[Sexy Sergio ( L E O N )]

Monopoly meaning all the fighters worth a damn are under a single promoter.

Oligopoly is the current market where a handful of different promoters run the industry.


Bright side of a monopoly: Regardless of the outcome the promoter walks away with the winner. In theory the promoter doesn't 'protect' fighters and will make fights with the greatest demand from fans.

Downside of a monopoly: Promoter knows there's no other source for boxing besides his fights. In theory he can make the shittiest fights possible and still have viewers because many boxing fans are weak-willed fucks who can't boycott fights they dislike.


Bright side of an oligopoly: Competition forces producers to make better products in order to one-up each other and become the dominant force

Downside of an oligopoly: Promoters avoiding each other and refusing to cooperate for the sake of making fights happen

 

[Vaitor]

When a monopoly in any business or industry has been good for the product quality and what it gives to the consumers? - There, I rest my case...

 

[Sexy Sergio ( L E O N )]

When a monopoly in any business or industry has been good for the product quality and what it gives to the consumers? - There, I rest my case...

Try to recall the timez fights weren't made or delayed because the fighters were with rivaling promotion factions. Do you think these matches would have occurred had the fighters been under the same promoter

 

[Vaitor]

Those are the case of a particular company having an unbalanced power of the market AND no central authority to impose the rules... Moving to a full-blown monopoly isnt the answer... The answer is a central governing body independant to the promoting companies that has authority over boxing all around the world, kinda like FIFA but ideally with less corruption...

 

[Mal]

The only problem with the oligopoly of today is, we're dealing with childish antics of some promoters who won't work with others. Back in the 80's, both DKP and Top Rank tried to monopolize the sport with exclusive deals and such. Ended up making for more garbage fights then it was worth. Part of the problem is exclusive deals with major networks only working with a particular promoter, which then excludes a lot of other fighters and fights to be made. Boxing needs a central governing body. Simple as that.

 

[bballchump11]

When a monopoly in any business or industry has been good for the product quality and what it gives to the consumers? - There, I rest my case...

UFC with MMA
Don King with with the heavyweight division

 

[Vaitor]

UFC with MMA
Don King with with the heavyweight division

That doesnt helps with doubts with the legitness (is not that un-monopolized boxing is exempt of this, but still) or the actual competitiveness with the sport, tho

 

[bballchump11]

That doesnt helps with doubts with the legitness (is not that un-monopolized boxing is exempt of this, but still) or the actual competitiveness with the sport, tho

well personally I think a centralized governing body that decides who fights who, oversees drug testing, establishes the champions in each weight classes, administer punishments etc would be best. We don't have that currently though, so I'm looking for another organization to take that role whether it's a network, commission, belt agency or promoters.

Right now it looks like PBC will take that role of the centralized governing body. In order for it to work though, it needs true access to all of the best fighters. My only fear is that the PBC becomes corrupt, greedy or starts exploiting fighters.

I trust Haymon more than Arum to do that or Don King as these guys have a long and well documented history of corruption and exploitation. I think Oscar would actually be the best as he thinks fans first, but he doesn't have the stable of fighters or the business acumen to do it.

 

[Bogotazo]

A public (government run) monopoly seems to work best for other sports. I would support it so long as fighters were unionized. That way you have the best of both worlds: an organization with an incentive to have the best fight the best, but a more accountable body that doesn't have a kingpin at the head who personally benefits from exploiting fighters (like Dana White does). Sure there's always the risk of corruption as in other sports, but organizational leaders know that heads will roll if something gets too out of hand and there's public backlash. And fighters could always vote to strike if a majority feel shafted. There's still room for personal advocacy like with managers, but not the leech dynamic that we see happen with so many promoters.

 

[Vaitor]

A public (government run) monopoly seems to work best for other sports....

Just out of curiousity... Which sports are run by a gov-run monopoly?

 

[Bogotazo]

Just out of curiousity... Which sports are run by a gov-run monopoly?

The NFL, NBA, and MLB are all governed by a centralized body. Individual owners may control teams but the rules and contracts are controlled by those nationalized organizations.

 

[Vaitor]

@Bogotazo, Im sure you know more of legal terms than I do, but AFAIK they arent gov-run associations... My undestanding is that they are more like trade associations made up by the teams/franchises and cathegorized as non-profits and the like, and the goverment, that is the US goverment, has no control of them... at-least thats what I understanded from "goverment-run monopoly"...

 

[Bogotazo]

@Bogotazo, Im sure you know more of legal terms than I do, but AFAIK they arent gov-run associations... My undestanding is that they are more like trade associations made up by the teams/franchises and cathegorized as non-profits and the like, and the goverment, that is the US goverment, has no control of them... at-least thats what I understanded from "goverment-run monopoly"...

Yeah you're right actually. A centralized national body is what I was going for so a lot of the features still apply. But I think if it were public and unionized you'd avoid a lot of the pitfalls of the UFC model.

 

[thehook13]

The current setup with rival promoters locking each other out most certainly doesn't work for boxing as we see it happening now. But considering Haymon is forming his own monopoly currently and keeps most business inhouse on his roster. It seems the emphasis Haymons promoting is not on more quality match ups it seems he is after a far greater amount of free to air shows.

So it's not an easy answer. I think whatever the set up, you need the right personalities promoting. Say what you like about Bob Arum and Don King, they LOVED to make the big fights happen. I also credit Oscar de La hoya for making the big fights happen too.

 

[Vaitor]

Yeah you're right actually. A centralized national body is what I was going for so a lot of the features still apply. But I think if it were public and unionized you'd avoid a lot of the pitfalls of the UFC model.

A centralized body on national level wont be enough IMO. Lest no forget that professional boxing is an international sport where international competitions or "bouts" happen all the time, all over the world...

The union bit will be the only one thing that would be dealt on national level, as there (again AFAIK) no way to force that into all countries where professional boxing is practiced...

 

[Chatty]

Doesn't make much difference in the current climate. Unless there is a universal governing body in place boxing will always suffer from the same problems.

Multiple promoters means more competition to keep each other on their toes, increased competition means more creativity rather than complacency, it also means they have to appease the audience to make more money and fend of the competition.

It also means in the 21st century at least that promoters will look to keep it all in house to maximise profits resulting in some of the best fights not being made or being made late, it also comes with squabbles and underhand tactics.

A monopoly means all fighters are in house which should mean its easier to make fights but at the same time that doesn't always ring true as the promoter then has the full power to protect his investments to the maximum. It also means they can get away with more because if you want to watch boxing then you watch what we give you or nothing at all.

Not quite the same but a good comparison is wrestling - times of increased completion (50s, 80s, 90s) all led to the very best eras, times of full monopoly (early 90s, 00s) have probably led to the absolute worst eras of the form of entertainment.

 

[bballchump11]

Yeah you're right actually. A centralized national body is what I was going for so a lot of the features still apply. But I think if it were public and unionized you'd avoid a lot of the pitfalls of the UFC model.

agreed, that is what I would love the most. In the absence of that though, I still like the UFC model better than the current one

 

[Bogotazo]

agreed, that is what I would love the most. In the absence of that though, I still like the UFC model better than the current one

For the fans, definitely. For the fighters, I'm hesitant. We haven't seen Haymon screw any fighters over but he's new on the block and the monopoly isn't complete yet.

 

[Mal]

The UFC isn't exactly an example of a well run monopoly. They do not allow their champion to fight champions of any other leagues. For the longest, time, Fedor Emilienko was recognized as the best MMA fighter in the world. Dana White would not allow the UFC HW champ to face him, and would not allow Fedor to join the UFC w/o being exclusive to the UFC. Not too unlike certain aspects of the current boxing scene.

 

[bballchump11]

For the fans, definitely. For the fighters, I'm hesitant. We haven't seen Haymon screw any fighters over but he's new on the block and the monopoly isn't complete yet.

that's true. Haymon could wait until he gains full control of everything and then screw things up.

The UFC isn't exactly an example of a well run monopoly. They do not allow their champion to fight champions of any other leagues. For the longest, time, Fedor Emilienko was recognized as the best MMA fighter in the world. Dana White would not allow the UFC HW champ to face him, and would not allow Fedor to join the UFC w/o being exclusive to the UFC. Not too unlike certain aspects of the current boxing scene.

yeah true but that situation is even worse right now in boxing.