Eddie Hearn & Rematch Clauses

Isn’t this his job? To get his client the best contract possible?

 

Exactly.

His job is to extract every last drop of the commercial power he's built up to get the best deal for himself and his fighters. As boxing is the sporting equivalent of the wild west the question of what one should get is overruled by what one can get. Eddie Hearn manages his boxers astutely, manoeuvres them into a position of strength and then uses that position to nail their opponents balls to the floor during the negotiation process.

I agree they're cynical and can lead to divisions stagnating, but there's likely times that they've led to fights occurring that may otherwise not have happened. As fans we may not want to see the rematches, but if you were a boxer like Whyte who had spent years getting himself into position for a big money fight you would want every guarantee possible before risking that position for a 'stay busy' fight.

 

Of course, the promoters will do whatever they can get away with. It's the so-called governing bodies who should stop it. They sanction and licence the fights. They could easily regulate against rematch clauses.

 

Rarerly but semtimes there might appear problems: if boxer and his team does have balls they might better live with lesser money and refuse to fight his boxer.
Why not?

We all do know that prizefighting is more about money but if someone does have real balls and will tell NO, then.
Then they will not get fights vs such boxer and this will be what this is.

 

The fact that Povetkin/Whyte had a rematch clause is ****ing ridiculous really. Why should there be a rematch clause for a mandatory shot?

Wastes ****ing time.

 

Yeah, they call it an "ELIMINATOR" .... which means the loser is eliminated from contention .... apparently except when the wrong guy wins, then we hear about the rematch clause.
Like you say, it is ****ing ridiculous !

 

The fact that fight was billed as a final eliminator was ridiculous in itself. . Whyte is no closer to a title shot now than he was two years ago.
The WBC belt is booked out. Whoever wins in July will unlikely be forced to fight a mandatory

 

Interestingly if about rematch clauses, if Eddie will offer only one sided rematch clauses, might he make fights like Okolie vs Makabu or Okolie vs Briedis?
These not likely will agree

This content is protected

rematch clauses cos they does have belts and Okolie only 1 from 4 most well known belts: WBO belt.
Maybe Eddie will offer them enough $ and

This content is protected

then maybe we sooner might see such fights.

 

Champs who lose their title in the ring should have a contractual chance to win it back in the ring.

 

Most likely no, if they will schedule Fury vs Wilder, then maybe end of summer or autumn and then we will see there, maybe again will appear next clauses and Fury vs Wilder 4 th fight will be scheduled?
I don't know.

 

Two fighters could tie up the title for years and years if we were to take that as an absolute principle.

I don't see why a champion shouldn't just be bumped down to the eliminator stage with other contenders.

 

The argument about eliminator and holding the belt has nothing to do with Hearn. That all falls on the sanctioning body. Who fights for the belt is their responsibility.

 

Exactly. There should be a rule that a rematch clause should be defined as fighting again within 2 years or so, and being able to have a couple of fights with other opponents in between.