Monopolies are never good.

[dalcumly]

Since professional boxing began in this country, one promoter or another has eventually reached a position in which they monopolise the sport in terms of controlling the top boxers and the coverage they receive in the media - Sydney Hulls, Jack Solomons, Duff/Barrett/Levene, FW and now Matchroom.
The danger in all this is that there is a potential for other promoters/managers/boxers to be excluded because they don't 'play ball ' with the monopoly. In this present era, SKY , I think, have unwittingly created a 'new monster' by forming an exclusive deal with Matchroom. I get the impression that Eddie Hearn seems to be an honest enough guy, and a refreshing change, but didn't all the others appear the same when they first started out ?? If Eddie wants to be different he must settle in his own mind that he is going to deal with everyone. If for instance FW wants Cleverley to fight Bellew again, and FW wants to promote, and the contracts are binding , then let it happen. Similarly, if DeGale's people want to promote a fight with Groves on Channel Five, and they put up more money, then let it happen. Don't deprive the public , and the fighters , of a fight they want to see.
Finally, once you've got virtual control , as Matchroom seem to have, don't push the boat out and start PPV for the big shows. History shows that this path leads to short term gain - and long term loss. In the long term the public won't accept it, they know it's motivated by greed.
A message to SKY, competition leads to quality. You must engage with other promoters !!!

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

Since professional boxing began in this country, one promoter or another has eventually reached a position in which they monopolise the sport in terms of controlling the top boxers and the coverage they receive in the media - Sydney Hulls, Jack Solomons, Duff/Barrett/Levene, FW and now Matchroom.
The danger in all this is that there is a potential for other promoters/managers/boxers to be excluded because they don't 'play ball ' with the monopoly. In this present era, SKY , I think, have unwittingly created a 'new monster' by forming an exclusive deal with Matchroom. I get the impression that Eddie Hearn seems to be an honest enough guy, and a refreshing change, but didn't all the others appear the same when they first started out ?? If Eddie wants to be different he must settle in his own mind that he is going to deal with everyone. If for instance FW wants Cleverley to fight Bellew again, and FW wants to promote, and the contracts are binding , then let it happen. Similarly, if DeGale's people want to promote a fight with Groves on Channel Five, and they put up more money, then let it happen. Don't deprive the public , and the fighters , of a fight they want to see.
Finally, once you've got virtual control , as Matchroom seem to have, don't push the boat out and start PPV for the big shows. History shows that this path leads to short term gain - and long term loss. In the long term the public won't accept it, they know it's motivated by greed.
A message to SKY, competition leads to quality. You must engage with other promoters !!!

Excrement from start to finish.

Competition does not lead to quality fights being made in boxing, just look at the last few years.

[Looking On]

Since professional boxing began in this country, one promoter or another has eventually reached a position in which they monopolise the sport in terms of controlling the top boxers and the coverage they receive in the media - Sydney Hulls, Jack Solomons, Duff/Barrett/Levene, FW and now Matchroom.
The danger in all this is that there is a potential for other promoters/managers/boxers to be excluded because they don't 'play ball ' with the monopoly. In this present era, SKY , I think, have unwittingly created a 'new monster' by forming an exclusive deal with Matchroom. I get the impression that Eddie Hearn seems to be an honest enough guy, and a refreshing change, but didn't all the others appear the same when they first started out ?? If Eddie wants to be different he must settle in his own mind that he is going to deal with everyone. If for instance FW wants Cleverley to fight Bellew again, and FW wants to promote, and the contracts are binding , then let it happen. Similarly, if DeGale's people want to promote a fight with Groves on Channel Five, and they put up more money, then let it happen. Don't deprive the public , and the fighters , of a fight they want to see.
Finally, once you've got virtual control , as Matchroom seem to have, don't push the boat out and start PPV for the big shows. History shows that this path leads to short term gain - and long term loss. In the long term the public won't accept it, they know it's motivated by greed.
A message to SKY, competition leads to quality. You must engage with other promoters !!!

Excrement from start to finish.

Competition does not lead to quality fights being made in boxing, just look at the last few years.

I get your point , if two promtions are competing then they may not agree on certain fights but its my view that id rather see competition , competition is good for any business , helps growth and to keep your own stadards up , it could be a local butchers , a supermarket , an MOT garage or a boxing promotion , all need competition to thrive .

[earsjohn]

Since professional boxing began in this country, one promoter or another has eventually reached a position in which they monopolise the sport in terms of controlling the top boxers and the coverage they receive in the media - Sydney Hulls, Jack Solomons, Duff/Barrett/Levene, FW and now Matchroom.
The danger in all this is that there is a potential for other promoters/managers/boxers to be excluded because they don't 'play ball ' with the monopoly. In this present era, SKY , I think, have unwittingly created a 'new monster' by forming an exclusive deal with Matchroom. I get the impression that Eddie Hearn seems to be an honest enough guy, and a refreshing change, but didn't all the others appear the same when they first started out ?? If Eddie wants to be different he must settle in his own mind that he is going to deal with everyone. If for instance FW wants Cleverley to fight Bellew again, and FW wants to promote, and the contracts are binding , then let it happen. Similarly, if DeGale's people want to promote a fight with Groves on Channel Five, and they put up more money, then let it happen. Don't deprive the public , and the fighters , of a fight they want to see.
Finally, once you've got virtual control , as Matchroom seem to have, don't push the boat out and start PPV for the big shows. History shows that this path leads to short term gain - and long term loss. In the long term the public won't accept it, they know it's motivated by greed.
A message to SKY, competition leads to quality. You must engage with other promoters !!!

By the same token those other Promoters have to deal with Eddie. If Groves' people want to put on a fight with DeGale and put up more money, then Mick should let his fighter fight on Sky. It won't happen though, for the same reasons that Fury v Price was scuppered on the day of purse bids being opened.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

Since professional boxing began in this country, one promoter or another has eventually reached a position in which they monopolise the sport in terms of controlling the top boxers and the coverage they receive in the media - Sydney Hulls, Jack Solomons, Duff/Barrett/Levene, FW and now Matchroom.
The danger in all this is that there is a potential for other promoters/managers/boxers to be excluded because they don't 'play ball ' with the monopoly. In this present era, SKY , I think, have unwittingly created a 'new monster' by forming an exclusive deal with Matchroom. I get the impression that Eddie Hearn seems to be an honest enough guy, and a refreshing change, but didn't all the others appear the same when they first started out ?? If Eddie wants to be different he must settle in his own mind that he is going to deal with everyone. If for instance FW wants Cleverley to fight Bellew again, and FW wants to promote, and the contracts are binding , then let it happen. Similarly, if DeGale's people want to promote a fight with Groves on Channel Five, and they put up more money, then let it happen. Don't deprive the public , and the fighters , of a fight they want to see.
Finally, once you've got virtual control , as Matchroom seem to have, don't push the boat out and start PPV for the big shows. History shows that this path leads to short term gain - and long term loss. In the long term the public won't accept it, they know it's motivated by greed.
A message to SKY, competition leads to quality. You must engage with other promoters !!!

Excrement from start to finish.

Competition does not lead to quality fights being made in boxing, just look at the last few years.

I get your point , if two promtions are competing then they may not agree on certain fights but its my view that id rather see competition , competition is good for any business , helps growth and to keep your own stadards up , it could be a local butchers , a supermarket , an MOT garage or a boxing promotion , all need competition to thrive .

Yeah, we have had this debate off and on for years, I totally agree that every business needs competition to bring the best out, but the last few years have been really dire in terms of boxing promotion.
The sport has never been so low in the public consciousness and all these small, squabbling promotions have not been able to create a real "star" in years.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

Since professional boxing began in this country, one promoter or another has eventually reached a position in which they monopolise the sport in terms of controlling the top boxers and the coverage they receive in the media - Sydney Hulls, Jack Solomons, Duff/Barrett/Levene, FW and now Matchroom.
The danger in all this is that there is a potential for other promoters/managers/boxers to be excluded because they don't 'play ball ' with the monopoly. In this present era, SKY , I think, have unwittingly created a 'new monster' by forming an exclusive deal with Matchroom. I get the impression that Eddie Hearn seems to be an honest enough guy, and a refreshing change, but didn't all the others appear the same when they first started out ?? If Eddie wants to be different he must settle in his own mind that he is going to deal with everyone. If for instance FW wants Cleverley to fight Bellew again, and FW wants to promote, and the contracts are binding , then let it happen. Similarly, if DeGale's people want to promote a fight with Groves on Channel Five, and they put up more money, then let it happen. Don't deprive the public , and the fighters , of a fight they want to see.
Finally, once you've got virtual control , as Matchroom seem to have, don't push the boat out and start PPV for the big shows. History shows that this path leads to short term gain - and long term loss. In the long term the public won't accept it, they know it's motivated by greed.
A message to SKY, competition leads to quality. You must engage with other promoters !!!

By the same token those other Promoters have to deal with Eddie. If Groves' people want to put on a fight with DeGale and put up more money, then Mick should let his fighter fight on Sky. It won't happen though, for the same reasons that Fury v Price was scuppered on the day of purse bids being opened.

HBO and Showtime managed to cooperate for Lewis - Tyson, but our bunch of Mickey Mouse promotions can't/won't get SKY and C5 to work together.

[earsjohn]

Since professional boxing began in this country, one promoter or another has eventually reached a position in which they monopolise the sport in terms of controlling the top boxers and the coverage they receive in the media - Sydney Hulls, Jack Solomons, Duff/Barrett/Levene, FW and now Matchroom.
The danger in all this is that there is a potential for other promoters/managers/boxers to be excluded because they don't 'play ball ' with the monopoly. In this present era, SKY , I think, have unwittingly created a 'new monster' by forming an exclusive deal with Matchroom. I get the impression that Eddie Hearn seems to be an honest enough guy, and a refreshing change, but didn't all the others appear the same when they first started out ?? If Eddie wants to be different he must settle in his own mind that he is going to deal with everyone. If for instance FW wants Cleverley to fight Bellew again, and FW wants to promote, and the contracts are binding , then let it happen. Similarly, if DeGale's people want to promote a fight with Groves on Channel Five, and they put up more money, then let it happen. Don't deprive the public , and the fighters , of a fight they want to see.
Finally, once you've got virtual control , as Matchroom seem to have, don't push the boat out and start PPV for the big shows. History shows that this path leads to short term gain - and long term loss. In the long term the public won't accept it, they know it's motivated by greed.
A message to SKY, competition leads to quality. You must engage with other promoters !!!

By the same token those other Promoters have to deal with Eddie. If Groves' people want to put on a fight with DeGale and put up more money, then Mick should let his fighter fight on Sky. It won't happen though, for the same reasons that Fury v Price was scuppered on the day of purse bids being opened.

HBO and Showtime managed to cooperate for Lewis - Tyson, but our bunch of Mickey Mouse promotions can't/won't get SKY and C5 to work together.

That would be the exception that proves the rule. How long ago was it and how often have they worked together since?

This nonsense view that a 2 year contract between Sky and Matchroom is a monopoly completely ignores the fact that unless Eddie delivers to a satisfactory level over the 2 years, Sky can say goodbye and look to work with a new partner. The problem is that boxing in this country does not make enough money for multiple promoters to turn profits, while also ensuing that boxers are busy and paid.

I don't see that the content on Sky is any worse than the previous 2 years under the 4 contractor model (a situation which didn't lead to a whole raft of cross-promotional shows) and I see the quality improving significantly over the next 18 months, given the significant expansion in the Matchroom stable.

[dalcumly]

Here's the problem. Let's say I manage a middleweight. He's a sensation. Knocking everybody out. The local public are turning out in droves. The boxing media are starting to take an interest.Matchroom have a top quality middleweight tied to a contract as does Henessey. The unofficial rankings have my boy in the top five in the country. I offer my lad to fight there's. They say yes but you've got to sign a promotional contract. I say no, I want to keep my future options open. What happens then?
My boxer can't fight on Sky or Channel Five. He just continues to knock people out in Town Halls!
This is what I mean by monopolies.
The Board perhaps put the fight out to purse bids which no one but the monopolies can afford. I either take the promotional contract or I'm beat. Is this fair and good for the sport?

[earsjohn]

Here's the problem. Let's say I manage a middleweight. He's a sensation. Knocking everybody out. The local public are turning out in droves. The boxing media are starting to take an interest.Matchroom have a top quality middleweight tied to a contract as does Henessey. The unofficial rankings have my boy in the top five in the country. I offer my lad to fight there's. They say yes but you've got to sign a promotional contract. I say no, I want to keep my future options open. What happens then?
My boxer can't fight on Sky or Channel Five. He just continues to knock people out in Town Halls!
This is what I mean by monopolies.
The Board perhaps put the fight out to purse bids which no one but the monopolies can afford. I either take the promotional contract or I'm beat. Is this fair and good for the sport?

If you are a manager with the interests of your boxer at heart, then you will seek to negotiate the best possible promotional contract for your fighter. If you are unable to agree a deal with Mick or Eddie then you'll go with who offers you a better deal. What does that have to do with monopoly power?

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

Here's the problem. Let's say I manage a middleweight. He's a sensation. Knocking everybody out. The local public are turning out in droves. The boxing media are starting to take an interest.Matchroom have a top quality middleweight tied to a contract as does Henessey. The unofficial rankings have my boy in the top five in the country. I offer my lad to fight there's. They say yes but you've got to sign a promotional contract. I say no, I want to keep my future options open. What happens then?
My boxer can't fight on Sky or Channel Five. He just continues to knock people out in Town Halls!
?

Does this ever actually happen, though?

Also a Manager and a Promoter are different jobs, anyway.

It's like comparing a Milkman to an Estate Agent, probably.

B

[dalcumly]

Sorry to say, managers and promoters are NOT different jobs nowadays. Many people hold BOTH licences, that's the issue that been raised often before, you SHOULDN'T be able to hold both.

[palooka]

Sorry to say, managers and promoters are NOT different jobs nowadays. Many people hold BOTH licences, that's the issue that been raised often before, you SHOULDN'T be able to hold both.

I don't reckon you should be a milkman and an estate agent either but I know someone who does a bit of plastering and a bit of taxi driving.

[lefty]

Sorry to say, managers and promoters are NOT different jobs nowadays. Many people hold BOTH licences, that's the issue that been raised often before, you SHOULDN'T be able to hold both.

I don't reckon you should be a milkman and an estate agent either but I know someone who does a bit of plastering and a bit of taxi driving.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

Sorry to say, managers and promoters are NOT different jobs nowadays. Many people hold BOTH licences, that's the issue that been raised often before, you SHOULDN'T be able to hold both.

I don't reckon you should be a milkman and an estate agent either but I know someone who does a bit of plastering and a bit of taxi driving.

Superb.

[metchampion]

Sorry to say, managers and promoters are NOT different jobs nowadays. Many people hold BOTH licences, that's the issue that been raised often before, you SHOULDN'T be able to hold both.

Since the dark ages certain managers, who didnt or don't hold a promoters Licence, have aligned themselves to a promoter, supplying him with a steady stream of boxers for his tournaments. The two roles are quite separate and always have been, on paper at least.

As a licensed manager, I'm happy to negotiate the best possible terms for my boxer, with any promoter. Some of mine are on exclusive deals, others box for a variety of promoters on a fight by fight basis, some appear on a fight by fight basis for the same promoter without recourse to a potentially restrictive contract.

After Mickey Duff lost a case, it was HIS solicitor who helped bring about BBBofC form 35a. This is a letter that a manager, MUST serve on a boxer, if he is connected financially with a promotion, or is indeed the promoter. The form clearly sets this out to the boxer and reminds him of his right to negotiate independently of his manager, with his manager (whose job, by the way, is, to obtain the best possible terms for his boxer ..... See the problem?).

I understand that many promoters don't take their full management commission entitlement from the boxer when they are also his promoter. I know some don't take any. So I'm not knocking promoters, who are often a much maligned breed. But, It could be argued that a boxer doesn't need a manager if he's the one doing the negotiating.

I know it has always gone on and probably always will and it works for some... I just don't agree with it on principle.