year it had achieved registered charity status. Harris’ dream remains to open a residential home, purely for ex-boxers who have nowhere else to turn, but he’s found it exceptionally difficult to secure even a conversation from any of the major powerbrokers.
“It can’t be good for their business can it?” he said. “Admitting that the sport that’s making them rich can cause brain damage. But it does. We all know that so that’s why we, as a sport working together, must be the ones who help our own. So, we own the problem, we don’t ignore it.”
Harris’ idea should have come to fruition long ago.
“While creating the Hall of Fame and tracking down ex-fighters, the shocking amount who are struggling struck me,” he said. “It’s a tremendous burden on their families but not all of them have the support of their families.”
Harris realised, as he drove these fallen heroes to ex-boxers’ meetings and events, that they came alive when in the company of other ex-boxers. They were at their happiest when encouraged to reminisce about their glory days and a rest home, in which they could spend their days among the like-minded, would provide great comfort to many.
Harris will tell horror stories about champions of old – of their misery and helplessness, of clawing out chunks of their own scalp due to the terror of feeling alone. His charity does all it can to help with donations, but it needs universal support to be sustainable.
In America, there are organizations like Ring 8 and Ring 10 that stage events to raise money for ex-boxers. Former contender John “Ice” Scully regularly conducts auctions on his social media page, the profits of which he personally mails to those in need – like the family of Wilfred Benitez, one of the greatest fighters in history.
Far more should be done. Whether pension schemes, tax-deductible donations from the highest earners, or punters being invited to donate when buying tickets, there are plenty of options out there to ensure all corners of our sport are financially secure.
The amount of money required to make a care home sustainable for many years and to protect the future of countless amateur clubs is comparable to the amount paid to a boxer who appeared on the undercard of a recent show in Saudi Arabia.
6. DRUG ENFORCEMENT
There is little point in taking any steps if arguably the most important one of all – the implementation of an effective and universal drug testing system – is not among them. Boxing is perceived as the most dangerous sport in the world, yet it continues to be some way behind other sports when it comes to drug protocols.
There have been numerous high-profile cases in recent years yet the difference in which each have been managed is startling. The Conor Benn case, which effectively began in July 2022, is ongoing; Amir Khan was suspended for two years yet it took 14 months for that punishment to be enforced; Ryan Garcia has just begun a one-year suspension two months after he failed two tests. Worse, numerous boxers are currently active who have failed multiple tests in the past.
This all highlights what boxing really needs: An overruling world association capable of making and enforcing laws, one to whom all commissions and governing bodies answer and obey. In turn, the steps mentioned in parts one to five (one world champion, one set of rankings, management of the scoring system, building audience loyalty and funding for amateur clubs and ex-boxers) could all be managed under one roof.
For now, however, such a commission is pure pie in the sky, but it doesn’t hurt to identify its need. This is utopia we’re aiming for, after all.
Thomas Hauser recently authored an article in the Guardian that was, in effect, an open letter to Turki Alalshikh of Saudi Arabia’s General Entertainment Authority (GEA) regarding boxing’s drug problem.
“Too often in boxing, the integrity of competition is undermined by the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs,” Hauser writes. “Enforcement of the prohibition against their use is inadequate. With today’s sophisticated microdosing techniques, traces of illegal PEDs can vanish from a fighter’s system within 24 to 48 hours. Most fighters are rarely tested. And when a fighter does test positive, he often employs high-powered attorneys who undermine the imposition of effective sanctions against him.
“Fighters who have tested positive for illegal performance enhancing drugs litigate. They use “medical confidentiality” as a sword and a shield. Often, it’s claimed that a fighter has been “vindicated” and “proven innocent” of wrongdoing despite rulings that state the opposite. Facts underlying cases are hidden from public view. There has even been talk of fighters evading the consequences of prior positive test results by seeking to fight in Saudi Arabia.”
Like me, Hauser has recognized that Alalshikh is likely the only powerbroker in the entire sport to be both willing and capable of manifesting positive change. He shares the concerns of most fans and he’s worked exceptionally hard to eradicate the obvious one, namely the inherent difficulties in making of the most attractive matchups. Therefore, if there is enough money to regularly build mouth-watering events it’s reasonable to assume there should be enough to implement changes that will benefit the sport’s long-term future.
Hauser suggested that any fighter wishing to fight under the auspices of the GEA must be enrolled in a GEA-Vada program for at least six months prior to the fight.
That would just be the start.
As sports like athletics and cycling have discovered, the only effective system is 365-day random testing. Leading athletes, whether in training or not, are subject to random testing on any day of the year, at any time.
Vada have proven themselves to be the best at what they do but they’re at the mercy of fighters, promoters and commissioners to then act upon them. Thus, it’s imperative that anyone in the business of taking over the sport makes sure they do the right thing, every single time.
In an ideal world every world-rated fighter should face at least two random tests per month. When in camp, the rate of testing should increase. Once a failed test is registered, the punishment must be strict, regardless of how the illegal substance entered their system. A four-year ban, with the option of reducing to three years if they inform authorities from where and whom they got the substance, would create the right messaging – to both fans and wannabe cheats.
Yet again, none of this is cheap to implement. But if we can’t afford a clean sport, one where boxers are not artificially enhanced to do even greater damage, then there’s a strong argument to be made that the sport should not exist at all.
Read the full article here
