The World Boxing Association, at its annual convention in Orlando, reported a successful year after staging more than 400 title fights in the last 12 months.
The sanctioning body insists such a high number represents great opportunities for boxers with an inference that, without belts varying from world championships to nonsensical continental straps, boxers would struggle to progress.
Critics of the alphabet groups may disagree, however, and refer to such a high number of title fights – averaging a rate of more than one per day from the WBA alone – as a blatant cash-grab, particularly if one considers the incredible number of belts available and then examines their true worth from a sporting sense. After all, logic should dictate that the more there are, the less valuable they become.
Unless you’re in the business of charging for them.
WBA president Gilberto Mendoza last week stated that 67% of its gross annual revenue came from sanctioning fees alone. That equates to $4 million from the purses of fighters going to the WBA for the privilege of putting belts on the line. Sounds like an awful lot, and it is. (The WBA’s total annual revenue was $6.08 million.)
Nonetheless, one could subsequently argue from a business perspective that the WBA is doing things the right way, because that $6 million bounty marks impressive year-on-year growth of around 100%. In 2023, the WBA declared $3.19 million in total revenue, which was slightly down from the $3.49 million recorded the year before.
In essence, however, the WBA is all but admitting that without the increasing number of titles being churned out, their business would collapse. Therefore, asking the WBA to reduce the number of championships is akin to trying to persuade Ronald McDonald to stop selling any burger other than the Big Mac. The oceanic title, for example, may not be to everyone’s taste, nor mean anything to anyone bar those fighting for it, but the WBA can justify its value – financially speaking.
The organization, founded in 1921 as the National Boxing Association (NBA), will in turn seek to persuade any naysayers that the money from sanctioning fees is for the good of the sport. And at their convention there was evidence of a company and leader, in the shape of Mendoza, that’s working hard to improve aspects of the sport while keeping the boxers at the forefront of their priorities.
Extensive medical research to enhance safety is a key part of the business, discussions about improving the image of the sport were fruitful, and there was genuinely impressive education of officials in charge of important decisions. There is also the usual charitable expenditure that any successful business will shout about while working hard to balance the books. There was transparency surrounding Mendoza’s official annual “compensation” of $600,000 before revealing their on-record profit for the year as $1.32 million.
That profit was unquestionably assisted by the sponsorship injection from Riyadh Season of a little under half a million dollars. That relationship with Saudi Arabia and Turki Alalshikh, Mendoza was at pains to stress, must continue. One might conclude, however, that if heads of sanctioning bodies are bending over backwards to please the most influential figures for financial gain, their ability to govern is at best compromised.
What Mendoza didn’t say, but is worth pointing out, is how that money from the Middle East is essentially at the top of the profit funnel for every sanctioning body – whether they choose to accept sponsorship money from Alalshikh or not.
Those sanctioning fees, a set percentage of a boxer’s purse whether that boxer is earning $10,000 or $10 million, vary from fight to fight even if the work carried out by the organization is exactly the same. So for as long as the Saudis are paying exorbitant wages and encouraging the alphabet groups to decorate their events with titles, the more those groups will earn in fees.
It should be understandable, then, why Alalshikh was treated like something of a messiah throughout the event even though he did not attend.
Impossible to justify, however, are the methods employed to compile rankings and, in turn, the making of said title fights. Across two separate three-hour meetings within the convention, fighters and/or their representatives were invited to ask for higher rankings and/or title opportunities. On multiple occasions, fighting for a WBA continental title, and therefore being a good “ambassador” for the WBA, was put forth as justification for a world title shot or significantly higher rating. Not divulged was exactly how much they’d paid the WBA to partake in those continental title fights.
To his credit, Mendoza admitted in a conversation with BoxingScene’s Lance Pugmire that the current ranking process needs to change. Not so admirable was his admission that they will only reward fighters who outwardly want to fight for WBA titles. Dots don’t need to be joined to recognize that also means they will only reward fighters who pay them for the privilege.
A good starting point when seeking to change the system would be the deciding of ranking placements with form and performance as the only metrics. After all, every sanctioning body is surely privy to the same fight results that should provide all the evidence required to compile a set of rankings. Asking a fighter, manager or promoter to make their case for inclusion or betterment, particularly after charging them money to contest titles, only provides fuel for accusations of improper conduct from those compiling the rankings.
None of this is exclusive to the WBA, of course. Each of the rankings of rival bodies – IBF, WBC and WBO – also include blatant favoritism to boxers who are, or will be, open to paying them sanctioning fees.
Yet their respect for those boxers is obvious and is admirable in many ways. Mendoza is clearly a popular figure and was warmly greeted by all boxers in attendance, which included, among several others, the likes of Bernard Hopkins, Felix Trinidad, Acelino Freitas and Amanda Serrano.
Nobody grumbled about handing over a portion of their earnings to the WBA. Whether sanctioning fees are ethical, however, is another matter entirely.
Read the full article here
