2017 has almost gone and looking back, the annual wish list (http://www.newageboxing.co.uk/2017-wishlist) was hit and miss. To reiterate, it isn’t a predictions list, but more the realistic hopes of a fan for outcomes over 12 months. Turns out a number of them weren’t so realistic after all!
Super fights have happened of their own volition (GGG vs Canelo, Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux) while the genesis of the World Boxing Super Series leant a hand in bringing together top names at both Super Middle and Cruiser. The pantomime of Mayweather vs McGregor thankfully didn’t cast too long a shadow over the sport, while in Britain we have seen BT solidify their boxing platform that sees Frank Warren once again become a legitimate pound-for-pound challenger in the British promotional tug of war.
Turning the attention to 2018, we have a solid base to build on. Without further ado, let’s dive into the hopes and dreams of the following 12 months……..
The StubHub Situation
An oldie, but a goodie. The narrative is set by now; tickets go on sale to a big event (insert the names of a Joshua, Eubank etc) and within minutes, those same tickets end up on StubHub. What we know is that they are sponsors to Matchroom, so of course as fans we question the commercial values of the arrangement. However we can’t say for certain what is going on here. Step in then, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).
A Government non-ministerial department, their aim “is to make markets work well for consumers, businesses and the economy”. They don’t fuck about, their power is real. Back in November the offices of StubHub and Viagogo got a visit (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/10/stubhub-and-viagogo-offices-raided-in-ticket-touting-investigation) to find out a bit more information. There is still a lot of the unknown; Who is benefitting? Who is organising? How do the tickets end up so quickly on StubHub?
There is a lot….A LOT….that could come out in 2018 about this. As fans, we can hope that if there are nefarious actions being undertaken by anyone in the sport, those individuals get drained from the swamp. There may be a lot of paper trails being buried at present, let’s hope that the CMA get their hands on them and clean up the entire process, meaning that fans can have the access they should to tickets at face value.
Social Media Guidelines
Prompted by the recent ongoings of Ohara Davies but it fits a wider narrative beyond just this incident. Boxers can be feisty types, we know that. Twitter lends itself to some great moments in the sports; fights being made, fights being hyped and fans discussing fights. There is value in social media, but as the case of Ohara Davies proves, there is also risk.
Pulled from his spot on an O2 undercard for Twitter comments, Davies no doubt has crossed many lines in the past. But the problem is, the level of offence that people can take is subjective. To insult the people of Liverpool by referencing The Sun will cause far less anger elsewhere in the country. When David Haye compared his beating of Audley Harrison to being as one-sided as a gang rape, there will be sub-sections of society rightly more offended than others by the comment. Eddie Hearn didn’t allow his moral (or financial) compass to pull that fight from happening.
It is all subjective. In itself, this makes policing it difficult. The British Boxing Board of Control issue their own social media guidelines (http://bbbofc.com/content/social-media-guidelines) – the fact that both Bebo and MySpace are referenced as social media websites perhaps highlights how outdated these are though. The catch-all line in their best practice says:
“Never use social media to insult anyone directly or indirectly.”
They would struggle to make it any more ambiguous, yet THEY are the ones who should be policing this. The Board hold the licences, the Board have the power to suspend and withdraw or to issue financial penalties. Not just the boxer though, they can also look past them and interrogate the Management, the Promoter, the Trainer. In other words, the influencers of the individual.
Boxing isn’t a normal workplace, we accept that. If you work in an office, chances are these guidelines are laid out and explained on day one. Boxing isn’t like that. Boxing relies upon the needle to sell fights. It is the policing of the issue that is worrying. Tyson Fury was fined in 2013 for a series of Tweets (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/boxing/9938810/Tyson-Fury-fined-3000-by-Boxing-Board-of-Control-for-Twitter-abuse-against-David-Price-and-Tony-Bellew.html) and various others have been penalised for indiscretions.
It will be interesting to see if Davies gets his wrists slapped by the Board for his actions. If so will they also penalise others around him who have been part of the Davies character, part of the reason that he is as well-known as he is?
One thing that could really benefit the sport as a result of this is for the Board to update the guidelines. Written at a time when Bebo and MySpace were still relevant, they are outdated. They now have case studies, examples where they deem the line was crossed. With is being subjective as to who will be offended by comments, it isn’t an easy task to police. However, as they are in control of the sport from the top down in the UK, it is the responsibility of the Board to ensure that boxers are getting both the boundaries made clear and the help they need if they don’t understand them. Without these in place, how can boxers be held truly accountable?