“Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”
-Justice Louis Brandeis
The sport of mixed martial arts (”MMA“) is experiencing incredible growth, and is publicly declared to be the fastest growing sport in the world. With growth, comes change. To date, independent “sanctioning” bodies have not been a part of the MMA landscape, though the World Alliance of Mixed Martial Arts (”WAMMA“) aims to change this. WAMMA seeks to become the one and only “sanctioning” body for MMA, and promises to legitimate true “world” titles that are independent of any particular promotion. To accomplish its goals, WAMMA promises to provide completely “objective” rankings and has stated unequivocally to this author that they will do so without ever charging a sanctioning fee to any promoter or fighter.
The concept of independent rankings determining championship bouts is desirable in and of itself. Objective rankings serving as the basis for title bouts pressures promoters to make championship matches based upon merit in competition-not upon contractual subservience of the fighter. Objectivity in rankings also serves to buttress the integrity of the sport by legitimizing title matches to the general public. Finally, an objective rankings system that recognizes champions arguably increases the marketability and earning potential of the fighters themselves.
The question becomes is WAMMA, a private for profit company, the proper outlet to provide such “independent” rankings? While WAMMA promotes itself as a “multifaceted fighter and fan forward organization,” is it likely to live up to its promises? Is an outside “sanctioning” body even necessary or desirable in MMA? A review of boxing’s colorful history with the “sanctioning” body is instructive, and provides an introduction into an examination of WAMMA itself.
I. Sanctioning Bodies in Professional Boxing.
A. The Emergence of the Sanctioning Body in Professional Boxing.
In boxing, privately owned “sanctioning bodies” rank boxers and “sanction” championship and “contender” or “eliminator” bouts to determine who is next in line for a title match. The sanctioning bodies do not actually regulate the sport of boxing at all-that is left to the state athletic commissions. “Sanctioning bodies” proliferated in boxing, creating what is dubbed the “alphabet soup” of titles. In boxing there are four (4) widely recognized, though not respected sanctioning bodies: the WBA, WBC, IBF, and WBO. Necessarily, the sanctioning bodies operate independently of each other, and essentially compete with each other to market and promote their own “champion” or contender. Boxers holding titles rarely face belt holders in competing sanctioning bodies.1
Top rankings are crucial for most boxers, as they determine who fights for titles and who fights for the largest purses. In boxing, the sanctioning bodies profit predominantly by collecting a “sanctioning fee” against the boxer’s purse. Thus, as purses increase, so do the fees collected by the sanctioning body. For example, heavyweight boxer Samuel Peter, paid the WBC $100,000 for the right to earn a chance to fight for a title by appearing in contender matches. Peter, however, was passed over for his shot at the title which was instead granted to Vitali Klitschko. He was leapfrogged by Klitschko for the simple reason that the purse Klitschko would command would be greater than Peter’s, and thus, the 3% sanctioning fee collected by the WBC would be higher. Current Yahoo Sports writer Kevin Iole deemed this practice “legalized extortion” and called on the federal government to intervene.2
The sanctioning bodies arose to prominence during the late 1970’s and 1980’s, and not coincidentally, emerged at the same time boxing was reestablished on network television. The WBC and WBA were largely ignored and remained on the periphery throughout the 1960’s, publishing rankings and designating their own champions. Ironically enough, scandal in boxing moved these two sanctioning bodies to the forefront. In 1977, during a boxing tournament televised by ABC Sports, it was revealed that the rankings of the boxers involved were flawed, and that the records of some boxers were fabrications.3 Embarrassed, ABC turned to the WBA and WBC to take over the rankings of boxers.4 Thus, the sanctioning bodies were legitimized by the networks, who, in effect, attempted to “purchase credibility” with the viewing public.5 “Independent rankings” are also good for ratings. According to famed boxing historian Bert Sugar, “television wants rankings so Cecil can tell Ethel, ‘I can’t come to the dinner table because it’s a big fight. He doesn’t know who’s fighting but it’s a big fight.”6
The “founders” of these sanctioning bodies were “self-proclaimed reformers, intending to reward contenders solely on the merits.”7 These sanctioning bodies made occasional concessions “toward the interests of fighters,” such as “establishing safety regulations” including “shortening the lengths of championship fights.”8 Executives from ABC and other networks paid the organizations for the right to broadcast a sanctioned fight, and fighters agreed to pay sanctioning fees for the privilege of having a shot at a sanctioning body’s title. Without the television networks’ need to establish credibility with the viewing audience, the emergence of these sanctioning bodies would have likely never occurred.
B. Sanctioning Bodies Plagued by Fraud, Extortion, Bribery, and Rendered Completely Illegitimate.
Despite proclaiming themselves as reformers brought in by the networks to restore integrity to the sport of boxing, it quickly became apparent that the sanctioning bodies were just another scandal themselves. Sanctioning bodies are not regulated by any state or federal agency, and prior to passage of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, the sanctioning groups did not publish rankings criteria explaining the rankings methodology.9 Abuses including fraud and bribery in the rankings proliferated. The legitimacy of the rankings has been the subject of ridicule in the boxing industry.
The sanctioning bodies were viewed with such contempt, that a legislative aide working on boxing reform stated that sanctioning bodies and rankings were not even examined because “it was so universally accepted that they’re arbitrary and subject to manipulation that we didn’t think it would serve any purpose to spend six months looking into them.”10 The views of congress as to the total corruption of the sanctioning bodies in boxing were echoed by boxing commentator Larry Merchant. “It’s just a common belief in the boxing world that rankings are bought and sold. They’re totally shameless, these people. Their livelihoods rely on the money they bring in.”11 Likewise, famed boxing historian Bert Sugar states, “they don’t just take money under the table, they take it around the table, over the table and sometimes they take the table too.”12
Several promoters, including Bob Arum, publicly acknowledge paying bribes in order to raise the rankings of boxers.13 Powerful promoters also exert their influence and control within the sanctioning bodies by agreeing to have their most marketable boxers fight in bouts for a particular sanctioning body in exchange for preferential treatment in the rankings of fighters they promote. Promoters also directly lobby the sanctioning bodies. Don King declared, “in boxing, just like politics, you lobby. I lobby for fighters.”14 Promoters in boxing even publicly declare that it behooves them to ingratiate themselves with the sanctioning bodies. In short, it is good for business. It is common practice in boxing for promoters to underwrite the annual conventions of sanctioning bodies.15 According to promoter Butch Lewis, “it’s like everything else, you go to the conventions, put on a cocktail party, you make donations to the conventions. That’s what you do to stay in business.”16 In place of bags of cash, which itself has happened in the world of the boxing sanctioning body, favor is more likely to be gained by sending expensive wedding gifts or hosting lavish parties.
One boxing manager however, Ron Weathers, publicly speaks of direct payoffs made to the IBF. Weathers told prosecutors investigating the IBF that he had on “several occasions” made improper payments to the IBF in order to secure rankings for his fighters. “It’s just common knowledge that if you want to get something done, you have got to grease their palms. Either $10,000 or $20,000, depending on where you want the guy rated. Obviously, it’s an all cash transaction.”17 According to Weathers, “for years, you could only do business with these organizations if you paid them.”18 This account is corroborated by statements made by Joseph Maffia, Don King’s accountant from 1986 to 1991. According to Maffia, “there were overpayments of sanctioning fees by hundreds of thousands of dollars in [Mike] Tyson fights.” The overpayments included kickbacks to officials at the IBF, WBA, and WBC.19
Fighters and promoters both gave sworn statements to investigators that the IBF employed other methods to influence rankings for favored promoters. Boxer William Guthrie, a former IBF lightweight champion, sued Don King, alleging that King used his influence with Robert Lee Sr., the founder of the IBF. According to Guthrie, King told Lee and the IBF not to grant Guthrie a title fight if he selected a promoter other than King.20
Most shocking, perhaps, was the testimony obtained by Heavyweight boxer, Michael Moorer and his attorneys. In an affidavit obtained from Dan Duva, then president of Main Events, Duva stated that the IBF official in charge of rankings was ordered by Lee to “unilaterally” move Francis Botha to the number one position. Corroborating this account is a sworn statement from Seth Abraham, then president of Time Warner-HBO Sports. Abraham stated that promoter Don King had outlined for him how King would have Botha moved ahead of Moorer in the IBF rankings. In later interviews, Abraham stated, “and that is indeed what happened.”21
Thus, with television executives eager to establish credibility with audiences and promoters quick to ingratiate themselves with the sanctioning bodies to gain favor, interconnected relationships were forged that benefited everyone but the fighters. In exchange for “sanctioning” a title bout, which entails little more than publishing “independent” rankings of fighters to establish a pecking order, sanctioning bodies began charging “sanctioning fees” equal to up to three percent (3%) of a fighter’s purse for the privilege of fighting for a title.
The IBF was formed in 1983 by Robert Lee Sr., a career homicide detective from New Jersey. At the time of the IBF’s formation, Lee was serving as the Deputy Commissioner of the New Jersey State Athletic Commission. Lee pledged that the IBF would create legitimate independent rankings and legitimate world titles, restoring integrity to boxing. The IBF, as of 1999, had only five full-time employees. The IBF’s earnings, as with the WBA, WBO and WBA, were, prior to passage of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, completely private. Former FBI agent and New York Inspector General Joseph Spinelli, said the following in regards to the sanctioning fees collected by sanctioning bodies, “no one knows where it goes or who it goes to. They’re not accountable to anyone.”22
Despite the noble intentions trumpeted by these “reformers” of boxing aiming to restore integrity to the sport, boxing’s history with these sanctioning bodies tells an entirely different story. Instead of restoring integrity, the sanctioning bodies invited scandal and were easily and willingly influenced by promoters. Contrary to the stated intentions, the facts indicate that the sanctioning bodies were established “mainly to enrich the individuals who run them, not to legitimize fights.”23
C. Ring Magazine: Legitimacy and Integrity Restored to Boxing’s Rankings.
Ring Magazine, in large part due to the abuses and chicanery which proliferated throughout boxing’s sanctioning bodies, established its own “championship” policy. Nigel Collins, then editor in chief of Ring Magazine, declared:
“Our championship policy that we started in April 2002 was in response to the need to return integrity to championship boxing. The alphabet organizations have three or four champions per division and they also have super and interim champions. Piling up so many (champions) for so many years has done so much damage to the sport.”24
Ring Magazine is comprised of journalists, and its “championship policy” isn’t a for-profit endeavor. In establishing its rankings, Ring Magazine uses rankings compiled from approximately thirty (30) boxing correspondents, dispersed worldwide. In order to be crowned Ring’s champion, “a boxer must either fight The Ring’s established world champion, or the No. 1 and No. 2-ranked boxers in the respective division must meet.”25 An exception to this rule “is when a No. 1 meets a deserving No. 3 – such as when super middleweight Joe Calzaghe (who was ranked No. 1 by The Ring) defeated Jeff Lacy (ranked No. 3).”26
Crucial to the integrity and legitimacy of Ring Magazine’s champions, the magazine doesn’t care at all if any other “sanctioning body” recognizes their champions. It is happy to crown a deserving fighter its champion regardless of whether such fighter fights in a WBA, WBC, IBF, or WBO title match. To Ring Magazine, the other sanctioning bodies are entirely irrelevant. Ring Magazine also doesn’t strip its champions, each of whom receive an actual belt from Ring Magazine. Titles change hands only if “the fighter is beaten in the ring, retires (as did heavyweight champion Vitali Klitschko) or moves up in weight and vacates the belt.”27 The biggest supports of the Ring Magazine “Championship” policy have been HBO and ESPN, which have each utilized the Ring Magazine rankings in broadcasts.
A world without sanctioning bodies, and efforts such as The Ring Magazine championship policy suit Dino Duva, president of Duva boxing, just fine. According to Duva, “there cannot be a true world champion except by public acclaim. There should be just one in each weight class.”28
II. WAMMA
Michael Lynch, a founder and current Chief Operating Officer of WAMMA graciously answered questions I posed. I have also examined WAMMA’s presentation given at the Association of Boxing Commissioners MMA convention held in Montreal on July 3, 2008. Finally, I have reviewed other public interviews and statements provided by WAMMA officials to answer the following questions:
1. Is WAMMA likely to be the “reform” body it touts itself to be, leading MMA to “unprecedented levels of integrity, legitimacy and prosperity?”
2. Has WAMMA, as it promises, taken only the good from the boxing model, and left all the problematic features of the boxing sanctioning body behind?
Check back on Wednesday for Part 2 of this article.
Rob Maysey is a licensed attorney in the states of Arizona, California, and Minnesota. He received his BA in Politics from Whitman College and his JD from Cornell Law School. He has followed the sport of mixed martial arts closely since being introduced to Brazilian jiu-jitsu in 1998 by a law school classmate.
[1] McKinley, James C. “A SPORT ADRIFT: No One’s in Charge, and Biggest Loser is Boxing,” New York Times, January 22, 2000.
[2] Iole, Kevin. “Peter paid for title shot: The WBC should give it,” The Las Vegas Review-Journal, January 27, 2007.
[3] Smith, Timothy W. “Boxing; A Sport’s Credibility Takes Another Hit,” New York Times, June 20, 1999.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Springer, Steve and Wharton, David. “Boxing Ranking System Abused Payments Allegedly Made to Get Higher Rankings,” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, May 23, 1999.
[7] McKinley, James C. “A SPORT ADRIFT: No One’s in Charge, and Biggest Loser is Boxing,” New York Times, January 22, 2000.
[8] Smith, Timothy W. “Boxing; A Sport’s Credibility Takes Another Hit,” New York Times, June 20, 1999.
[9] 15 U.S.C.A. § 6307(c) covers the actions of sanctioning bodies and requires the Association of Boxing Commissions to develop “guidelines for objective and consistent written criteria for the ratings of professional boxers” and forces sanctioning bodies to explain the reasons for the any changes in the rankings of boxers.”‘ 15 U.S.C.A. § 6307(d) requires sanctioning bodies to provide certain financial information to state commissions. These provisions are included in what is commonly referred to as the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000.
[10] Smith, Timothy W. “Boxing; A Sport’s Credibility Takes Another Hit,” New York Times, June 20, 1999.
[11] Springer, Steve and Wharton, David. “Boxing Ranking System Abused Payments Allegedly Made to Get Higher Rankings,” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, May 23, 1999.
[12] Id.
[13] Bob Arum has publicly stated that he paid a WBA official $500,000 in order to secure a title fight for his boxer, Ray Mancini. Smith, Timothy W. “Boxing; A Sport’s Credibility Takes Another Hit,” New York Times, June 20, 1999.
[14] Springer, Steve and Wharton, David. “Boxing Ranking System Abused Payments Allegedly Made to Get Higher Rankings,” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, May 23, 1999.
[15] Smith, Timothy W. “Boxing; A Sport’s Credibility Takes Another Hit,” New York Times, June 20, 1999.
[16] Id.
[17] Springer, Steve and Wharton, David. “Boxing Ranking System Abused Payments Allegedly Made to Get Higher Rankings,” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, May 23, 1999.
[18] Smith, Timothy W. “Boxing; A Sport’s Credibility Takes Another Hit,” New York Times, June 20, 1999.
[19] Wharton, David. “Corruption: Investigation leads to Agents’ Raid of King’s Office,” Los Angeles Times, June 5, 1999.
[20] Smith, Timothy W. ”Boxing; A Sport’s Credibility Takes Another Hit,” New York Times, June 20, 1999. In fact, Guthrie states that his source for the King demand was Robert Lee of the IBF.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] McKinley, James C. “Boxing: New York’s Senate Panel Urges Change,” New York Times, November 11, 1999.
[24] Houser, Mike. “The Ring provides integrity for boxing,” The Appeal Sports Writer, March 29, 2006.
[25] Id.
[26] Id.
[27] Id.
[28] Dorfman, Sid. “Return of WBC could spell trouble,” The Star-Ledger, July 14, 2004.>