Should boxing make rematch clauses illegal?

[Perkin Warbeck]

I see Galahad-Martinez has a rematch clause.

Usyk despite being Joshua's mandatory had to sign for a rematch clause. Dillian Whyte has rematch clauses for all his fights. It's getting so ridiculous that some people are calling Matchroom Re-matchroom.

Should rematch clauses be made illegal in boxing, at least for mandatories and for fights where the boxer is knocked out like Galahad was yesterday?

What do you think?

[Noxy]

A rematch clause doesn't mean the rematch will happen, remember.

[oogiebe]

Rematches have their place. Maybe rematch clauses should have stipulations.

In the case of a close or controversial decision
Stopped on cuts or injury in a close fight
A KO after being ahead past 6 rounds...

Maybe?

[gregregegg]

Rematch clauses should be illegal. Its just handing unnecessary power to the A side. Basicaly to become and stay a world champ these days you have to beat them twice, usualy battling against the judges....

If a rematch is truly warranted the governing body should order it, but it shouldent be contracted..

[DrDuke]

Rematch clauses should be legal, but with sub-clauses. Fights with stoppages and wide scores should kill rematch clauses. However, a situation can still suck because of corrupt judging and refereeing.

[Ruthless-RKO]

Rematches have their place. Maybe rematch clauses should have stipulations.

In the case of a close or controversial decision
Stopped on cuts or injury in a close fight
A KO after being ahead past 6 rounds...

Maybe?

In most of those cases we usually get rematches anyway, without their needing to be a rematch clause.

[H8Usernames]

Should drugs and prostitution be made illegal? Is Jesus good and Satan bad?

Are first world white people bad and 3rd world brown people good?

Feels to me like this is a bit of a childish question.

[candyslim]

I don't see how you could do that anyway. People are free to put whatever clauses they want in their contracts (within certain limits obviously). Who would have the power to make it illegal anyway? Who would enforce it?

I guess we are talking about it being banned by the governing bodies but they are free to dictate who their belt-holder fights anyway and to strip them of the title if they don't comply for any reason, contractual commitment or otherwise.

[gregregegg]

I don't see how you could do that anyway. People are free to put whatever clauses they want in their contracts (within certain limits obviously). Who would have the power to make it illegal anyway? Who would enforce it?

I guess we are talking about it being banned by the governing bodies but they are free to dictate who their belt-holder fights anyway and to strip them of the title if they don't comply for any reason, contractual commitment or otherwise.

Yea its not about people going to jail for them... its more the governing bodys not allowing them in fights they are sanctioning. They are ruining boxing, but they are a big A side thing.... and sanctioning bodies live on percentage, so they like the A sides...

[Enlightened-One]

I see Galahad-Martinez has a rematch clause.

Martinez wouldn’t have received an opportunity to engage in a world title fight, coupled with the potential to earn two decent paydays, without signing an immediate rematch clause.

Martinez benefitted from the contractual agreement he signed. So did Galahad.

Usyk despite being Joshua's mandatory had to sign for a rematch clause.

Oleksadr Usyk wasn’t obliged to agree the immediate rematch clause.

However, had he refrained from doing so, he probably would have received a much smaller payday challenging for the vacant title, against an opponent nowhere near as commercially successful as AJ.

Also, like Martinez, Usyk will end up receiving two career-high paydays to engage in two winnable bouts.

Usyk benefitted from the contractual agreement he signed. So did AJ.

Dillian Whyte has rematch clauses for all his fights.

Dillian Whyte isn’t a world champion. He can pick-and-choose to fight whomever he damn well wants.

And he is probably the third biggest commercial name in the heavyweight division, behind Fury and AJ, which means an opportunity to face Dillian Whyte is also an opportunity to earn a decent payday.

Dillian Whyte’s opponents benefit from the contractual agreement they sign. So does ‘The Body Snatcher’ himself.

It's getting so ridiculous that some people are calling Matchroom Re-matchroom.

That’s not happening - no one is doing that. And those that might be, are lunatics!

Should rematch clauses be made illegal in boxing, at least for mandatories and for fights where the boxer is knocked out like Galahad was yesterday?

No.

When a contender obtains mandatory challenger status, they’re only entitled to a world title shot.

They haven’t received a guarantee to face the man wearing that title.

Sometimes it’s worth more, financially, fighting the man, rather than the belt.

Immediate rematch clauses are part of fight contracts, whereby two parties have, verbally or in writing, come to a legally enforceable agreement based on terms that are mutually-beneficial.

There are no “victims” when it comes to immediate rematch clauses. And you cannot possibly make contracts illegal!

That said, I can understand the reason why some fight fans are frustrated by immediate rematch clauses, but let’s not pretend they’re harmful to the boxers themselves.

[gregregegg]

I see Galahad-Martinez has a rematch clause.

Martinez wouldn’t have received an opportunity to engage in a world title fight, coupled with the potential to earn two decent paydays, without signing an immediate rematch clause.

Martinez benefitted from the contractual agreement he signed. So did Galahad.

Usyk despite being Joshua's mandatory had to sign for a rematch clause.

Oleksadr Usyk wasn’t obliged to agree the immediate rematch clause.

However, had he refrained from doing so, he probably would have received a much smaller payday challenging for the vacant title, against an opponent nowhere near as commercially successful as AJ.

Also, like Martinez, Usyk will end up receiving two career-high paydays to engage in two winnable bouts.

Usyk benefitted from the contractual agreement he signed. So did AJ.

Dillian Whyte has rematch clauses for all his fights.

Dillian Whyte isn’t a world champion. He can pick-and-choose to fight whomever he damn well wants.

And he is probably the third biggest commercial name in the heavyweight division, behind Fury and AJ, which means an opportunity to face Dillian Whyte is also an opportunity to earn a decent payday.

Dillian Whyte’s opponents benefit from the contractual agreement they sign. So does ‘The Body Snatcher’ himself.

It's getting so ridiculous that some people are calling Matchroom Re-matchroom.

That’s not happening - no one is doing that. And those that might be, are lunatics!

Should rematch clauses be made illegal in boxing, at least for mandatories and for fights where the boxer is knocked out like Galahad was yesterday?

No.

When a contender obtains mandatory challenger status, they’re only entitled to a world title shot.

They haven’t received a guarantee to face the man wearing that title.

Sometimes it’s worth more, financially, fighting the man, rather than the belt.

Immediate rematch clauses are part of fight contracts, whereby two parties have, verbally or in writing, come to a legally enforceable agreement based on terms that are mutually-beneficial.

There are no “victims” when it comes to immediate rematch clauses. And you cannot possibly make contracts illegal!

That said, I can understand the reason why some fight fans are frustrated by immediate rematch clauses, but let’s not pretend they’re harmful to the boxers themselves.

All those things you say wouldent of happened without a rematch clause are true. but only true in a world where rematch clauses exisit. Take rematch clauses away universaly and basicaly it would go back to veryy simular to what it is now, just more fair and less tilted to the A side.

Just because people agree dosent mean its good. Iv currently signed away my overtime rates, why, because i need the work and it was a condition of employment, I agreed. If they banned signing away overtime, everyone would be in the same spot and id have my job just making an extra bit of cash on weeks where i do more than 40 hours. Likewise banning rematch clauses (in gov body sanctioned bouts) wouldent prevent people from getting oppertunitys because all fights would have the same issue., it would just mean once they have there oppertunity they have a fair go.


Andy ruiz is a prime example of had rematch clauses been banned he would of still probably got the fight, wasnt considered hugly risky, late notice. Now in this case, ruiz won, then could of either being A side for the AJ rematch, or fought wilder for undisputed and a lot of money, or done whatever he wanted. instead he is forced to rematch AJ for a set amount of money, its not a free market place.

[Enlightened-One]

Just because people agree dosent mean its good. Iv currently signed away my overtime rates, why, because i need the work and it was a condition of employment, I agreed. If they banned signing away overtime, everyone would be in the same spot and id have my job just making an extra bit of cash on weeks where i do more than 40 hours.

Even though the circumstances you describe are less than ideal, you engaged in a mutually-beneficial agreement.

The opportunity cost to you for refraining to sign that contract, would be you being/remaining unemployed.

Instead, in return for signing the contract, you received a job. It improved your personal circumstances, which meant you ultimately benefitted from the legal agreement you engaged in.

There’s no such thing as a perfect world in life.

It’s extremely rare for any contracts to not have costs associated with them, but individuals wouldn’t sign them if (from a big picture perspective), they didn’t ultimately gain something from the agreement itself.

Likewise banning rematch clauses (in gov body sanctioned bouts) wouldent prevent people from getting oppertunitys because all fights would have the same issue., it would just mean once they have there oppertunity they have a fair go.

The governing bodies aren’t involved in the signing of contracts.

They can order their champions to face whomever they want, as well as stipulate deadlines.

However, the governing bodies are powerless to do anything about contractual agreements between two third-parties.

Titles would end up getting stripped, because fighters would be legally obliged to adhere to the terms of the contracts they sign, rather than adhering to the orders of the sports’ governing bodies.

Andy ruiz is a prime example of had rematch clauses been banned he would of still probably got the fight, wasnt considered hugly risky, late notice. Now in this case, ruiz won, then could of either being A side for the AJ rematch, or fought wilder for undisputed and a lot of money, or done whatever he wanted. instead he is forced to rematch AJ for a set amount of money, its not a free market place.

Andy Ruiz Jr. wouldn’t have been given an opportunity to face Anthony Joshua without signing the immediate rematch clause.

And like I said before, contracts are involved in many aspects of our lives. I can’t imagine a scenario whereby all contracts are deemed as being illegal, because you can't ban immediate rematch clauses without making all contractual stipulations legally unenforceable.

[peter barlow]

I see Galahad-Martinez has a rematch clause.

Usyk despite being Joshua's mandatory had to sign for a rematch clause. Dillian Whyte has rematch clauses for all his fights. It's getting so ridiculous that some people are calling Matchroom Re-matchroom.

Should rematch clauses be made illegal in boxing, at least for mandatories and for fights where the boxer is knocked out like Galahad was yesterday?

What do you think?

What's the common denominator? They don't call them ReMatchroom for nothing

[gregregegg]

Just because people agree dosent mean its good. Iv currently signed away my overtime rates, why, because i need the work and it was a condition of employment, I agreed. If they banned signing away overtime, everyone would be in the same spot and id have my job just making an extra bit of cash on weeks where i do more than 40 hours.

Even though the circumstances you describe are less than ideal, you engaged in a mutually-beneficial agreement.

The opportunity cost to you for refraining to sign that contract, would be you remaining unemployed.

Instead, in return for signing the contract, you received a job. It improved your personal circumstances, which meant you ultimately benefitted from the legal agreement you engaged in.

There’s no such thing as a perfect world in life.

It’s extremely rare for any contracts to not have costs associated with them, but individuals wouldn’t sign them if (from a big picture perspective), they didn’t ultimately gain something from the agreement itself.

Likewise banning rematch clauses (in gov body sanctioned bouts) wouldent prevent people from getting oppertunitys because all fights would have the same issue., it would just mean once they have there oppertunity they have a fair go.

The governing bodies aren’t involved in the signing of contracts.

They can order their champions to face whomever they want, as well as stipulate deadlines.

However, the governing bodies are powerless to do anything about contractual agreements between two third-parties.

Titles would end up getting stripped, because fighters would be legally obliged to adhere to the terms of the contracts they sign, rather than adhering to the orders of the sports’ governing bodies.

Andy ruiz is a prime example of had rematch clauses been banned he would of still probably got the fight, wasnt considered hugly risky, late notice. Now in this case, ruiz won, then could of either being A side for the AJ rematch, or fought wilder for undisputed and a lot of money, or done whatever he wanted. instead he is forced to rematch AJ for a set amount of money, its not a free market place.

Andy Ruiz Jr. wouldn’t have been given an opportunity to face Anthony Joshua without signing the immediate rematch clause.

And like I said before, contracts are involved in many aspects of our lives. I can’t imagine a scenario whereby all contracts are deemed as being illegal, because you can't ban immediate rematch clauses without making all contractual stipulations legally unenforceable.

Yes it is mutualy benificial. but there are rules put in all the time to keep the mutual benifit balanced (thats what a min wage is, sure you can both bennifit if your making 2 bucks an hour, but im glad the powerfull arnt allowed to force the desperate into that where im from).

Gov bodies could ban rematch clauses though, Would be easy peeezy. and if they did ruiz would of likely still got the fight, because the lack of rematch clause is a moot point, as any opponent he picks wont have one... Just have a clause in there contract gov body contract that says "any fighter who uses a rematch clause will be stripped and dropped from the rankings immediatly". sure the fighters can still have the clause i guess, cant stop that.., but they can take away the incentive/benifit.

[Enlightened-One]

Yes it is mutualy benificial. but there are rules put in all the time to keep the mutual benifit balanced (thats what a min wage is, sure you can both bennifit if your making 2 bucks an hour, but im glad the powerfull arnt allowed to force the desperate into that where im from).

I don’t think it’s appropriate to draw comparisons between the minimum wage and immediate rematch clauses.

And I don’t feel we should allow governments to dictate and control all aspects of our lives, especially for things as trivial as immediate rematch clauses in boxing, because where will it end?

Immediate rematch clauses aren’t commonplace. They mainly apply to marquee bouts, whereby both competitors are receiving decent paydays.

I don’t think I need to elaborate too much on this point, without stating the obvious.

Gov bodies could ban rematch clauses though, Would be easy peeezy.

Governing bodies are powerless to prevent legally enforceable agreements between two third parties.

For sure, the sports governing bodies can make all title bout mandatories, preventing voluntaries, but this would ultimately be detrimental to the sport itself.

And we’d see those fighters that scored upsets immediately losing their titles, due to their inability to adhere to the demands of the sports’ governing bodies.

Just have a clause in there contract gov body contract that says "any fighter who uses a rematch clause will be stripped and dropped from the rankings immediatly". sure the fighters can still have the clause i guess, cant stop that.., but they can take away the incentive/benifit.

So if you ban immediate rematch clauses? Where does it end? Purse splits? TV rights? Advertising revenue? Venue?

The various sports governing bodies would end up being on the receiving end of numerous class action lawsuits... or whatever the correct legal terminology is.

I can understand the reason why you dislike immediate rematch clauses, but I don’t see any practical way to eliminate their existence, since both parties that agree to them are ultimately benefitting from them.

And let's not overstate the impact immediate rematch clauses have on our sport, because they are extremely rare.