Should there be tougher rules on moving promoters?

The other key fact is Sky pay Hearn a decent sum of money. They expect so many shows a year and each card is stringently checked and the fighters vetted. The easiest way to make a fight is if you have a tie to a fighter. It's the exact same model as the football and the Prem is considered the best in world.

 

Mcdonnell signed with FW didn't he?

 

Brook may not have fought for a world title yet but his profile has definitely improved under Eddie

 

The Hearn's are doing to boxing what they did to darts and snooker. They are trying to buy up any decent fighter in Britain so they can have a monopoly.

They are ruthless in their pursuit. Never forget the Hearn's come from the same sewer in the East End of London that Frank ****** does.

 

There has been a recent court ruling in America concerning Canelo's move from his old promoters to Golden Boy - problem is it will be only for punitive damages.

It will be interesting to see if the courts in this country take a similar stance in regards of McDonnell.

 

Agree there. He couldn't even sell out the Ponds Forge

 

Like it or not SKY is the biggest platform for boxing exposure/ money wise in this country so the fighters are drawn to Matchroom it's a given on that front.

Hobson made a terrible call putting that card on the same night as the Burns fight crazy decision going head-to head & putting the McDonnell/Ceja fight on Primetime PPV financial suicide.

 

In one of hardest sports in the world, who are we to rob a fighter of more money?

 

Surely we expect promoters to play fair with the fighters? Shouldn't we also expect the fighters to play fair with their promoters and stick to their contracts?

 

If a fighter has done wrong by his contract, any Promoter worth their salt would soon have them in Court...

Generally it is the Promoters with most of the power, not the fighter...

 

That doesn't stop them "moving promoter" I don't think. I believe the promoter can only seek compensation?

 

I cannot believe I am reading some of the comments on this forum on this subject.

Everyone on this forum knows how hard it is for all in boxing and that includes promoters, managers, trainers and fighters.

For non TV promoters and managers they simply have to dig very deep into their pockets in the first part of a boxers career, their dream is their fighter makes it to championship level and maybe just maybe the TV executives sit up and take notice by giving them a TV contract.

So what is basically happening on this thread and a couple of others, is posters think its alright for a promoter and manager to take a huge loss on a fighter in the first part of his career and then its perfectly fine for the fighter to be poached or tapped up by a TV promoter.

if you think thats fine then you are supporting monoplies on the sport and then in the next breath you complain why there are sh it match ups.

Wake up!!!!!

 

Depends on the terms of the contract...

 

Actually that is capitalism, and boxing does that rather well. And if capitalism cannot be brought down with what happened in 2007-2010, then little is going to change anytime soon. As I suspect you, like me is a member of the 'Developed World' we cannot get too preachy about it and expect people to take us seriously.