BoxRec

The BBBoC have done a sponsorship deal and officials now wear a sponsor logo.
The same company also sponsor boxers so in some cases the referee officiating a contest will be wearing the same commercially paid for sponsor logo as one of the boxers in the contest.
I don't think this gives a very professional impression and whilst I am sure there will be no compromises, from the outside looking in I can imagine someone getting g the impression that integrity may have been compromised.
Thoughts?

I personally don’t like it at all. It’s the way of the world now though; sometimes in football you see the referees sponsored by the same company which sponsors one of the teams they’re reffing. Why on earth we need to see sponsorships on officials in the first place, I really don’t know.

ive always wondered about the effectivenss of advertising in boxing

like i cant even see the patches, logos, etc on the boxers trunks as they move around

if one boxer and the ref wear the same sponsorship things might look a little shady in a closely fought match where maybe a fighter feels something didn't 'go there own' way as far as the officiating went.

Which boxers are sponsored by empire pro tape?

maninthemiddle wrote: ↑16 Apr 2019, 17:11 Which boxers are sponsored by empire pro tape??

r u richie jam davies mate

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑16 Apr 2019, 13:09 I personally don’t like it at all. It’s the way of the world now though; sometimes in football you see the referees sponsored by the same company which sponsors one of the teams they’re reffing. Why on earth we need to see sponsorships on officials in the first place, I really don’t know.

I suspect the Board needs sources of income, like most organisations. If this helps to limit or stop licence fees going up because it gives them additional income, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. As for the connection issue, I think it would be more serious if the sponsor was, say, a company owned by a particular licence holder, but if it isn't, it just seems to be the way of the (sporting) world these days. Who is the sponsor and which boxers do they sponsor, by the way? (I am out of the loop on this on as am no longer connected to the BBBofC these days).

The sponser just brings money to the board it will have nothing to do with who the referee is gonna side with in a closely fought contest. Id be more worried about seeing mr hearn or ODH meeting with fight officials for dinner and alcoholic beverages before a big show.

olij999 wrote: ↑17 Apr 2019, 05:14 I suspect the Board needs sources of income, like most organisations. If this helps to limit or stop licence fees going up because it gives them additional income, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. As for the connection issue, I think it would be more serious if the sponsor was, say, a company owned by a particular licence holder, but if it isn't, it just seems to be the way of the (sporting) world these days. Who is the sponsor and which boxers do they sponsor, by the way? (I am out of the loop on this on as am no longer connected to the BBBofC these days).

Nah, the BBBoC is plenty solvent, it isn't in a position where it NEEDS to increase income, besides which licenses are not expensive, increasing fees a little wouldn't really matter.
I don't imagine that there is any danger of actual tainted officiating, I just personally don't like officials wearing a sponsor and a competitor and an official wearing the same logos can look dubious.
I can't name any boxers off the top of my head, but the reason for the thread was a photo of a contest in which the referee and one of the boxers both had the same logo. As most will know the sponsor is Empire Pro Tape and realistically it is likely that the boxers are getting nothing more than a few free boxes of zinc oxide.

Lee - I take your points. But I remember plenty of licence holders being pretty unhappy about fee increases, so yours may be a minority view (or perhaps a view of a less vocal majority).

olij999 wrote: ↑17 Apr 2019, 09:29 Lee - I take your points. But I remember plenty of licence holders being pretty unhappy about fee increases, so yours may be a minority view (or perhaps a view of a less vocal majority).

Yeah licence holders were always unhappy with any increase in fees in my time as well

olij999 wrote: ↑17 Apr 2019, 09:29 Lee - I take your points. But I remember plenty of licence holders being pretty unhappy about fee increases, so yours may be a minority view (or perhaps a view of a less vocal majority).

In the event that the BBBoC NEEDED to raise money, so what? As said however, the Boards current operations yield a healthy profit.

spudder56 wrote: ↑17 Apr 2019, 10:58 Yeah licence holders were always unhappy with any increase in fees in my time as well

Every denarius counted in those days, spudder56.

The cement which holds the Board together ( and ensures their continuity) can be summed up in one word - integrity. To allow officials to ' promote' a private company, regardless of who that company is, through advertising their logo at events, will compromise that integrity.
It is an absolute disgrace and totally unnecessary financially.

I’m friends with the guy who owns Empire! No doubt I’ll get stick for that! Without his support, Henry’s Gym in York wouldn’t be here.

mickey1975 wrote: ↑18 Apr 2019, 04:26 I’m friends with the guy who owns Empire! No doubt I’ll get stick for that! Without his support, Henry’s Gym in York wouldn’t be here.

I doubt anyone has any issues with Empire even if they agree that Board officials shouldn't be wearing sponsors, just a company flogging tape.

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑18 Apr 2019, 04:32 I doubt anyone has any issues with Empire even if they agree that Board officials shouldn't be wearing sponsors, just a company flogging tape.

They have issues with me saying I know people! Dean is a mate and very close to Henry. He’s made a great successful life for himself and supported his local gym. He even had McGregor wearing them. None of the clubs here have to pay for anything from them, even “rival” gyms.