Should Boxing Have a Trade Union?

yes but it won't happen.

in other sports the athletes made the treade unions happen. if boxers want it they need to do it themselves.

 

Besides providing for pensions and medical benefits, it would give the athletes more leverage in dealing with the promoters and sanctioning bodies, wouldn't it? Maybe some of the changes that fans would like to see would come about, like unified titles and mandatory fights. It would certainly transfer more profits from a few big promoters into the athletes' pockets.

 

McGuigan, Piper and a few others tried to get one off the ground years ago. From what McGuigan has said the boxers didn't really want to know anout it.

 

To be blunt the problem is your dealing with athletes where 95% of them won't be paticularly smart. They probably don't even understand what a trade union is.

Haye, Price, Cleverly, Bellew, Groves, Barker, Macklin, Frampton, S.Smith seem like the only fighters on the British scene that could hold an intelligent conversation (I am probably missing some)

The BBBofC should be acting as one anyway!

 

I think most boxers understand the concept of a trade union, they just aren't interested.

 

For it to work, a significant % of the fighters - by this I mean a majority - would have to agree with it, and it's principles.

The most successful ''union'' of sorts that I can think of, that's been formed in recent times is the PDC.

The trouble with boxing is that many of the fighters would be going against their better judgement by taking on the ''establishment''.

These might be journeymen that receive a regular income from promoters, or fighters like Cleverly who receive significant sums for taking on less than risky fights. By taking a stand, he'd possibly be affecting his long term earning potential.

Another successful association is the Australian Cricketers Association, of course cricket is a team sport, and at the time (1997) the team was at a high level and on an upward curve - and they had the support of players that were playing state cricket and also the public.

I can't go into too much detail as it's a long subject, but the initial principle was a bargaining agreement between the association and the governing body, which subsequently determined the method at which player's were paid, and how that might increase or decrease in future.

It also gave them more freedom to negotiate contracts with sponsors and **** like that.

 

Bizarre considering how often they are given the shitty end of the stick from promoters.

 

^

It's no different to most people's relationships with their employer tbh.

I was once told that I wasn't getting a pay rise and objected, only to be told ''at least you've got a job, there's plenty out there that need one and will work for far less than what you're on''.