Any one know the purpose of the sanctioning fees charges in percentages?

[sigrab jr]

Any one know why they don't have a fixed fee and why they charge a certain percentage from a fighters purse? I think the IBF charges 2%, and WBC charges something like 3%, correct me if i'm wrong.

I know that they are out to make money from these fighters, but what is THEIR reason to do this? How can I find this information? I need it for a school paper.

[Light_Speed]

I don't think they have ever given any justification for it.

[lparm]

Any one know why they don't have a fixed fee and why they charge a certain percentage from a fighters purse? I think the IBF charges 2%, and WBC charges something like 3%, correct me if i'm wrong.

I know that they are out to make money from these fighters, but what is THEIR reason to do this? How can I find this information? I need it for a school paper.

It's for the overhead of the organization. They are a for profit entity and their "product" is the prestige of their title belt. It benefits the promoter because they can market the event to the public as a "world championship fight" also network coverage is easier to attain with a recognized title on the line. So the offset for helping the promoters sell tickets which in turn earns the fighter more money is to charge the fighter a small percentage.

My mistake you want to know why the specific number. That's an industry standard oligopolistic theory by Knickerbocker where there are only a few en****** in the industry that do not compete on price and take a very defensive approach to other competitors. Hence if the WBA charged 4% and it succeeded the WBC would likely match it. It's really just an arbitrary number the industry leaders have decided on.

[-PBP-]

I don't know the exact reason but my left field guess would be so they don't cripple fighters who earn significantly lesser purses.

For example the Zab vs Peterson purse bid was only $50K.

Zab would have earned $12.5k. If he won a flat fee over $1,000 would be a big financial burden whereas 3% would only be $375.

[sigrab jr]

I don't know the exact reason but my left field guess would be so they don't cripple fighters who earn significantly lesser purses.

For example the Zab vs Peterson purse bid was only $50K.

Zab would have earned $12.5k. If he won a flat fee over $1,000 would be a big financial burden whereas 3% would only be $375.

Damn, that's what you call fighting for peanuts. What the hell. $50k for two top10 fighters? Is this like the purse that they get like, what they earn for fighting? Crazy.

[sigrab jr]

Okay you have a point, so they don't cripple fighters getting a small purse. But look at what they get from let's say Mayweather and Pacquiao fights. Let's say Mayweather makes $40 million from a fight, or $25million guarantee. WBC or WBO, or WBA whatever, charges him 3% sanctioning fees. That's $750,000 in sanctioning fees from one boxer.

That's a lot of money, what do they do with all that money, other than live a luxurious life. Like do they help boxing with these sanctioning fees? Do they help retired fighters with this money? I know they have some retirement plan, that they also CHARGE fighters for. BTW, I don't know, that is why I am asking. I'm not accusing them of anything.

[Boxing Bob]

The vile scumbags at the WBC uses these funds to call press conferences to try to make Canyellow Alvarezs lastest challenger sound credible.

[edgarg]

I don't know the exact reason but my left field guess would be so they don't cripple fighters who earn significantly lesser purses.

For example the Zab vs Peterson purse bid was only $50K.

Zab would have earned $12.5k. If he won a flat fee over $1,000 would be a big financial burden whereas 3% would only be $375.

Belts originated as a gift of appreciation by Boston citizens to Joh L. Sullivan, who brought much glory to the city. From then on, belts were thought to be a good idea and an incentive to boxers to strive for them. It legitimized competition. Eventually every division had one, and ruimentary controlling boards were formed, who took on themselves the responsibility of presenting belts to champions. They were originally funded by patrons of the sport, backers of particular boxers, and betting men.

As it became more organised by states and countries, it was apparent that a budget was necessary, and the obvious sounce of income was a share of the purse. Since boxers and their rewards varied considerably in standards and amounts, a percentage was obviously the best and simplest means of taxation, just as in a national income tax, you are taxed on the amount of your earnings. It became an income earning business, just as much as any other business. It can even be a family run enterprise. Their expenses are high, and it's their method of making a living.

[Larry the boss]

You answered your own question they do it to make money,they wont charge a fixed rate cause if they have one fighter making 100k and 1 making 30 million how can they charge both a set fee?

[285Kid]