Ethics in boxing

A Happy New Year to all!

By the time this column sees the light of day, Filipino boxing idol Manny Pacquiao should have decided whether to accept the counter offer of Golden Boy Promotions’ (GBP) Richard Schaefer to fight in a rematch World Boxing Council super featherweight champion Marco Antonio Barrera of Mexico. The fight is scheduled for March 17, 2007 at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas with Pacquiao and Barrera splitting the purse 50-50.

The counter-offer was made after American promoter Bob Arum managed to get Pacquiao to sign a new contract with Top Rank, Arum’s promotions company. Arum offered, among other things, a $5 million purse for Pacquiao’s rematch with Barrera scheduled for April 28, 2007. Pacquiao had earlier entered into a pact with GBP for a seven-fight deal on Sept. 19, 2006 but practically rescinded that same deal when he announced a few days ago that he is sticking it out with Arum.

In a statement exclusive to Boxingtalk.com, Schaefer said, among other things, that "Our (GBP) offer was not intended as a negotiation, but to present a fair and lucrative offer to make this fight a reality...Marco is the champion and his willingness to agree to a 50-50 deal, only if the fight doesn’t go to purse-bid, is certainly a generous offer to Manny. I am sure Manny and his team understand that if the fight goes to purse-bid, the split would be 75-25 in favor of Barrera. Marco and Golden Boy however are not willing to sit around and wait. Pay-per-view deadlines force us to impose a deadline of Monday, Jan. 1 (Tuesday, Jan. 2 in Manila) for Team Pacquiao to either accept or decline our offer."

In the statement, Schaefer decried what, in other sports could be considered contract tampering, and issued a veiled threat of legal action by alluding to the possibility of the rematch not pushing through. "It is very unfortunate that Bob Arum, through his ...interference, has clouded Pacquiao’s mind. Because of Bob’s actions with the help and assistance of certain members of Team Pacquiao, particularly Michael Koncz, this long-awaited fight might not happen and cost the fighters as well as Golden Boy a substantial loss of money and opportunity."

As if to show the strong desire of GBP to get on with the fight for the benefit of sports aficionados, Schaefer offered to have all "promotional profits attributable to the Pacquiao side in an escrow account until such time the courts decide who the legal promoter of Manny Pacquiao is."

The statement ends not without a jab at the way Pacquiao runs his business affairs and the snake pit atmosphere that is probably pervading in the Filipino icon’s camp. "Manny this is your chance to step up. Take control and accept the fight you claim you want the most. If Arum wants what’s best for you, he will not stand in your way to make this career-defining fight. If we agree to hold the promotional profits in an escrow account, Arum has nothing to lose. If he should win the case, he gets the money, and if he does not, then he doesn’t deserve it. However, you deserve the opportunity to fight the best Mexican fighter of our generation...If you want to be the boss and the people around you tell you that you are the boss, then take charge, act like the boss and accept the fight."

Putting the money in escrow while the legal aspects are being resolved makes sense because it allows the much-awaited fight to take place. The alternative is a temporary restraining order that will throw a legal monkey wrench on the fight. It is a fair arrangement that Pacquiao should accept. It protects the interest of everyone, including Arum.

Several lessons should be learned from this episode in Pacquiao’s career.

First, Pacquiao should not have signed a second contract when he had an existing and live contract with GBP. Whoever influenced him into doing so may have done Pacquiao, the boxing sport and the Filipino people a disservice. If some members of Team Pacquiao found the GBP contract wanting, they should have renegotiated the terms right away or put GBP on notice of an impending renegotiation. Signing a second contract to provide the same service is like being married to two people at the same time. That is bigamy, a criminal offense.

Second, boxing authorities may find it worthwhile to formulate a Code of Ethical Conduct that, if there is none, boxers, promoters, matchmakers and all those who have something to do with the boxing profession have to live by or else face stiff sanctions or ostracism. Most professions have codes of conduct that govern the way one conducts one’s profession. Accounting, law, architecture, medicine, advertising, engineering and other professions have codes of conduct. I do not see why boxing, where a lot of money is involved, should not have one. The code should include a provision on the sanctity of contracts and a well-defined procedure for correcting perceived inequities in agreements.

Third, government should take a more proactive role in monitoring and, if need be, regulating the progress of contract negotiations between promoters and managers on one hand and boxers on the other. Unless regulations for good governance of boxing are in place and are being implemented, there will always be the possibility of fighters being exploited.

* * *

Former Philippine Sports Commission chairman Perry Mequi writes to remind sports authorities of the declaration of United Nations (UN) Secretary General Kofi Annan that the "aim of sports is not the creation of new sporting champions" and consider the social philosophy of ensuring that "the greatest benefit (accruing from sports) go to the least advantaged," when they undertake the task of overhauling our sports program. The UN Task Force for Member States urges countries "to incorporate sport and physical activity into their development policies and to provide resources for initiatives that maximize participation and access to sport for all."

According to Mequi, this recommendation is an affirmation of Article 1 of the International Charter of Physical Education and Sport that states "the practice of physical education and sport is a fundamental right for all." The Philippines is a signatory of this Charter, promulgated in Paris on Nov. 21, 1978.