TV and boxing

In MMA you get several organisations including UFC, Strikeforce and other smaller ones. Should boxing follow suit in that they should be aligned to one organisation/TV company, be contracted for 3-5 fights or more. That way the organisation gets to decide who fights who without ducking.

OK, you may get brilliant boxers aligned to other organisations making matches impossible, but when their contracts run out, they go where the money is and that would mean the best fighting the best. Much like the UFC has become the dominant organisation in MMA and bought out strikeforce, maybe the dominant organisation who attract the best fighters will get all the best boxers and then we will get what we want; the best fighting the best.

Imanige in Floyd and Pac were contracted to a UFC type organisation? That fight wopuld have happened ages ago.

OK, its pretty random and far fetched. But how can we get the best fighting the best? Thoughts?

I would tend to forsee MMA succumbing to similar problems associated with boxing if it continues to get bigger and the money involved increases, rather than boxing evolving to MMA format.

The biggest problem is a lack of worldwide governing body and authority to regulate, control and look after the interests of the sport.

Not if its managed properly it shouldn't. Obviously the money factor is important and could throw a huge spanner in the works. But that could be written in the contract ie how much pay and what % of PPV sales boxers would get.

azania wrote:Not if its managed properly it shouldn't. Obviously the money factor is important and could throw a huge spanner in the works. But that could be written in the contract ie how much pay and what % of PPV sales boxers would get.

MMA is already fragmented. What UFC has is a brand. It offers the most money and the best exposure. It markets itself as housing the best fighters.

But whats to stop a rival company offering individual stars like Anderson Silva, George St Pierre, Jon Jones etc more money to fight to fight for them? The fighters will follow the money and when they realise their own self worth they wont be content to sign into multi fight deals tying them down.

Why would Pacquiao or Mayweather sign up to a 5 fight deal when they can make millions fighting whoever they want, when they want?

How much credibilty would UFC lose if its 3 or 4 best fighters decided to leave?

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:Not if its managed properly it shouldn't. Obviously the money factor is important and could throw a huge spanner in the works. But that could be written in the contract ie how much pay and what % of PPV sales boxers would get.

MMA is already fragmented. What UFC has is a brand. It offers the most money and the best exposure. It markets itself as housing the best fighters.

But whats to stop a rival company offering individual stars like Anderson Silva, George St Pierre, Jon Jones etc more money to fight to fight for them? The fighters will follow the money and when they realise their own self worth they wont be content to sign into multi fight deals tying them down.

Why would Pacquiao or Mayweather sign up to a 5 fight deal when they can make millions fighting whoever they want, when they want?

How much credibilty would UFC lose if its 3 or 4 best fighters decided to leave?

Affliction tried that by paying huge sums for fighters like Fedor and fighters who didn't renew their UFC contract. It failed after 2 PPV. But if a boxer if contracted to one company he wouldn't be able to leave until his contract expires. If the two best fighters are with different companies, then after one contract has expired the fighter becomes a free agent which could make matching them more easier.

Also terrestial TV could be used as 'breeding' ground to give good fighters a name.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:Not if its managed properly it shouldn't. Obviously the money factor is important and could throw a huge spanner in the works. But that could be written in the contract ie how much pay and what % of PPV sales boxers would get.

MMA is already fragmented. What UFC has is a brand. It offers the most money and the best exposure. It markets itself as housing the best fighters.

But whats to stop a rival company offering individual stars like Anderson Silva, George St Pierre, Jon Jones etc more money to fight to fight for them? The fighters will follow the money and when they realise their own self worth they wont be content to sign into multi fight deals tying them down.

Why would Pacquiao or Mayweather sign up to a 5 fight deal when they can make millions fighting whoever they want, when they want?

How much credibilty would UFC lose if its 3 or 4 best fighters decided to leave?

Affliction tried that by paying huge sums for fighters like Fedor and fighters who didn't renew their UFC contract. It failed after 2 PPV. But if a boxer if contracted to one company he wouldn't be able to leave until his contract expires. If the two best fighters are with different companies, then after one contract has expired the fighter becomes a free agent which could make matching them more easier.

Also terrestial TV could be used as 'breeding' ground to give good fighters a name.

Yeah but its about the money. Essentially the only way UFC can keep control of its market share and status is if it can sustain the best financial outlet for fighters. Once fighters start demanding more, or rivals can compete financially, then it blown wide open.

I might take the UFC/MMA in its current model over the current mess boxing is in at present, but I would prefer an umbrella governing body and more cooperation overall.

Alternatively a semi final draw between the champs of the 4 main bodies. The winner moves and fights in the final with the overall winner declared world champ. The other bodies then get their Nos 1&2 to fight for their vacant belt and have a series of eliminators to determmine who fights for the title. Something along those lines.

It would involveall 4 main organisations working together, but if the money's right, who knows.

azania wrote:Alternatively a semi final draw between the champs of the 4 main bodies. The winner moves and fights in the final with the overall winner declared world champ. The other bodies then get their Nos 1&2 to fight for their vacant belt and have a series of eliminators to determmine who fights for the title. Something along those lines.

It would involveall 4 main organisations working together, but if the money's right, who knows.

Its a nice theory but I just cant see it working in practice. There are so many fundemantal differences between MMA and boxing. A loss in boxing is often pretty debastating and is treated as such by fans. In MMA a loss is seen as par for course.

I think most people would like to have one title per division, the best fight the best, proper rankings etc but getting there is difficult.

Really sports like MMA and boxing need a kind of a watchdog organisation who are not out to make financial gain but whos job is to look after the long term health and interest of the sport. Without that its a bit wild west with fighters, promoters, sanctioning bodies all out to make money without the long term future of the sport in mind. Boxing is an example of the kind of problems that will occur without proper regulation and I think MMA is open to it aswell, albeit more organised than boxing is at present.

Boxing fans are kind of used to it by now and tend to fill in many of the shortcomings themselves - i.e doing up their own champions per weight, independant ranking lists etc but if you were to take a step back from it or try to view it as somebody with no experience of the sport would then its a serious mess in terms of structure and organisation.

I think you could be right something needs to be done in boxing maybe they need to copy what UFC are doing there should also be more tournaments like the super six and if champs wont sign up to it then they should be stripped.

That's a good idea but who would strip them? Their are four sanctioning bodies who create titles at will. Problem is the fact their is no umbrella board that covers the whole of the sport like football has with FIFA.

Another problem and the biggest one for me is Golden Boy and Top Rank they are killing the sport.

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:Not if its managed properly it shouldn't. Obviously the money factor is important and could throw a huge spanner in the works. But that could be written in the contract ie how much pay and what % of PPV sales boxers would get.

MMA is already fragmented. What UFC has is a brand. It offers the most money and the best exposure. It markets itself as housing the best fighters.

But whats to stop a rival company offering individual stars like Anderson Silva, George St Pierre, Jon Jones etc more money to fight to fight for them? The fighters will follow the money and when they realise their own self worth they wont be content to sign into multi fight deals tying them down.

Why would Pacquiao or Mayweather sign up to a 5 fight deal when they can make millions fighting whoever they want, when they want?

How much credibilty would UFC lose if its 3 or 4 best fighters decided to leave?

Only have a passing interest so may be wrong but haven't UFC simply bought over their main rivals like Pride, Strikeforce etc? So is there anywhere for the fighters to go? Plus Dana White is a failed boxing promoter and a fan so hopefully he's aware of the challenges ahead for his organisation to avoid them going down the same route as boxing. One recognised world body would be great but seems a bit too late for that in boxing.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:Not if its managed properly it shouldn't. Obviously the money factor is important and could throw a huge spanner in the works. But that could be written in the contract ie how much pay and what % of PPV sales boxers would get.

MMA is already fragmented. What UFC has is a brand. It offers the most money and the best exposure. It markets itself as housing the best fighters.

But whats to stop a rival company offering individual stars like Anderson Silva, George St Pierre, Jon Jones etc more money to fight to fight for them? The fighters will follow the money and when they realise their own self worth they wont be content to sign into multi fight deals tying them down.

Why would Pacquiao or Mayweather sign up to a 5 fight deal when they can make millions fighting whoever they want, when they want?

How much credibilty would UFC lose if its 3 or 4 best fighters decided to leave?

Affliction tried that by paying huge sums for fighters like Fedor and fighters who didn't renew their UFC contract. It failed after 2 PPV. But if a boxer if contracted to one company he wouldn't be able to leave until his contract expires. If the two best fighters are with different companies, then after one contract has expired the fighter becomes a free agent which could make matching them more easier.

Also terrestial TV could be used as 'breeding' ground to give good fighters a name.

1. If fighters are contracted to different companies, making fights would be even harder than it is now. Being tied to a contract of even two years could scupper so many big fights happening when they should. Look at how some people are now far less excited about Floyd v Manny than they were 2 years ago.

2. When their contract expires, they'll be free to fight whoever they want... Isn't that the way things are now?

Also, I don't follow MMA at all so could someone tell me how often they fight? I would imagine it's more frequently than the average big name boxer. Being contracted to a company and only being able to/having to fight those in the same company might not work so well if you're only fighting twice a year.

Retirements, other people's contracts ending and a lack of upcoming talent could leave a fighter pretty bored for a long time until his contract ends, and could take away the best part of his career.

That's what I reckon anyway.

To answer some of the questions.

Most MMA fighters fight 3/4 times a year if fit.

There are PPVs each month with smaller TV cards (Ultimate fight nights) which usually still have a good main event.

Some months, they have two PPVs if there is one going on in Europe for example, as these are free to US audiences.

They also own Strikeforce now, so have even more events - its unlikely the top fighters would get bored to be honest.

The one holdback for this working in boxing is the money involved. I think the biggest ever payday (and I might be wrong) was Brock Lesnar at UFC100 who made $1m from the fight - but then again this was UFCs biggest ever event.

Another aspect that would work well and encourage fighters is that UFC has prizes for best knockout of the night (as well as submissions) - this could work on boxing cards and give some fighters the impetus to come forward a little more looking for the KO.

There are other organisations out there too, so MMA fighters arent held over a barrel - Japan has some bit events for fighters to ply their trade in.

$1 million being the biggest payday...? Ortiz got a crap payment in terms of the money Floyd was getting and still made $5 mill.

this is an example:

http://mmapayout.com/2010/10/ufc-121-payout-salaries-show-lesnar-at-the-top/

Thats really pap to be honest. Tim Bradley wooped a stoned 40 year old blown up lightweight for 1.2 Million dollars earlier.

The salaries are nowhere near boxing thats true but doesnt that say more about boxing than anything?

Its the huge sums involved thats corrupted the sport

Adam no one cares that boxing was corrupt when the big fights were happening under Don King. If Golden Boy and Top Rank made the big fights no one would care now either. Boxing misses that crazy bar steward King being the top dog.

Adam D wrote:The salaries are nowhere near boxing thats true but doesnt that say more about boxing than anything?

Its the huge sums involved thats corrupted the sport

Got to say I agree where is the motivation for Manny and Floyd to fight each other or fight more than once a year when either one can get $30 + for smacking around the ghost of Shane Mosley, bigger paydays are not always great for the sport.

It also makes it less accessible to the majority who want to watch it.

If the huge salaries werent being commanded, terrestrial TV may get a sniff.

My post should obviously read $30M + not $30+, am not sure you would get even Audley to lace them back up again for $30.

rowley wrote:My post should obviously read $30M + not $30+, am not sure you would get even Audley to lace them back up again for $30.

Audley would do it for the taxi home.

AlexHuckerby wrote:

rowley wrote:My post should obviously read $30M + not $30+, am not sure you would get even Audley to lace them back up again for $30.

Audley would do it for the taxi home.

You kidding Audley told Hayemaker he wouldn't fight for any less than £1m!

Undercard fighters are lucky to get 5 figurre purses.

John Simpson got £4k for his fight with Selby last week.

SugarRayRussell wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:

rowley wrote:My post should obviously read $30M + not $30+, am not sure you would get even Audley to lace them back up again for $30.

Audley would do it for the taxi home.

You kidding Audley told Hayemaker he wouldn't fight for any less than £1m!

To be fair I don't blame him for saying that... He wasn't ever gonna get another opportunity and the fight sold incredibly well... Somehow. (Will admit I bought it)

SugarRayRussell wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:

rowley wrote:My post should obviously read $30M + not $30+, am not sure you would get even Audley to lace them back up again for $30.

Audley would do it for the taxi home.

You kidding Audley told Hayemaker he wouldn't fight for any less than £1m!

That was when he thought he had a dancing career to full back on. After strictly dashed those dreams I'd imagine he's pretty desperate.

SugarRayRussell wrote:John Simpson got £4k for his fight with Selby last week.

Is that what he took home? That is a shocking amount for getting punched in the face.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

SugarRayRussell wrote:John Simpson got £4k for his fight with Selby last week.

Is that what he took home? That is a shocking amount for getting punched in the face.

York hall was half empty and it was a Queensberry promotion. Simpson has been poorly managed. Before the 2nd Smith fight he had a World ranking with the IBF it made no sense fighting Smith in his back yard. They should have picked his fights better and he could have got a decent pay day and maybe have paid off his mortgage or something like that.

SugarRayRussell wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

SugarRayRussell wrote:John Simpson got £4k for his fight with Selby last week.

Is that what he took home? That is a shocking amount for getting punched in the face.

York hall was half empty and it was a Queensberry promotion. Simpson has been poorly managed. Before the 2nd Smith fight he had a World ranking with the IBF it made no sense fighting Smith in his back yard. They should have picked his fights better and he could have got a decent pay day and maybe have paid off his mortgage or something like that.

That's a real shame that a talented guy can be so poorly rewarded for working hard.

It would appear the pay in boxing is a bit like the rest of the world.
A few getting millions and a lot of hard workers getting very little.
Oh and then there is Audley. He equates to the benefit scrounger, often quoted in the daily mail, pulling a fast one to scav loads of money for doing nothing!