'Boxing monopoly': Pros and Cons. Do you want one?

[Tom Cruise]

*Disclaimer: Not specifically talking about PBC here, even though they are the ones shooting for control at the moment. This is not a PBC hate/love thread.*

What do you guys think about having one body/ company controlling the top level of boxing?

Pro's: More focused sport. Easier to attract casuals, easier to follow. Less politicking. More attractive to networks. Fans benefit (better, more consistent fights). More focus on growth of the sport as a whole. Long term profits, rather than short term, are more important than they are currently. Single champion per division, hopefully better rankings.

Con's: Easy to **** fighters over on pay/matchmaking. Dont like decisions the monopoly makes on rules, rankings, sponsors, matchups? Tough, nowhere else to go.

Opinions?

[M Bison]

You mean what If Boxing was like UFC, Bellator that had separate organisation with stables of fighters.

It'd be a great thing as long as their was a long list of names on these stables, big problem would be first that their would be less tune-ups because I highly doubt the owner of this company will want to haul a tonne up guys who have more losses than wins so it makes it harder for youth to produce themselves.

[NEETzsche]

the sanctioning bodies in their current form are a joke, that's for sure. a monopoly would be preferable in theory but it really depends on the organisation behind it being essentially benevolent and having the boxers' and the fans' best interests at heart

[Hewito]

the sanctioning bodies in their current form are a joke, that's for sure. a monopoly would be preferable in theory but it really depends on the organisation behind it being essentially benevolent and having the boxers' and the fans' best interests at heart

Monopoly is never good,unless you playing the board game..You seen what happened with the Rebook deal.OP mentioned it will be easier to follow,how so?you have your weight classes and you follow them,why are the UFC weight classes heavier than boxing BTW?,Anyways,for sure monopoly in boxing is in no way good,and regardless not being an PBC specific thread,Haymon will fail,of that I am sure.

[Tom Cruise]

the sanctioning bodies in their current form are a joke, that's for sure. a monopoly would be preferable in theory but it really depends on the organisation behind it being essentially benevolent and having the boxers' and the fans' best interests at heart

Yeah for sure. How the monopoly is run would be the most important thing, you'd hope that the owners/runners would understand that catering to fans and boxers best interests would result in the financial rewards they want. If they started effing over the boxers too much then it leaves room for a rival organisation to start up and poach the best/ most popular fighters. If you consistently eff over the fans then who is going to keep watching the events and giving you money?

Monopoly is never good,unless you playing the board game..You seen what happened with the Rebook deal.OP mentioned it will be easier to follow,how so?you have your weight classes and you follow them,why are the UFC weight classes heavier than boxing BTW?,Anyways,for sure monopoly in boxing is in no way good,and regardless not being an PBC specific thread,Haymon will fail,of that I am sure.

So currently to follow boxing you need to know who the four world titlists are, what the rankings are for each of the organisations and also who holds the 'lineal' title too. It makes things difficult for casual fans as you have one guy claiming they are the world champion, only to see a few days later another three guys all claiming the same thing. Then they could all fight their no.1 contender on the same night in separate fights lol. Its illogical to anyone who doesnt follow the sport as closely as we do.

A hypothetical single org/company would presumably have their own World Champion (universally recognised) and only one ranking system. Meaning its easier for fans to track who is the best in the division, who the top contenders are etc.

[-PBP-]

I have mixed feelings. Competition between promoters should result in better fights. But that's not happening right now. One entity would eliminate ducking which is a major problem.

I think if the current bodies would encourage mandatory unifications that would be the better alternative.

[Tom Cruise]

I have mixed feelings. Competition between promoters should result in better fights. But that's not happening right now. One entity would eliminate ducking which is a major problem.

I think if the current bodies would encourage mandatory unifications that would be the better alternative.

I agree. I would always say a single unified sanctioning body would be the ideal. I was hyped when it looked like the WBA, WBC and WBO were looking at merging, but I havent heard anything about it for ages now.

[Rich2123]

I also don't think it's possible. One of the reasons UFC is so big is that MMA as a big spectator sport is so new it was easy for Big time boxing has been around for a few hundred years.

For the best fights to happen, they're going to have to work together. And that isn't likely.

[Hewito]

Agreed...and yes it will be Ideal to have one single champion per division,but imagine if someone like Haymon or White are the ones deciding who gets it?..It happens with UFC,after a 5-2 record they sometimes get a chance at the belt and people claim its because the competition is so good,I disagree but that is another topic.Lomachenko I really like the guy,but to have a shot at the belt EVEN after he lost is crazy to me,it doesn't matter if he has 1,000 amateur wins,you should wait in line..Once again a Monopoly in no way is good,is some sort of dictatorship.

[jri9d0]

I have a better idea, how about one belt one division one champion?

And who ever is championof that respective division has to fight the next best in line within his division with no sanctioning bodies and NO CATCH WEIGHT'S!!!!!!!!!!!

Only in a perfect world I guess...