Should boxing make rematch clauses illegal?

Yes.
Every boxing organisation and world and regional boxing body should not licence/sanction fights if the contract includes a rematch clause.



​

 

Not sure how this would be executed considering there is no over arching authority in boxing. Secondly both parties agree to those terms. we have to understand that the "A-side" is always going to do this incase an upset occurs yes it's annoying for us fans but they simply would not take that risk unless there was a quick out to reverse a desicion. We would essentialy end up with paper belt champs staying in the backyard with mo potential unification. Although they can be annoying and hold up a division I think they are a lesser evil when we look at the bigger picture.

 

Considering title fights with rematch clauses essentially re-run the contest giving the belt-holder the opportunity to win it back without earning the chance through sanctioning body rankings, why doesn't the new champion get the same benefit? For rematch clauses to be fair on a sporting level, the rematch should have a rematch clause, so the new champion enjoys the same benefit. But they don't. And nor should they. And neither should the original fights.

These clauses clog up boxing like a blocked drain...

 

Say you like them or not, but don't say ''if both fighters agree''. Rematch clauses are typically based on an A-side/B-side situation where the more powerful side forces terms on the other party that are unfair or downright corrupt. The idea that everyone just agrees in a fair context is absurd. It's like telling some musician that they agreed to the corrupt contract of a record company, therefore they are okay with it. No, it's just they don't get any deal otherwise and have no power in the negotiation. But it's worse than that, because this is supposed to be a sport.

There should clearly be no rematch clauses simply based on how they are abused, which is blatantly obvious. If they don't exist, when a bigger party wants the rematch, they can pay top dollar for it. In most cases the b-side fighter will accept a massive payday for the rematch. In some cases they might do a runner, but with mandatories around, it means the defeated a-side should be able to get back into position and force it anyway.

The Klitschkos even had the clause where you had to fight the brother. The corruption people accept in this joke sport is unreal.

 

That was my point in my previous post. It's always been corrupt. I'm not rying to defend it just state the reality. Look at Joshua v Usyk I strongly believe that Joshua just said to himself I will get him in the rematch and looked to just get to the end. If that clause isn't there then Joshua has to get stuck in. It changes peolpes attitudes if they know they have two bites of the cherry.

 

I think in many cases that they ought to be mandatory. Fights between near equals rarely go the same way twice. When top fighters go at it four times you usually get four different outcomes. The rival series is the greatest phenomenon in boxing. It tends to define fighters legacies who engage in multi-battle bouts. Barrera vs Morales, Gatti vs Ward, Pacquiao vs Marquez, Ali vs Frazier, etc.