Boxing Podcast With John Nash

My guest on this podcast is John Nash, a top MMA writer for Bloody Elbow.  John writes primarily about MMA and boxing and also does an excellent podcast called Show Money which covers the business side of MMA.

We spoke about the idea of a Boxing League and what the nuts and bolts of that would look like.  We spoke about how revenues would be split and what the wage share would be, what antitrust or Ali Act concerns there would be and what would happen with the sanctioning bodies.

It was an excellent discussion - enjoy!

This podcast is presented by The Ring.  I'm honored to be working with The Ring and my good friend, Doug Fischer, the Editor-in-Chief.  You can find the podcast on the website at Ringtv.com.

This podcast is distributed by the Leave It In The Ring podcast network.  The LIITR network also includes great podcasts by founder David Duenez, Gabriel Montoya and Evan Rutkowski.

You can still find this podcast and older Boxing Esq. podcasts on this blog and on Soundcloud or subscribe to the Boxing Esq. Podcast on either iTunes, Spotify or Stitcher.  If you enjoy the podcasts, please leave a comment or rating, that would be greatly appreciated.  The podcast will appear on both the LIITR network of podcasts as well as under the Boxing Esq. Podcast name.

Boxing Podcast With Todd duBoef

My guest on this podcast is Todd duBoef, the President of one of the leading promoters in boxing Top Rank, Inc.  We spoke about his company's television deal with ESPN and how it came about.  We also talked about his vision for the future and what shoulder-programming will go on the network.

We also spoke about his star heavyweight Tyson Fury and how he fits into the heavyweight picture as well as the great fights coming up on the schedule and collision course that Vasyl Lomachenko and Teofimo Lopez are on.

It was a great conversation - enjoy!

This podcast is presented by The Ring.  I'm honored to be working with The Ring and my good friend, Doug Fischer, the Editor-in-Chief.  You can find the podcast on the website at Ringtv.com.

This podcast is distributed by the Leave It In The Ring podcast network.  The LIITR network also includes great podcasts by founder David Duenez, Gabriel Montoya and Evan Rutkowski.

You can still find this podcast and older Boxing Esq. podcasts on this blog and on Soundcloud or subscribe to the Boxing Esq. Podcast on either iTunes, Spotify or Stitcher.  If you enjoy the podcasts, please leave a comment or rating, that would be greatly appreciated.  The podcast will appear on both the LIITR network of podcasts as well as under the Boxing Esq. Podcast name.

The Time Is Right For A Boxing League

HBO’s announcement that they are no longer in the boxing business was big news.  They were the leading broadcaster of the sport for decades.  In the mainstream media, there were choruses of the old familiar refrain “boxing is dead.” 

One sports radio broadcast in particular grabbed my attention.  Fox Sports Radio posted a clip entitled, “Are We Seeing the End Times for Boxing?”  Show hosts Rob Parker and Chris Broussard remarked that HBO’s exit was “another nail in the coffin” of boxing.  They then went through the usual litany of complaints about the sport: no centralized world governing body, no national commission in the US, the best don't fight the best in a timely manner, bad judging, the biggest fights are behind a paywall and start too late, etc.

What’s ironic about this broadcast is Parker and Broussard were blissfully unaware that the very network their show was broadcasting on had just done a four-year, multi-million dollar deal with Premier Boxing Champions (PBC) to broadcast 10 shows a year on Fox in primetime on Saturday nights and 12 additional shows per year in primetime on FS1.  

Far from being in its “End Times” – world class boxing is now on two major networks (ESPN, Fox), one premium cable channel (Showtime) and one massively funded streaming service (DAZN).  There are also more television deals rumored to be in the pipeline.  HBO dropped out of boxing because the competition is too strong for them to be the premiere broadcaster in the sport - not because the sport is dying.

But Fox Sports Radio is not alone in their overall perception of the sport as lacking in structure.  Many commentators over the years have lamented boxing's fragmented nature and lack of a centralized organizational body.  

Around the time of the Floyd Mayweather-Conor McGregor spectacle in August 2017, the Guardian, a British daily, did the typically mainstream press article around a big fight, asking if boxing’s latest big event would be the fight to “save boxing.”  Promoter Lou DiBella was quoted as stating, “The decline of boxing was hastened by the fact there is no . . . one dominant company in boxing.  Boxing has had a decline largely based on its own inability to govern itself.  There hasn’t been a sensible model or paradigm for the industry in years and years.”   

The big question is what would a “sensible model or paradigm” for boxing look like?  Before getting to that, a look at the current state of play in the sport is useful. 

I. The Current State of Boxing 

A. The Sanctioning Bodies 

The current morass that boxing finds itself in is due, in part, to the proliferation of world sanctioning bodies (four “major” organizations (IBF, WBC, WBA, WBO) with a fifth gaining momentum (IBO)).  Unfortunately, none of whom adequately do the job they are intended to do – impartially and fairly rank fighters or provide a unified structure that effectively administrates the sport.  Their ratings, when compared to those of independent media, do not accurately reflect the best fighters in the sport.  It follows that if the ratings do not reflect the best fighters - the chances of the best fighting the best are significantly diminished.  

With the sanctioning bodies all recognizing 17 different weight divisions, there are potentially 68 fighters calling themselves world champions at any given time.  A few of the organizations also crown "interim" champions and one (WBA) crowns three different grades of champions - interim, regular and super.  Ultimately, all of this leaves the general sports fan with no idea of who the real world champion is in any given weight class.

The sanctioning bodies also have differing rules when it comes to drug testing, satisfaction of mandatory obligations (even with unified champions) and any number of other issues.  Suffice it to say that with the proliferation, inconsistency and incompetence of the sanctioning bodies, they have failed to adequately act as effective governing bodies of the sport.

B. The Major Promoters and the Networks Behind Them

The real power structure in boxing lies with the more powerful promoters and managers and the television money behind them.  At present there are four major players, PBC, Top Rank, Matchroom and Golden Boy, most of whom are tied to major broadcasting deals in the US.  There are a number of other promoters who have world champions or top contenders including Main Events, Frank Warren, Tom Loeffler, Zanfer, DiBella Entertainment, Teiken, Sauerland – to name a few. 

PBC has the deepest roster in the sport with at least 40 or more champions and top contenders.  Al Haymon, the top manager in the sport, formed PBC in an effort to bring boxing back to network television.  PBC was funded with roughly half a billion dollars of hedge fund money.  Rolling out in 2015, they bought time on several major networks to feature their fighters.  It was an interesting plan to corner the television market as well as overpay their fighters in hopes of attracting other major fighters in the sport.  The idea was that boxing on free TV was always a ratings success and once PBC proved that, the time buys would turn into lucrative TV contracts with one or more networks.

Unfortunately, PBC was almost immediately met with two separate antitrust suits (unsuccessful) by the biggest promoters in the sport (Golden Boy and Top Rank).  This brought bad publicity.  PBC also burned through the majority of its cash in the first few years without consistent ratings success on the major networks.  PBC spread itself too thin by doing shows on seven different networks (CBS, Fox, NBC, ESPN, Spike, Showtime and Bounce).  The confusion over the schedule and where the next show would be did them no favors.  The lack of consistency in quality of matchups was also a major problem. Thus, most of the networks dropped PBC.  There was also a shareholder suit against the hedge fund (since settled). 

By the end of 2017, Haymon’s effort to make PBC into the “UFC of Boxing” had largely failed, but it did get network executives to see that boxing could generate ratings akin to those of other major sports given the right matchups.  When PBC featured marquee fights on the major networks, viewers tuned in by the millions (e.g., Errol Spence vs. Leonard Bundu (CBS - 4M+ viewers), Keith Thurman vs. Danny Garcia (CBS - 3M+ viewers), Thurman vs. Robert Guerrero (NBC – 3M+ viewers), Adrien  Broner vs. Shaun Porter (NBC – 3M+ viewers), Garcia vs. Guerrero (Fox – 3M+ viewers), Thurman vs. Porter (CBS – 2M+ viewers), Garcia vs. Lamont Peterson (NBC – 2M+ viewers)).

Ultimately, the bulk of PBC’s programming went back to premium cable at Showtime, where they have done a much better job of presenting quality fights in 2018.  Showtime generally features between 15 and 20 world championship level fights on their network per year.  

PBC recently negotiated a three-year deal with Showtime.  The deal is estimated at over $60M and, in 2019, Showtime plans to do potentially up to 30 events, with 12 events (one per month) featuring the PBC on Showtime Championship Boxing.  PBC also landed their much hoped for terrestrial network TV deal with Fox, which is also estimated at over $60M per year.  PBC will have 10 dates on Fox proper with another 12 on FS1 each year, plus shoulder programming.  That’s a lot of money and a lot of dates to fill, even for the deepest roster in the sport.

An outgrowth of PBC’s flirtation with network television was it lead to Top Rank scoring a major deal with ESPN in August 2017.  This was really significant for the sport as it put world class boxing back on mainstream over-the air television and this time the network was paying for the product, though to what degree is still a mystery.

Top Rank’s original deal was for four years and included 18 dates on ESPN’s television networks and 12 dates on ESPN +, the network’s OTT app per year.  The deal also included shoulder programming and part of Top Rank’s video library on the OTT site.  Top Rank and ESPN recently expanded the deal to seven years and added 24 "premium international" dates to the ESPN + side of the ledger for a total of 54 dates a year.

Top Rank's CEO Bob Arum has publicly stated that their boxing budget with ESPN is now "comparative to [the] UFC deal [$1.5 Billion over five years]."  Some in the industry are skeptical of that claim.

In reference to the Top Rank deal, ESPN network executive Burke Magnus stated that PBC had “rekindled [ESPN’s] interest in [boxing] because we saw what was possible when you had really good fights on broader platforms.”  Like PBC, when Top Rank has featured marquee fighters and matchups, viewers have tuned in by the millions (e.g., Manny Pacquiao vs. Jeff Horn – 2.8M viewers, Vasyl Lomachenko vs. Guillermo Rigondeaux – 1.7M viewers, Lomachenko vs. Jorge Linares – 1.7M viewers).  Top Rank has roughly 20 or more fighters who are world champions or contenders.

Matchroom, a top UK promoter lead by Eddie Hearn, promotes the unified Heavyweight Champion of the World, Anthony Joshua, who is the biggest boxing star outside of North America.  They’ve also recently struck a monster deal with the streaming service DAZN to televise 32 dates a year (16 emanating from the US, 16 from the UK) with a reported yearly budget of $125M.  The deal may run as few as two years or as long as eight years which would bring the total value of the deal to $1B.  

That is one of the biggest budgets in the sport and makes Matchroom, which is curating these dates for DAZN, a much bigger presence on the American boxing landscape.  At present, Matchroom has roughly 25 or more fighters who are world champions or contenders but has made overtures to others that may add to that total.

Golden Boy, Oscar De La Hoya's company, has the biggest boxing star in North America in Saul “Canelo” Alvarez.  For many years, on and off, Golden Boy had featured their world champion fighters on HBO.  HBO, which formerly had the biggest budget in the US for boxing, decreased its involvement with the sport over the last few years but still featured some of the top stars of the sport on its network in Middleweights such as Alvarez and unified champion Gennady "GGG" Golovkin, as well as Light Heavyweights Sergey Kovalev and Dmitriy Bivol.  In what was a surprise, but not a shock, HBO recently announced that it will no longer be in the boxing business.  Golden Boy and Canelo are now very valuable broadcast free agents and are currently fielding offers from all of the major networks for their services.

Even before HBO's exit announcement, its shrinking budget and the growth of streaming led Golden Boy and Main Events to cut a deal with Facebook to televise at least five cards a year.  Golden Boy also features their prospects and young contenders on shows televised by ESPN, though they may not receive a license fee for those shows.  Golden Boy has roughly 15 or more fighters who are world champions or contenders.

Another emerging entity in the sport is the World Boxing Super Series (WBSS), which is financed by a European partnership called the Comosa Group and has Kalle Sauerland as their Chief Boxing Officer.  The WBSS labels itself as the “Champions League” of boxing and they stage tournaments in selected weight divisions between champions and top contenders to determine who is best in the weight class.   Initially, there was skepticism in the sport about the viability of the WBSS and the major television networks in the US all passed on it. 

The WBSS has proven to be an unqualified success with fans as both weight divisions in the first season (Cruiserweight and Super Middleweight) produced excellent drama and the final fights (unfortunately, both delayed by injury) were highly anticipated.  A second season has been announced and the lineups of fighters for the three divisions (Bantamweight, Junior Welterweight and once again, Cruiserweight) are replete with top contenders (Cruiserweight) and world champions (Bantamweight and Junior Welterweight).  DAZN has picked up the US broadcasting rights to season two, no details of the financial terms of the deal have thus far been released.

The major players in the sport (save for Golden Boy) are now aligned with large broadcast distribution networks with huge budgets for boxing.  They are reaching a larger audience than ever before.   To paraphrase Winston Churchill (and Uncle Ben from Spiderman) - with great budgets and distribution comes great responsibility.

C. The Inefficiencies and Missed Opportunities of Boxing's Current State

      1.  Conflicts of Programming 

In fact, boxing has never had so much money and television time invested in the sport.  Yet with the major players all having separate US network deals, the degree of difficulty in making the biggest fights becomes that much greater. With DAZN up and running and flooding the fall and winter schedule with fights, the potential for conflicts and counterprogramming between the various interests is going to create a nightmare for the sport.

Even in the days when there were only two major networks, promoters and networks counterprogrammed against each other.  Sometimes there was a special date that both wanted such as Cinco de Mayo or Mexican Independence Day.  Other times dates may have conflicted due to networks and events running together.  

Other sports with a central governing body (NASCAR) or a league (NFL) do not have these problems as there are committees or executives who work on the scheduling and keep the sport from competing against itself.  

With the major players in boxing working with multiple linear and streaming entities (Fox, ESPN, Showtime, DAZN, Facebook), the potential for conflicting broadcasts is very real.  Since each network has millions of dollars invested, each major player is at risk of failing if the conflicts become frequent and programming wars break out.  

The bottom line is no one wins, not promoters, networks or fans, when the audience is divided.  With so much at stake, the major players need to coordinate the scheduling of major fights to ensure that each network maximizes the amount of viewers and does not cheat the fans of the ability to see all of the best fights.

      2.  Inability of Individual Promoters to Meet Quality Programming Demands

It's also apparent that the amount of money and dates coming into the sport is outstripping the major players’ ability to meet the demand using only their in-house roster of boxers.  Looking at Top Rank's recent and upcoming schedule (Gilberto Ramirez-Roamer Angulo, Jose Ramirez- Danny O'Connor (cancelled), Regis Prograis-Juan Jose Velasco, Christopher Diaz-Masayuki Ito, Bryant Jennings-Alexander Dimitrenko, Jose Uzcategui-Ezequiel Maderna, Terence Crawford-Jose Benavidez, etc.), it's obvious that even one of the biggest promoters in the sport does not have enough fighters to make 30 quality main events for ESPN/ESPN+.  This is particularly galling because Top Rank currently has one of the two terrestrial TV deals with a massive US audience.  Having mediocre main events that draw poor ratings on such a huge platform reflects poorly on the sport as a whole.

PBC, for its part, has thrown in a few clunkers in 2018 on Showtime as well (Spence vs. Carlos Ocampo, Danny Garcia vs. Brandon Rios) and much worse to the larger audiences on the remains of their time buy with Fox/FS1 (e.g., Devon Alexander vs. Victor Ortiz, Jamal James vs. Mahonry Montes, Brandon Figueroa vs. Oscar Escandon, etc.).  Again, putting poor main events that draw really bad ratings on a massive platform (Fox/FS1) is a bad look for the sport.

Credit to Matchroom, who realized that their roster was wholly insufficient to meet the demands for quality that DAZN's budget ($125M) bestowed upon them.  Matchroom went outside of their roster and made an agreement to televise every fight in all three weight divisions of the second season of the WBSS.  This was a heady move and serves as a model for the ideal future of the sport.  However, Matchroom also has the problem of a limited roster beyond Anthony Joshua and a few others.  Their second card is headlined by a fight between Jesse Vargas and Thomas Dulorme.  This would have been a good headliner for the old ESPN Friday Night Fights.  But with a budget of over $125M for 16 dates in the US, even paired with three other decent fights, the Vargas-Dulorme card is a bit disappointing.

Even before Matchroom and DAZN decided to televise the WBSS and its "Champions League" Tournament format, both Showtime and HBO reacted to the fragmentation of the sport by trying to corner the market on certain weight divisions.  Showtime boss Stephen Espinoza was quoted as stating, "We all understand now that it's absolutely critical to focus not just on stars or potential stars, but on divisions.  The biggest obstacle to mainstream success is a lack of good opponents."

With the major players on different sets of networks, it makes cornering the market on even one division difficult for any network.  Since each of the major players only have a fraction of the top fighters in the sport, it raises the question of whether competitive opponents can be found to make matches for their star attractions.  Compelling fighters in competitive matchups draw the biggest ratings.  The amount of fighters who are truly elite in each division is finite.  With those fighters spread out on many different networks, the major players will need to cooperate to make compelling fights.  Otherwise, you'll have four or more networks consistently featuring unappealing fights.

      3. A Fragmented Sport Does Not Attract Sponsors or Maximize Networks Dollars

Another consequence of boxing's current fragmented state has been a huge missed opportunity for promoters to negotiate with networks and sponsors as a unified block to maximize revenues for the sport.  Espinoza has cited the lack of a unified sport as a primary impediment to attracting sponsors for any major network deal. "That's where the lack of an advocacy group [such as a league] in the sport hurts.  If there was one, they'd be at every ad agency and pulling out charts and PowerPoints, showing that boxing delivers at a relatively inexpensive rate."

Regarding that "inexpensive rate" - compare the amount of money the UFC received from its new deal with ESPN per year ($300M/yr. all in) to Top Rank's original deal (rough est. $50-80M) or even combined with Matchroom's deal with DAZN ($125M).  Top Rank's ratings in 2017 on ESPN were very favorable in comparison with the UFC on FOX/FS1.  Yet due to the fact that Top Rank cannot deliver the value of "the best fighting the best" on a consistent basis, ESPN cut a much cheaper deal with them, even though the TV ratings with UFC are comparable.  In fairness to Top Rank, they’ve renegotiated the deal and may now have a more generous licensing fee.  Terms of the new deal have not been released.

      4. The Best Do Not Fight the Best, nor Do They Fight Often Enough 

On the other end of the scale, boxing's inefficiencies are evidenced by PBC's wealth of talent but lack of available dates and money to showcase them on a consistent basis.  Of PBC's top level talent, not one fighter fought more than twice in 2017 and over half fought only one time: Deontay Wilder (2), Adonis Stevenson (1), Badou Jack (2), Jermall Charlo (1), Jermell Charlo (2), Keith Thurman (1), Danny Garcia (1), Errol Spence (1), Mikey Garcia (2), Leo Santa Cruz (2) and Gary Russell (1).  Not all of the lack of activity was the fault of either PBC or Showtime, but clearly the best fighters were not as visible in 2017 as they should have been.  

PBC and Showtime have done a better job in 2018 managing the roster and putting on quality fights but the lack of excitement around a few of their inactive stars was highlighted by the relatively low ratings for two excellent fights on the same night - Stevenson vs. Jack and Russell vs. Joseph Diaz.  It's hard for the boxing audience to get excited about fighters, even very good ones, when they only fight once a year.  Obviously, now that PBC has landed the deal with Fox and upgraded their deal with Showtime, they may better serve their fighters in terms of activity. The fact that PBC stars such as the Charlo twins, Gervonta Davis, Gary Russell and Leo Santa Cruz have only fought once in 2018 shows that there's still a problem getting their stars enough work.  PBC should not have arguably their biggest star, Errol Spence, out on Twitter complaining "I need a fight."

Other major sports do not have boxing's problems.  The NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, PGA, and NASCAR schedule and showcase their best athletes competing against each other on a regular basis and ultimately determining, by competitive playoffs or tournaments, who the best team or athlete is.

Due to the appeal of the best athletes competing in an organized format, other major sports have scored lucrative television deals (with major sponsors) that fuel their leagues.  Boxing's major players have many separate and lucrative deals but none nearly as big as the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, PGA or NASCAR.  If Top Rank can land a purported nine figure deal with ESPN, just think what a rights deal for a joint venture with PBC, Matchroom, Golden Boy and a few others would be.  As evidenced by the rising franchise values of teams in the four major sports (NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL), by staying fragmented and not organizing into a league format, boxing's major players are potentially missing out on millions of broadcast and sponsorship dollars for their enterprises.   

D. A Beacon of Light: The World Boxing Super Series (WBSS)

The biggest complaint of boxing fans is that the best fighters do not fight each other on a regular basis.  Veteran boxing writer Thomas Hauser, a recent guest on my podcast, identified four fights that boxing fans want to see: GGG vs. Canelo II, Anthony Joshua vs. Deontay Wilder, Vasyl Lomachenko vs. Mikey Garcia and Errol Spence vs. Terence Crawford.  Of the four, only one has taken place.

As mentioned above, the WBSS has provided a vehicle for staging tournaments between the best fighters in each division that they've featured.  The WBSS has tried to recruit all of the world champions in each division featured as well as some of the top contenders.  The first season's Cruiserweight tournament had all four major sanctioning bodies’ champions and was a highly successful and exciting tournament.

The WBSS has worked with many different promoters who have willingly allowed their fighters to compete in the tournament.  The WBSS has also worked to appease the sanctioning bodies by incorporating mandatory challengers into the draw.  One can see where this could be to the tournament's detriment if the mandatory is undeserving and not truly one of the eight best in the respective division.  But for the tournament's survival in the short term, it eases the recruitment process by not making champions give up belts.

However, some of the major players (e.g., Top Rank, PBC, Golden Boy, etc.) have resisted letting their fighters participate in the WBSS.  This made the first season's Super Middleweight tournament much less interesting than its Cruiserweight counterpart as only one world champion, WBA Champion George Groves, took part.  The PBC's then IBF Champion James DeGale was injured and could not take part but other PBC fighters, including present WBC Champion David Benavidez, then interim IBF Champ Andre Dirrell and Andre's brother former WBC Champion Anthony Dirrell, skipped the tournament.  Top Rank's unbeaten WBO champion Gilberto Ramirez also did not participate.  In essence, most of the top ten fighters stayed out of the Super Middleweight tournament and thus deprived the fans of the best fighting the best.

This highlights the biggest obstacle to the best fighting the best.  It's not a lack of money, as the WBSS is well-funded and pays well-above market.  It's a lack of cooperation between the major players (and networks to a certain degree) to do what's best for the sport and the fans.  Too much protecting of their own brands and fighters.

II. Proposed Solutions

A. Forming an Organized Boxing League so the Best Fight the Best

In thinking about solutions to the many current inefficiencies of boxing, the most logical and effective one would be for the major players (the top promoters + PBC) to form an association or league (League) that could act as the central governing body and advocate that the sport has desperately needed for so long.  

Since the early 1960s and Senator Estes Kefauver's federal investigation into organized crime in boxing, many have argued for a national boxing commission in the US as a solution to the sport's problems.  The late Senator John McCain, who authored two federal boxing bills that became laws in the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, proposed a number of bills that would establish a national commission but none have passed both houses of Congress.  

Even if a national commission as proposed by Senator McCain were established, the reach of such a commission would only be domestic.  Boxing is a world sport with the majority of champions coming from outside of the US.  In order for real change to occur in the sport, the central governing body would have to be global in reach not just US-centric. 

The concept of a League isn't a new one.  In fact, even the late Morton Downey, Jr. tried his hand at starting one back in the 1970s.  PBC's legal counsel even testified at deposition that one of PBC's potential goals was to become a "league-like" structure that received rights fees similar to the UFC and had a "sharing arrangement like the NFL." 

There are many different ways to structure a League.  The simplest would have the major players and other promoters of major fighters form one for the limited purpose of organizing, conducting and marketing WBSS-type tournaments.  This would be a massive leap forward for the sport.  It would certainly not cure all of boxing's ills and a League that encompassed every aspect of the sport may be too ambitious at this point.  But if the focus was on creating a "major league" of boxing, putting champions and top ten fighters in tournaments to crown a true champion in each division, it could set boxing on the path to being a major sport again.  

If the League can accomplish the following three things, it would put the sport in a much better place:

       1. A Yearly Schedule of Tournaments in Five or Six Weight Divisions

Scheduling the best fighting the best every year would give boxing the same type of structure, drama and excitement that other sports have.  The other major sports have playoffs or tournaments where the best compete to determine the true champion.  Why not boxing?  One problem is there are 17 weight divisions in the sport.  It's not practical to do every division every year, that's too many fights to schedule and some great fights would get lost in the shuffle.  It would make more sense to do five or six divisions each year.  

There are those that argue, that in the US, there is only interest in weight divisions from Featherweight and above.  If that were the case, the tournaments could be narrowed down to just 11 divisions.  Tournaments could be held every other year in five or six divisions. 

But the success of the Superfly cards on HBO has proven that there is interest in weights below 126.  Though many of the top fighters below 126 are from Asia, there are a fair amount from Mexico and other Latin America countries that would be of interest to the strong Latino demographic that drives boxing's TV ratings in the US.  It makes sense to have tournaments in all 17 divisions, with five or six divisions per year in rotation, so that each division has a tournament every third year.

With the four major boxing broadcasters paying generous license fees and with over 100 dates available across these networks, scheduling five or six tournaments should not be a problem.  DAZN is already scheduled to handle three tournaments on its own in season two of the WBSS.  With all of the dates on the respective networks, there is absolutely no reason why ESPN, Showtime or Fox could not handle at least one weight division per year.  A tournament would guarantee each network seven quality fights between top ten contenders and champions that should draw above average ratings.  That’s a boon to any network’s boxing schedule.  By the time the final bout occurs you are either setting up for one of the most highly anticipated bouts of the year in prime time or a lucrative PPV for the network.  A win either way you slice it.

Having each division featured every three years would allow the promoter of the tournament winner to exploit the champion's win and also allow the division to regenerate and find new blood for the next tournament go round.  The fact that the WBSS is having a Cruiserweight tournament for a second year in a row seems a little dubious.  An undisputed champion has already been established, Oleksandr Usyk.  How can you have a "Champions League" tournament of boxers without the Champion with all of the belts?  It makes more sense to allow the Champion to exploit his tournament win and allow the division a few years to generate a new set of challengers rather than having two "Champions' Champions" exist.  It defeats the purpose of a tournament clarifying who's the best.

In boxing, it's the marquee fighters who drive the revenue and allow promoters to build the rest of their roster out.  For example, look at the percentage of Golden Boy's revenue that comes from their top fighter Canelo.  According to Bloody Elbow, Canelo accounted for 64.1% of Golden Boy's revenue from 2014-first half of 2016, including 94% of revenue after Golden Boy's split with Al Haymon and the PBC and 107% of revenue for the first half of 2016.  

Golden Boy is by no means unique in that respect.  The stars in each major player's roster drive their revenues and allow them to subsidize the growth of their next generation of stars.  The goal of promoters, fighters and most networks (save DAZN) is to build fighters into PPV stars where the real money is.  The willy nilly nature of the sport now with no collective plan to build big fights and big stars is too inefficient.  It's a constant struggle of working to build maybe one or two big fights a year.  The tournaments would take a lot of the work, stress and uncertainty for the major players and networks out of the picture. 

Putting the top fighters against each other on a consistent structured basis with WBSS-type tournaments can only serve to drive interest in the sport and improve both TV ratings and revenues for the individual promoters and fighters.  A rising tide lifts all ships.  Clearly, the current state of scheduling events that conflict with other promoters and the "dog eat dog" fragmentation cause a diminution of value to the events and to the major players' bottom line.

       2. Use a WBSS-type Format but Participants Must Be Legit Top Ten Contenders

Regarding the structure of the yearly tournaments, it makes sense to generally follow the WBSS format and recruit the world champions of the four major sanctioning bodies for the reasons stated above in Section I (D).  If there are mandatory title challenges due at the start of the tourney, the mandatories could possibly be included.  But there must be a requirement that all of the fighters are rated in the top ten of an independent set of boxing ratings such as the Transnational Boxing Ratings Board.  Otherwise, the tournaments will suffer from the same lack of credibility that dogs the sanctioning bodies’ ratings.

To contrast how the League's tournament would look in comparison to the WBSS, let's look at how the current season of the Junior Welterweights in the WBSS would have filled out using the July TBRB's ratings (when the WBSS Junior Welterweight lineup was announced) and had the major players agreed to their fighters competing in the tournament:

WBSS - Round 1 fights: No. 1 seed Regis Prograis (TBRB No. 1) vs. Terry Flanagan (TBRB unrated); No. 2 seed Josh Taylor (TBRB No. 2) vs. Ryan Martin (TBRB unrated); No. 3 seed Kiryl Relikh (TBRB No. 6 - WBA Champion) vs. Eduard Troyanovsky (TBRB No. 10); No. 4 seed Ivan Baranchyk (TBRB unrated) vs. Anthony Yigit (TBRB unrated).

Hypothetical League Tournament - Round 1 fights: No. 1 seed*  Josh Taylor (TBRB No. 1) vs. Maurice Hooker (TBRB No. 9 - WBO Champion); No. 2 seed Sergey Lipinets (TBRB No. 2) vs. Adrien Broner (TBRB No. 4); No. 3 seed Regis Prograis (TBRB No. 3 - WBC Mandatory) vs. Jose Carlos Ramirez (TBRB No. 7 - WBC Champion); No. 4 seed Kiryl Relikh (TBRB No. 6 - WBA Champion) vs. Eduard Troyanovsky (TBRB No. 10 - WBA Mandatory).  

*Note that the TBRB Champion at 140 is Mikey Garcia.  It's hard to know whether Mikey would join this tournament if invited.  His moving up and down between 135, 140 and possibly 147 suggests he would rather pick and choose his fights than get in the tournament.  Thus, he was left out. Also, note that the IBF vacant title is being contested by two fighters unrated by the TBRB - Baranchyk and Yigit.  It would make sense to leave them out in favor of a better fight between two legitimate top ten fighters - Lipinets and Broner.  The two top ten rated fighters who were left out - No. 5 Antonio Orozco and No. 8 Viktor Postal would be the alternates and fighting on the undercards in case of injuries.  Maybe the winner of Baranchyk vs. Yigit could also be on standby for the semis.

Obviously, trying to combine independent ratings with sanctioning body belts and mandatory obligations is a bit complicated.  But as much as the sanctioning bodies have hurt the sport's credibility with their inaccurate ratings, arbitrary enforcement of rules and proliferation of "world champions", it's clear that fighters make more money with the title belts than not.  More champions and championship fights means a bigger middle class for boxing.  

However, fans crave the best fighting the best, like every other major sport, to crown the true champion.  What the tournament format gives you is the one champion per division that brings legitimacy back to the sport.  It also creates new stars in the sport.  That champion needs to be recognized throughout the sport as THE champion of that division.  The sanctioning bodies need to give that champion some leeway after the tournament.  There should be at least a six-to-nine month window post-tournament where the League champ can fight who they want without fear of losing a belt.  Certainly, if there was huge demand for a rematch of the final, it would be a shame if the sanctioning bodies got in the way.  After that window, the normal mandatory periods can proceed following the usual rotation of mandatory obligations of a unified champion.

It would also make sense after formation for the League to enact a Committee, similar to the Selection Committee in NCAA Football, to establish criteria and handle who gets into the tournament and what the matchups will be.  Basing entry on independent ratings would go a long way towards restoring legitimacy to the sport.

       3.  The League Schedules/Markets the Tournaments Maximizing Revenues 

At this juncture, with the biggest players all on different platforms, the degree of difficulty in convincing them to act collectively to create these tournaments is high.  But in reality, the only thing that would change is that a few of their fighters would be participating in the tournaments each year, potentially but not necessarily, on networks of other major players.  The rest of their fighter rosters could fill out their programming schedule as they presently do.

Obviously, with tournaments in divisions featuring marquee fighters, it makes sense for the marquee fighter to appear on the platform where their promoter or manager has a deal.  

However, there will be certain divisions, such as the Welterweights, where you have multiple marquee fighters with different network alliances (e.g., Terence Crawford - Top Rank/ESPN and Errol Spence, Shawn Porter - PBC/Showtime/FOX).  To solve that problem, it might make sense to put the fighters who are on "different sides of the street" in separate brackets and on different networks.  A quarterfinal and semifinal each on both ESPN and Fox/Showtime is a potential solution.  The final would clearly be a PPV event.

There will inevitably come a point where network alliances change for the major players.  The decisions on which network to put the tournaments or particular fights in a tournament should be made collectively by League consensus or through a Scheduling Committee.  

The NFL has its games on multiple networks and can drive a much better bargain as a league with all of the best football players under contract.  If boxing's major players formed a League and marketed their tournaments collectively with all (or most) of the biggest stars of the sport participating, they could get top dollar for these events.  As Stephen Espinoza stated, if the sport had one collective voice they could be at "every ad agency" advocating on what the sport can deliver.

B. Other Considerations 

     1. Herding Cats and Antitrust

The idea that getting the major players to form a League is as easy as "herding cats" is not entirely true.  As recently as 2009, a number of US promoters got together and formed the Boxing Promoters Association (BPA).  The BPA was initially founded to look out for smaller promoters who felt that larger promoters were getting a disproportionate amount of dates on HBO - namely Golden Boy who had the only output deal.  Eventually, Golden Boy joined the BPA.  Though the BPA did some lobbying to Congress regarding Sen. McCain's boxing legislation - they did not accomplish much and the organization appears to be either dormant or possibly extinct.

One of the problems with the BPA was some major promoters did not participate due to antitrust concerns and the exclusion of non-US promoters.  If a League were to be formed by the major players today, there would have to be no barrier to entry for membership.  The main criteria would be whether your fighter was rated high enough by the independent ratings to participate in the tournaments.  

Antitrust protects competition, not competitors.  The WBSS-type tournaments would not hurt competition, they would foster it - much like the College Football Playoff.  Boxing consumers would certainly not be hurt as they would finally get what they want, an orderly process to see the best fighting the best.

Of course, it would be nice if boxing could somehow get Congress to include its League in those of the team sports that come under the antitrust exemption of the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961.  But that would be a massive long shot for reasons too numerous to mention. 

Having tournaments would also not be a huge operational change for the sport.  There are already title eliminators and occasional four-man box-offs to determine number one contenders.  There are also plenty of title unification fights.  Organizing these fights into a regular schedule of tournaments that lead to the crowning of a true champion is just boxing catching up to every other major sport.  It's hard to see how that is anti-competitive - especially if the competition is open to all in the sport.

    2. Cooperation with the WBSS

The WBSS has been very successful with the tournament concept and will continue to flourish having found a home on US TV with DAZN.  A big question is how would the WBSS work within a League structure?  It's possible that the League could just conduct all of the tournaments under the umbrella of the WBSS.  There's also no reason the major players cannot establish companion tournaments on the other US TV networks, while still participating in the WBSS.  

The WBSS does not have a monopoly on the idea of boxing tournaments.  Kalle Sauerland's promotional company had a participant in Showtime's Super Six.  He's openly stated that the Super Six experience helped in structuring the WBSS.  Whether all of the tournaments are conducted under the aegis of the WBSS or a few are done with separate networks under a League banner, it would be ideal to conduct them under a uniform set of rules.  Otherwise, it's no different than the current state of dueling sanctioning bodies with no consistency or unified structure.

The WBSS also has investment money behind it to fund the tournaments.  As stated earlier, with all of the money pouring into the sport from ESPN, Fox and Showtime, it's hard to imagine that there isn't enough money for a few more tournaments to go on those networks.  It's also hard to imagine any difficulty in getting investors for another venture to do more tournaments considering the fledgling MMA outfit Professional Fighters League just received a $28M investment from celebrity backers and they only have a one year TV deal with NBC Sports Network.  

     3. There May Be Opt-outs From Fighters Too Big for the Tournaments

There are a few stars in the sport who are too big to appear on the broadcast networks who would air the tournaments.  Canelo Alvarez is now strictly a PPV fighter and it would be doubtful if he'd participate in any tournament.  Anthony Joshua is similarly getting to the point where he may be too big and too expensive for a tournament.  Unlike the other major sports who have not dipped their toe into PPV, boxing would have a very difficult time convincing fighters making tens of millions to forego that money for the greater good of the sport.  That genie will not go back in the bottle. 

Maybe there is a way to get a Canelo to appear on network or cable in the quarterfinals and then do both the semis and finals on PPV.  More likely he would just opt-out and wait to fight the winner - on PPV.

This is not unprecedented as nearly every major tournament from boxing's past has had opt-outs.  In the late '60s, the WBA's Heavyweight tournament to fill Muhammad Ali's vacated title featured most all of the top contenders, with the exception of Joe Frazier, who opted out.  Similarly with the Heavyweight tournament in the late '80s organized by HBO - all of the champions participated except Michael Spinks, who opted to stay out.  Even in the Super Six, then IBF Champion Lucien Bute declined to participate.

It would not damage the League too much if a few of the stars did not participate in the tournaments.  In fact, it would probably set up a big fight with the tournament winner down the line.  Obviously, it would be optimal if all of the top fighters participated, like every other major sport, but there will always be circumstances where fighters are injured or cannot participate for some reason.  This should not be a deterrent to having the tournaments.

III. Conclusion

Boxing has a unique opportunity at this point in its history.  It is on an upswing.  Constantly written off as dead and in need of saving, the sport is now back on free TV with audiences potentially in the hundreds of millions.  There is also an unprecedented amount of money being thrown at the sport.  Now is the time for the sport to get itself together and give the fans what they want, the best fighting the best on regular basis.

Vague promises of working together and "trades" of fighters from one network to the other on occasion are not what the sport needs at this critical juncture.  The sport needs the structure of a formal League and a commitment to scheduling tournaments that pit the best against the best with no self-defeating counter-programming of the other major players.  If the sport adopts a League structure that schedules and runs these tournaments on a regular basis, boxing would be operating under a more than "sensible paradigm" that Lou DiBella spoke of a year ago.

Maybe even Fox Sports Radio would recognize that the sport won't be needing a coffin anytime soon.

(Coming Soon - Part 2 - Structuring a League That Goes Beyond Scheduling Tournaments and Gets to Deeper Problems).

Boxing Podcast With Writer Adam Abramowitz

My guest on this podcast is Adam Abramowitz, a writer for the excellent boxing blog Saturday Night Boxing.  Adam is also on the board of the independent media run Transnational Boxing Ratings, as well as The Ring ratings panel.  

We spoke about his recent article on the influx of streaming networks into the sport of boxing, titled "Hearn, Top Rank and the New American Boxing Paradigm".  We also got into where cable broadcasting in general is going and how that affects the sport.  It was a great conversation.

To check out Adam's work on boxing go to www.saturdaynightboxing.com.  You can also catch up with Adam on Twitter at @snboxing.

Enjoy the podcast.  You can listen to it on Soundcloud or subscribe to the podcast on either iTunes or Stitcher.  Please leave a comment or a rating, I would very much appreciate it.

World of Boxing and Povetkin Win Summary Judgment Motion, Awarded $4.3M in Escrow in Wilder Dispute

In an opinion that stunned the Deontay Wilder camp, Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein held that in spite of a jury verdict that Alexander Povetkin had ingested Meldonium after January 1, 2016 and though he undisputedly tested positive for Meldonium on April 27, 2016 in a VADA random test, Povetkin did not breach the Bout Agreement (BA) and thus denied Wilder's Motion for Summary Judgment on his breach of contract claim.  Further, because there was no breach of the BA, Wilder's $4.3 million escrowed purse for the aborted Wilder-Povetkin bout was returned to Povetkin's promoter World of Boxing (WOB).  Wilder presumably will appeal the decision.

BACKGROUND

Wilder was scheduled to make a mandatory defense of his WBC Heavyweight title against Povetkin in mid-2016.  The negotiations for the fight were contentious and the bout went to purse bids.  WOB won the purse bid in the amount of $7.15M.  Though the purses were decided, there still needed to be a final BA and once again the parties had trouble coming to an agreement.  One of the big points of contention was the language over whether the promoters would be required to "produce" their respective fighters for the fight.

Eventually the WBC was brought in to mediate and ultimately drafted the BA.  The final BA provided that WBC rules would govern the "event in its entirety and shall be binding on all parties . . . [i]n the event the Parties incur any dispute or controversy with respect to this contract, all parties understand and agree to be bound by the Rules and Regulations of the WBC."  The WBC's rules regarding PEDs state that "[b]oxers . . . should not take, ingest, or have administered . . . any substance . . . that may enhance or reduce the boxer's performance."  The rules leave the WBC with sole discretion to determine penalties and provide that they do not "adhere to a 'strict liability' standard in anti-doping matters."

The parties also entered into an Escrow Agreement (EA) for Wilder's purse, which is standard in international title fights.  The EA provided that the funds would be disbursed to Wilder after the fight if he submitted an affidavit stating the fight happened along with a copy of an article from www.fightnews.com.  Similarly, if the fight did not happen, WOB would get the escrow funds if they submitted an affidavit to that effect, plus an article from www.fightnews.com.  The escrow agent was forbidden from disbursing the money if either party objected to the disbursement in "good faith".  If the objection was not in "good faith" there was a liquidated damages penalty of $2.5M.

The parties agreed to VADA testing before the fight.  Povetkin's first three tests came back negative but his fourth test on April 27, 2016 came back positive at 70 nanograms per milliliter for Meldonium.  VADA informed the WBC on May 13, 2016 of the positive test and the WBC announced that they would conduct "an in-depth investigation of this matter."  Meldonium was placed on WADA's Prohibited List on January 1, 2016.  However, in a June 30, 2016 notice, WADA stated that if the concentration in a sample were found to be less than one microgram per milliliter, there would be a finding of no fault for any sample taken between January 1 and September 30, 2016.  Povetkin's sample was below one microgram per milliliter.

Wilder was in London preparing for the bout when Povetkin's positive test was made public.  Wilder's lawyer, John Wirt, emailed the WBC on May 14, stating that Wilder considered WOB and Povetkin in breach of the BA.  On May 15, the WBC announced that they were postponing the fight and would continue to investigate the case.  Wirt emailed the escrow agent on the same day and objected to any disbursement of the escrow funds.  Wilder's side considered the fight cancelled, not postponed, and stated so in the press.  Ultimately, in June 2016 both Wilder and WOB/Povetkin would file suits against each other.  Wilder sued for breach of both the BA and the EA.  WOB/Povetkin sued for breach of the BA and EA, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and also defamation.

The WBC allowed Wilder to make an optional defense against Chris Arreola on July 16, 2016. Wilder won but broke his arm and tore a bicep in the fight.  He was sidelined until January 2017.  On August 17, 2016, the WBC announced its ruling on Povetkin's failed drug test.  It stated it had "called the Bout off . . . until the ongoing investigation [] concluded."  The WBC ruled that it was not possible to "ascertain that Mr. Povetkin ingested Meldonium after January 1, 2016."  This ruling was presumably based on WADA's statement that samples below one microgram were "no fault" findings if collected between January 1, 2016 and September 30, 2016.

Wilder appealed the WBC's ruling and the WBC then stated that if Wilder prevailed at trial, the WBC would afford Povetkin the opportunity to show that the trial's result was not based on a finding that he ingested Meldonium after January 1, 2016.

On December 23, 2016, Judge Gorenstein ordered that the trial be limited to one issue - whether Povetkin ingested Meldonium on or after January 1, 2016.  In February 2017, the trial was held and after hearing expert testimony from both sides, the jury found that Povetkin had ingested Meldonium after January 1, 2016.  Povetkin/WOB filed a motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law but the motion was denied on April 26, 2017.

In the meantime, Povetkin had a bout for the interim WBC title scheduled for December 17, 2016.  The bout was postponed, once again due to a positive drug test, this time for Ostarine.  The WBC then issued a new ruling on March 2, 2017, suspending Povetkin indefinitely in acknowledgement of both the jury's verdict and his positive test for Ostarine.

Povetkin appealed the WBC's ruling and on November 7, 2017.  Once again the WBC flip-flopped and stated that "notwithstanding the specific finding of the jury in the New York Litigation, the WBC continues to adhere to its ruling of August 17, 2016 that it is not possible to ascertain that Mr. Povetkin ingested Meldonium after January 1, 2016."  The WBC amended Povetkin's indefinite suspension to a one year suspension from the date of his positive test for Ostarine. 

Both Wilder and Povetkin/WOB filed summary judgment motions after the conclusion of trial in this case in late 2017.

DECISION

The Court addressed the breach of contract claim against Povetkin first.  The Court immediately acknowledged that the jury trial conclusively determined that Povetkin ingested Meldonium after January 1, 2016.  It also acknowledged that Povetkin tested positive on April 27, 2016 during VADA's testing.  The Court then dropped the bomb that neither of these events constituted a breach of the BA.

The Court, in essence, held that because the parties submitted to the whims of the WBC's anti-doping rules, which leave penalties solely in the discretion of the WBC, any decision the WBC made was dispositive.  The WBC's final decision on November 7, 2017 that, in spite of the jury verdict to the contrary and Judge Carter's affirmation of that verdict, it was not possible to determine whether Povetkin ingested Meldonium after January 1, 2016, doomed Wilder's breach of contract claim.  The Court cited the WBC's rules of not applying a strict liability standard and their discretion to determine whether a boxer was responsible for violating its anti-doping policy. 

The Court rejected Wilder's argument that the WBC did not have discretion to decide whether Povetkin violated the BA because the SDNY Court was the forum designated for dispute resolution.  The Court held that the forum selection clause did not address any issue of contract interpretation and the parties ceded substantial control over performance of the BA to the WBC. 

The Court also rejected Wilder's argument that the Court had stated in a previous hearing that the WBC did not retain discretion to decide if Povetkin violated the anti-doping provisions of the BA.  At the aforementioned hearing, The Court had rejected WOB's argument that submitting the ingestion question to the jury would amount to an "advisory opinion".  The Court reasoned then that ingestion was an "issue in the case" and that the jury's verdict would be "binding".  The Court now held that though Wilder asserted that a verdict of ingestion proved a breach of contract, the Court now rejected this argument following the briefing in the case.

Thus, the Court granted Povetkin and WOB's motion for summary judgment on Wilder's breach of contract claim.

The Court then examined Wilder's breach of contract claim against WOB and also found no breach.  Though WOB was contractually obligated by the BA to promote the bout and provide Povetkin's services, both of which they failed to do, the Court reasoned that the BA gave the WBC "complete power over the Bout's staging."  The Court cited the BA's provisions that gave the WBC the ability to withdraw sanction of the bout and its authority to cancel or change the date of the bout as evidence of control.  The Court stated that the WBC's postponement of the bout on May 15 after Povetkin's positive test superseded WOB's obligation to promote the bout on May 21.  

The Court then distinguished a very similar case that it had decided just four years ago, World of Boxing LLC v. King.  In that case, Guillermo Jones tested positive for a PED on the eve of a WBA Cruiserweight title bout.  WOB was the promoter of Denis Lebedev, Jones' opponent for the match.  WOB sued Jones' promoter, Don King, on the very same grounds Wilder sued WOB, breach of contract for failing to produce the fighter due to a positive drug test.  The Court in King, found that King had breached the bout agreement because the WBA rules, which were incorporated by the bout agreement, required suspension from the ratings of any boxer who tested positive and because Jones had previously tested positive for PEDs, it was foreseeable he'd do so.

Here, the Court reasoned that the BA gave the WBC discretion to determine if a doping violation occurred and to make decisions about whether the bout would be held on the date in the BA.  For those reasons, the Court found that WOB did not breach the BA and granted WOB's summary judgment on Wilder's breach of contract claim.

The Court dismissed Povetkin and WOB's breach of contract claims against Wilder because of lack of causation.  The Court found that any damages suffered were attributable to Povetkin's positive test and the WBC's postponement of the bout and failure to reschedule it.  Because the WBC unequivocally stated that Povetkin's positive test was their reason for postponing the bout, any action by Wilder was secondary to the that.  Thus, the Court granted Wilder's motion for summary judgment on Povetkin and WOB's claim for breach of contract.

The Court granted Wilder's summary judgment motion on Povetkin and WOB's breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for similar reasons.  The Court found that nothing in the record supported an inference that the bout was postponed or canceled due to any action by Wilder. 

The Court then addressed the escrow fund claims as both parties sought summary judgment to take possession of the $4,369,365 in escrow that was supposed to be Wilder's purse.  The Court ruled that WOB was entitled to the escrow funds because Wilder had not proven a breach of the BA, which was his reason for objecting to the return of the funds to WOB post-bout cancellation.  The EA provided that if the bout did not take place, the escrow would be sent back to WOB.  Thus, the Court awarded the $4,369,365 in escrow to WOB.

The Court also denied WOB's claim for liquidated damages under the EA.  The Court found that WOB failed to carry its burden of proving that Wilder's objections to release of the escrow back to WOB were not made in good faith.  The Court found that the EA did not make any limitations on the grounds that an objection could be made, only that it must be made in good faith. 

The Court had previously stayed WOB's defamation claims and did not opine on them here.

TAKEAWAYS

This was a case that appeared to be mishandled by many of the entities involved including WADA, the WBC and the Court for the Southern District of New York.  

WADA issued two modifications to the placing of Meldonium on the Prohibited List that ultimately changed the outcome of the case.  They moved the goalposts on what was considered a "no fault" test from: 1) no threshold for a violation to more than one microgram per milliliter; and 2) absolved positives from samples taken between January 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016.  This wrecked havoc on this case.

The WBC's indecisiveness and constant bending to the whims of each party also created complete uncertainty in this case.  The fact that they ignored a jury verdict that Povetkin ingested Meldonium and maintained that they could not "ascertain whether Povetkin ingested Meldonium" seems like an injustice to Wilder.

The SDNY Court seemingly bungled by ordering a limited trial on a single issue in what was a fairly complex case and then blatantly ignoring the verdict and ruling there was no breach of contract.  Why have a trial on ingestion if it didn't pertain to breach of the contract, which was the crux of the case?

This case exposes the fractured nature of the sport of boxing, especially in regards to the consistency of its anti-doping regulations.  In 2014, the SDNY held a promoter responsible for breach of contract because he couldn't produce his fighter due to a positive for a PED on the eve of a title bout.  Part of the reason was because the WBA rules provided for an automatic suspension of a fighter who tested positive.  In 2018, the SDNY held that a promoter was not in breach of contract even though his fighter also could not be produced for the bout due to a positive PED sample.  The reason being the WBC drafted the BA and incorporated its rules which do not adhere to a "strict liability" policy in regards to positive PED tests and give them great discretion in deciding penalties.

Boxing's anti-doping situation is clouded by different sanctioning bodies, different standards, and different results even with similar sets of facts.  Imagine if GGG were to sue Canelo for breach of contract over his positive test.  Which rules would apply for a unified champion - WBA, WBC or IBF?  They all apply different standards in regards to anti-doping policy.

It would be nice if the major promoters got together and formed a boxing league and set out a clear and uniform set of anti-doping rules, similar to the UFC's use of USADA.  This would bring some clarity to what is currently a messy state of inconsistency.

See the opinion below: