SIRB QUESTIONS WBC POLICY
Harrisburg, PA- I can accept the idea that a boxer should have to pay (currently 3%) of his purse for a sanctioning fee when boxing for a title ? obviously the boxer does gain some financial rewards if he wins the belt.
WHEN IS A ?NON? SANCTION A SANCTION?
What I CANNOT accept is the fact that the WBC (I am not sure about the others) continues to charge 1.5% as a sanction fee to any of the current WBC champions even if the bout they are in is not for the WBC or any other title. It appears that the WBC recently amended their regulations (Section 7.4) ? that previously stated: ?In the event that a WBC champion fights for another organization?s title in a higher weight class, or in a lower weight class in a bout in which his WBC title is not also at stake, the champion must pay to the WBC 50% (that?s fifty percent) of the WBC sanction fee, as stated herein, in view of the market value brought to the bout as a result of his standing attained as a WBC champion.?
CHANGE IN RULES PROFITABLE FOR WBC
As I previously stated the recent Bernard Hopkins-Kelly Pavlik bout and the up-coming Manny Pacquiao-Oscar De La Hoya are NOT for any other organization?s title so how could the WBC charge this 1.5% fee-which is 50% of the standard 3% sanction fee) so the WBC Section 7.4 NOW READS: ?In the event that a WBC champion fights in a higher weight class, or in a lower weight class in a bout in which his WBC title is not also at stake, the champion must pay to the WBC 50% (fifty percent) of the WBC sanction fee, as stated herein, in view of the market value brought to the bout as a result of his standing attained as a WBC champion.?
HAS WBC BECOME A MANAGER/PROMOTER?
By removing the words (another organization?s title) the WBC can now legally, allowed by their regulations, continue to charge this 1.5% fee to any of the current WBC champions any time this Boxer competes ? and there is NO cap to this amount ? this certainly sounds more like some sort of managerial/promotional contract!
