If Klitschko had a return clause in the event of losing to Fury in an IBF sanctioned fight then wouldn't that mean that the IBF had also approved the contracts for the fight? It seems incredibly harsh to strip a champion of his belt for not breaching his contract.
I believe Fury didn’t inform them of any rematch claus. The IBF has no part in approving contracts they can’t stop a fight from happening unless it’s just their belt on the line in a mandatory or other things like a fighters test or something . The rematch claus is an agreement between the two fighters and parties not the sanctioned body .
Fury could have sued them if he cared. The IBF claimed ignorance, they said that the contract they received didn't have a rematch clause and they wouldn't have sanctioned the bout if they'd been aware of it.
I don't see anything wrong with a governing body allowing a dethroned champion to request a rematch if he has proven himself to be a worthy and established title-holder e.g. if he has made, say, 5 or more successful defences. This was Klitschko's NINETEENTH defence of the IBF title and, in my opinion, he had more than earned the right to a rematch that the governing body should have sanctioned.
