Should it be illegal to have "options" on a fighter?

[ShoulderRoll]

Is this "talk" coming from people connected to Ortiz .. or other people who don't have an actual clue what they're talking about?

I don't know how accurate the talk may or may not be.

But that is an example of how options would work. And Hearn wouldn't be the only promoter who does it.

[Phenom]

Who has been forcing boxers to sign "options"?

Toprank does that all the time most recently with Commey and Kovalev

Eddie Hearn copying uncle bob now Jacobs had to sign extension and DAZN have him for at least 3 fights after Canelo

[Jsmooth9876]

Toprank does that all the time most recently with Commey and Kovalev

Eddie Hearn copying uncle bob now Jacobs had to sign extension and DAZN have him for at least 3 fights after Canelo

True but in what way has any of those hurt the fighter? I'd say Kovalev and certainly Commey make out great by being on ESPN and getting that exposure. Jacob's got the Canelo fight which is great for him but being on DAZN may not be the best thing for him for the next few fights but he doesn't seem like a dumb guy, the money he is making I'm sure justifies the deal in his eyes at least.

The fighter always has the option of saying no and sometimes you gotta give up something in the future to gain in the short term. Not saying it is right or wrong but it's part of the buisness of boxing.

[SCEN3RY]

are fighter's complaining about a promoter having options on them? Genuine question here, not trying to make op look foolish, I really don't know bc I haven't heard of such a case. Contracts are complicated all throughout sports, even major league sports. If a guys doesn't like his contract, don't sign. You value the opportunity and make your best decision. I don't see the harm in options if a promoter is investing in a fighter's future, but if fighter's have a genuine gripe then I'd like to hear their side of it.

[Phenom]

True but in what way has any of those hurt the fighter? I'd say Kovalev and certainly Commey make out great by being on ESPN and getting that exposure. Jacob's got the Canelo fight which is great for him but being on DAZN may not be the best thing for him for the next few fights but he doesn't seem like a dumb guy, the money he is making I'm sure justifies the deal in his eyes at least.

The fighter always has the option of saying no and sometimes you gotta give up something in the future to gain in the short term. Not saying it is right or wrong but it's part of the buisness of boxing.

It's not bad for those specific boxers but I think
It's wrong to tie fighters up on long term contract to get a title shot Ali Act makes it illegal but networks and promoters found a work around

[kafkod]

I don't know how accurate the talk may or may not be.

But that is an example of how options would work. And Hearn wouldn't be the only promoter who does it.

At the end of the day .. a champion didn't have to fight his opponent in a voluntary defence, and the opponent didn't have to accept an offer, with options, if he didn't want to, so nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.

Offers like that for voluntary shots have been part of the sport for ever, but I've never heard of Hearn doing it before. But DAZN are now funding some of Eddie's fights, and they may be asking for conditions like that in contracts to be sure of getting a return on their investment.

[Fanofreason]

Hearn forced it on wilder to

[kafkod]

Toprank does that all the time most recently with Commey and Kovalev

Eddie Hearn copying uncle bob now Jacobs had to sign extension and DAZN have him for at least 3 fights after Canelo

Another person who can't distinguish between Eddie Hearn and DAZN!

I think Jacob's 3 fight deal includes Canelo. It's with DAZN, not Matchroom, and he signed it because he wanted to, not because Hearn forced him to!

As well as Canelo, Danny will be hoping to fight GGG on DAZN, and GGG isn't a Matchroom fighter. Neither is Canelo, of course, so why try and blame Eddie for "tying" Jacobs into fights with those 2 guys?

[ShoulderRoll]

At the end of the day .. a champion didn't have to fight his opponent in a voluntary defence, and the opponent didn't have to accept an offer, with options, if he didn't want to, so nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.

Offers like that for voluntary shots have been part of the sport for ever, but I've never heard of Hearn doing it before. But DAZN are now funding some of Eddie's fights, and they may be asking for conditions like that in contracts to be sure of getting a return on their investment.

Like I said, I have no issue with rematch clauses.

But tying up a boxer for any more fights beyond that just so that he can get one fight should not be allowed.

[N/A]

Like it's just a way to tie fighters down to promoters or broadcasters so that they can keep making money. Regardless of what moves the winning boxer might want to make for himself and his future.

That's business. A promoter's job is to look out for himself, not the fighter.

Without options, you'd have far fewer non in house fights.