Wladimir Klitschko-Dereck Chisora contract highlights unfair business practices of the Klitschkos
Boxing insiders have another reason to dislike the Klitschko brothers: not that they can be blamed for all of the ills of the heavyweight division, but based on recent and lasting evidence, two observations can be made:
(1) The Klitschkos draft unfair contracts that contribute to the decline of the division.
(2) When they reign, the division invariably suffers.
On December 11 Wladimir Klitschko will put his WBO/IBO/IBF/Ring titles on the line against British heavyweight Dereck Chisora. While Chisora has made quite a stir in Big Ben town for signing with Klitschko, not much of it comes from his performances themselves
— after all, the man only has 14 professional fights. Instead, Chisora has been favourably compared with WBA heavyweight titlist David Haye, the fellow Brit who rejected fight offers from the Klitschkos, and perceived as an interesting opponent merely because
he is completely inexperienced as a fighter.
Frank Warren went so far as to say that if Chisora wins, he’ll be a national hero in England.
But what’s the cost of beating a Klitschko brother?
As Warren revealed, Chisora’s contract with Wladimir stipulates that should he win, he will automatically find himself in a second title fight with Klitschko’s older brother, Vitali, for the WBC title. And if Chisora wins again, he’ll be meeting Wladimir
in a rematch.
In short, the cost of winning for Chisora means being tied up for two more lucrative Klitschko fights that would likely take over year to fulfil.
In a recent interview, Haye was asked if he felt slighted given that Chisora rather than he was facing Klitschko. “No,” was Haye’s quick response. “If the contract resembles anything they wanted me to sign he'll be tied up for the next couple of years
fighting in Germany. I wasn't prepared to accept that. I don't want anyone to own me.”
Have the Klitschkos ‘bought’ Chisora with contract stipulations?
Before Chisora’s contract was revealed, it was pretty easy to chalk up Haye’s explanations of ‘unfair’ Klitschko contracts as the usual excuses made when fighters are avoiding a title fight. But since Chisora’s contract has come to light, it’s become increasingly
hard to support that view. Not only was Haye right on the money about the contract, but the document speaks volumes about what it means to fight the Klitschkos today.
The logic behind the ‘three fight entrapment’ is as follows: if Chisora gets through one Klitschko, at least they’ll have the opportunity to get their belts back in rebound matches.
Put another way: if the Klitschkos can’t hold a monopoly on the belts, so it goes, they can hold a monopoly on the opportunity for the belts.
Slick business arrangement or unfair contractual clause?
Last time anybody checked, Manny Pacquiao wasn’t involved in similar contractual clauses in his fights, though with his popularity he might well be. Actually it’s a wonder promoter Bob Arum hasn’t started exercising similar policies.
On a general level, it’s easy to see how these dubious and obviously partial stipulations end up draining the heavyweight division. Who would want to sign on for a Klitschko fight with these terms?
Fighting the Klitschkos comes with a mega-huge catch.
The ethical dilemma remains: as champions, should they be able to dictate affairs even when they are no longer champions?
If the clause is an attempt to buy the future, to set in stone what hasn’t yet been born, is that legitimate?
Golden Boy CEO Oscar De la Hoya recently spoke about his company becoming the ultimate arbiter of boxing. He said he would like to buy up all the talent, and develop one promoter, sanctioning body, and commission for the sport (similar to the UFC model).
What De la Hoya didn’t realize is that the entity already exists in professional boxing. It’s called the Klitschko brothers.
Tags: