The real model of controversy in professional boxing
In a recent article on the popular boxing blog The Queensbury Rules, Tim Sparks draws a correlation between controversy and sales in boxing, and wonders if the cost of controversy in the long run beats the projected sales of controversy in the short term.
Put simply, Sparks asks, ‘does controversy hurt the sport of boxing’?
He says yes.
Citing examples of Mike Tyson and Floyd Mayweather Jr., Sparks agrees controversy sells and that all involved can make money off it, but firmly points out “there’s a segment of fandom that will never, ever want a part of you.”
One of Spark’s examples is Mike Tyson. The story there is that Tyson, convicted in 1992 for rape, returned to the ring in 1995 and ultimately made more money after the controversy than before it. He managed to unify the WBC and WBA belts, and made $100
million in his next three fights. Not only is that a lot of dough, it translates into a lot of media attention.
Much more recently, the reports confirmed that the world’s No.2 pound-for-pound fighter, Floyd Mayweather Jr., may face prison time following allegations of battery. But as Kevin Iole of Yahoo Sports notes, jail time would probably be a good business move
for his career, since a prospective fight after his release would have the boxing world on its knees.
So controversy sells, that much is clear.
To counter the claim, Sparks reminds of the Tyson example, and then says that “just this week” another person told him they lost faith in boxing because of the “barbary of Tyson.” Spark’s point is that while controversy sells, it also costs in the sense
of losing fans that would have otherwise had a stake in the game.
But is this really a meaningful argument? No. For one, it draws a distinction between boxing as ‘fair and pure’ and boxing as ‘controversial and unjust’. But anybody who knows the sport knows controversy has been boxing’s most faithful bedfellow since
day one. There’s no sport without it. Not even considering the mobsters and underworld that have always had stakes in the sport, all you have to do to see this is tune in to an HBO bout and see how the judges score it.
No, boxing was never a controversy-free utopia where honest men fought for a living and fair businessmen looked out for the interests of all. If that’s what you’re looking for as a fan, you would be better suited playing a game of cards with your sister,
and even then things might heat up.
The truth is that if controversy costs anything in boxing, it costs exponentially less than it gains. Controversy is always profitable in boxing, and nobody is outside investing in it. Therefore it should never be a question of getting outside of it, which
on a practical level doesn’t exist, and is economically nonsensical. What should be focused on is closing the door on certain kinds of controversies, though often enough, it’s true, boxing emphasizes avoiding the wrong ones.
For example, for the better part of a year the boxing world has been in a huff over Antonio Margarito wearing illegal hand wraps. This is considered by most to be the height of offense and controversy in the boxing world. But surely this should be seen
for the naive perspective it truly is. There are more controversial matters to put on the table, and most of them, sadly, remain under it. Nevertheless they are fundamental to the maintenance of the sport itself. So boxing has a stake in actually concealing
certain controversies.
What really qualifies as controversy in boxing? Promotional monopolies with broadcasting companies. In-house arranged fights. Promoters cheating fighters out of millions. ‘Justified’ decisions and yet contradictory policies of the sanctioning bodies.
That’s just a few.
So while these definitely hurt the sport of boxing, they are the building blocks that hold up the whole institution. What would boxing be without controversy? Nothing.
Tags: