Tweet
I've come to the conclusion that tv networks, arenas/ballrooms/casinos, or even promoters should be in charge of hiring judges, not state commissions or any federal centralized scheme. I imagine a scenario where various private companies hire their own judges and contract them out to these en****** (the networks, casinos, promoters). I'm not a libertarian free market zealot, but often times it's helpful to think about how things would work without government involvement. At least, how it would work ideally. While I believe government has a role to play in our lives and in boxing, it's not a stretch to say government is capable of being detrimental to progress. Boxing being quasi-socialized with government state commissions put in place to run things, judge appointment is one of the aspects where the government involvement has hurt the sport. And by government involvement, I equivalently mean the lack of market incentives, market competition, and most importantly consumer choice.
I started thinking about this when someone here suggested bad judging could be fixed by raising the salaries of judges so they're less vulnerable to bribes. So should judges be paid more? The answer is yes. Not all judges though. Only the best judges need to be paid more. The main problem is that there's no incentivized compensation system in place where judges are paid based on how good of a job they do scoring fights. If a judge does a terrible job or a great job at scoring a fight, he gets paid the same either way. When they do terrible jobs, it's extremely rare to see them get fired or suspended. You can take bribes all day because you're never fired or suspended. Where's the incentive do to a good job here? When the state commission consistently keep on appointing terrible judges, it seems to me nobody is ever held accountable. What's the reason for this? I believe the lack of competition is causing this.
State commissions have a monopoly on hiring judges. They can continue appointing terrible judges over and over again because they don't live in fear of a competitor doing a better job and being hired over them. Competition is what keeps companies in other sectors honest (relatively) and spurs them to innovate. If Intel didn't have AMD constantly trying to outdo them, the state of computer technology would nowhere close to what it is today. A lack of competition would lead to complacency and stagnation. There's no reason to think boxing judging is exempt from this.
Like I said, it's good to think about what would happen if government was removed from the equation. What would happen if suddenly commissions decided they would no longer be in charge of judge appointment? Who would be in charge of hiring them? How would judges make their services available? It's impossible for me to predict what would happen exactly. After all, the beauty of capitalism is that is's a system of creative destruction. A system I come up with could work fairly well and then quickly be destroyed and replaced with something better. What I can do is give an educated guess.
If not the commission, I imagine promoters, tv networks, and casinos (or whatever location of the fight) would have to hire their own judges. They have enough on their plate to worry about vetting judges so it's likely they would contract out middlemen. These middlemen would take the form of various private companies with their own set of judges for hire. The best computer programmers are hired by the best tech companies and have best the salaries. This would also be true for judges. They best judges would be hired by the best judge companies and have the best salaries. In the other end of the spectrum, the worst judges are hired by the worst judge companies and have the worst salaries. Judges finally have the incentive to build a good enough reputation to get better jobs at better companies.
What incentive to promoters, tv networks, and casinos have to hire the best? Why wouldn't they simply just hire someone in their pocket and continue to have robberies? The answer is consumer choice. We, the fans, ultimate pay the salaries of everyone in the boxing business. We have the power to keep them honest.
At the moment, because commissions have a monopoly on judges, promoters have a built in excuse for robberies. Bob Arum could say, "Hey, it's not my fault. I'm not in charge. It's the state commission who picks judges, not me". And it's true. We have to live with the BS because commissions are in fact in charge of it. At least officially, promoters have minimal say. We do live in a democracy, but let’s face it, the people have little power over what state commissions do.
What if promoters hired judges? They no longer have that built-in excuse after robberies. Promoters won’t be able to consistently be hiring the worst companies with the worst judges. We the fans can finally give them the finger with our wallets. We'll only attend and watch the shows of promoters who are known to give us fair judging. What if TV networks hired judges? We'll only watch the network that gives us fair judging. What if casinos hire the judges in Vegas fights? We'll only gamble on fights with fair judging. The alternative right now with the commission monopoly is to simply stop watching boxing altogether if you're fed up with robberies.
Another advantage to this system is innovation. These judge companies can come up with new alternative ways to judge fights. Don't like the 10 point must system and have a crazy idea for a 100 point system? Do you think judges should sit on eight-foot stools? If you don't, tell these companies with your wallet.
I don't know what the best way to go about it. You probably don't either. I say let the market decide.
Thoughts?
I started thinking about this when someone here suggested bad judging could be fixed by raising the salaries of judges so they're less vulnerable to bribes. So should judges be paid more? The answer is yes. Not all judges though. Only the best judges need to be paid more. The main problem is that there's no incentivized compensation system in place where judges are paid based on how good of a job they do scoring fights. If a judge does a terrible job or a great job at scoring a fight, he gets paid the same either way. When they do terrible jobs, it's extremely rare to see them get fired or suspended. You can take bribes all day because you're never fired or suspended. Where's the incentive do to a good job here? When the state commission consistently keep on appointing terrible judges, it seems to me nobody is ever held accountable. What's the reason for this? I believe the lack of competition is causing this.
State commissions have a monopoly on hiring judges. They can continue appointing terrible judges over and over again because they don't live in fear of a competitor doing a better job and being hired over them. Competition is what keeps companies in other sectors honest (relatively) and spurs them to innovate. If Intel didn't have AMD constantly trying to outdo them, the state of computer technology would nowhere close to what it is today. A lack of competition would lead to complacency and stagnation. There's no reason to think boxing judging is exempt from this.
Like I said, it's good to think about what would happen if government was removed from the equation. What would happen if suddenly commissions decided they would no longer be in charge of judge appointment? Who would be in charge of hiring them? How would judges make their services available? It's impossible for me to predict what would happen exactly. After all, the beauty of capitalism is that is's a system of creative destruction. A system I come up with could work fairly well and then quickly be destroyed and replaced with something better. What I can do is give an educated guess.
If not the commission, I imagine promoters, tv networks, and casinos (or whatever location of the fight) would have to hire their own judges. They have enough on their plate to worry about vetting judges so it's likely they would contract out middlemen. These middlemen would take the form of various private companies with their own set of judges for hire. The best computer programmers are hired by the best tech companies and have best the salaries. This would also be true for judges. They best judges would be hired by the best judge companies and have the best salaries. In the other end of the spectrum, the worst judges are hired by the worst judge companies and have the worst salaries. Judges finally have the incentive to build a good enough reputation to get better jobs at better companies.
What incentive to promoters, tv networks, and casinos have to hire the best? Why wouldn't they simply just hire someone in their pocket and continue to have robberies? The answer is consumer choice. We, the fans, ultimate pay the salaries of everyone in the boxing business. We have the power to keep them honest.
At the moment, because commissions have a monopoly on judges, promoters have a built in excuse for robberies. Bob Arum could say, "Hey, it's not my fault. I'm not in charge. It's the state commission who picks judges, not me". And it's true. We have to live with the BS because commissions are in fact in charge of it. At least officially, promoters have minimal say. We do live in a democracy, but let’s face it, the people have little power over what state commissions do.
What if promoters hired judges? They no longer have that built-in excuse after robberies. Promoters won’t be able to consistently be hiring the worst companies with the worst judges. We the fans can finally give them the finger with our wallets. We'll only attend and watch the shows of promoters who are known to give us fair judging. What if TV networks hired judges? We'll only watch the network that gives us fair judging. What if casinos hire the judges in Vegas fights? We'll only gamble on fights with fair judging. The alternative right now with the commission monopoly is to simply stop watching boxing altogether if you're fed up with robberies.
Another advantage to this system is innovation. These judge companies can come up with new alternative ways to judge fights. Don't like the 10 point must system and have a crazy idea for a 100 point system? Do you think judges should sit on eight-foot stools? If you don't, tell these companies with your wallet.
I don't know what the best way to go about it. You probably don't either. I say let the market decide.
Thoughts?
Comment