you are correct in saying that the sales for a fight in a undisputed title fight would be greater. However, if the belt is lost than in most cases a promoter is out a champion which means less money. It comes down to these promoters not wanting to lose the cash cow that they have worked so long to get. You always here about King not making or allowing a bout to come off. The reason being that the opponent is under another promoter meaning that if the King fighter was to lose than king would lose the belt.........Rockin'
So basically the way I understand it is; promoters like King and Arum have a monopolistic influence over boxing which hurts the fans and the sport but benefits them. Based on this fact, entry to the field of boxing promotion must be very difficult. So what I'm trying to say is; (heavyweight)boxing needs some innovative new boxing promoters like a Bill Gates or Donald Trump who think 'outside the box'. No pun intended.
Yes, they basicaly do have a monopoly. I find this funny because back in the 40's and 50's the I.B.C had something similar, in a way, to what they have going on now. The courts ruled that this was not lawfull and closed them down. I dont have all of the facts infront of me right now but thats basicaly what happened............Rockin'
Ya know what Boston guy, I was mistaken, I think. The IBC was brought down for a different type of monopoly. I still believe that some of these big promoters have a type of monopoly going on though. They have the champion under contract and then if the challenger wants to get the shot they will make him sign a contact with that promter. Furthermore, many times that contract will say that if the challenger is to win the title that the promoter will then have him under contract still for a certain number of defenses. It just seems crazy that alot of times we will have a title fight going on with both fighters under contract to the same promoter. Only in boxing.....Rockin'
Comment