BBCNEWSNIGHT SCANDAL CLAIM AGAINST IBA IS IMMOVABLE. IF IT IS UNTRUE IBA HAS TO PROVE ITS INNOCENCE THROUGH THE COURTS

Add caption

 AFTER A YEAR LONG INVESTIGATION BY THE PRESTIGIOUS TV BBCNEWSNIGHT  ALLEGED INTERNATIONAL AMATEUR INTERNATIONAL BOXING, NOW KNOWN AS IBA AND RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTERING BOXING IN THE OLYMPIC GAMES, AND ITS AFFILIATE COMPANY WORLD SERIES BOXING (WSB,) OFFERED TWO 2012 OLYMPIC BOXING GOLD MEDALS TO OIL RICH AZERBAIJAN IN RETURN FOR CLOSE TO S$10 MILLION. LAST NIGHT THE ACCUSATION RETURNED TO BBC TV SCREENS WHEN BBCNEWSNIGHT REPEATED THEIR ALLEGATION. 

THIS HAS TO MEAN THAT IBA/WSB HAS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO ADVISE BBCNEWSNIGHT THAT UNLESS IT AGREES  TO ACCEPT IT MADE A MISTAKE AND APOLOGISES, IBA/WSB WILL INSTIGATE REMEDIAL LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BBCNEWNSIGHT. BOXING ACTION HAS SPOKEN TO LAWYERS AND HGHLY REGARDED BOXING PEOPLE, AND NONE IS ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHY IBA/WSB AFTER INSTRUCTING SOLICITORS CARTER RUCK EARLY THEY HAVE NOT INSTRUCTED THEM TO SEND THIS ULTIMATUM BBCNEWSNIGHT.The International Olympic Committee (IOC) should not need to be reminded it is in the public domain they had requested from BBCNewsnight full details of their investigation. This request was fully complied with and IOC promised an immediate investigation into the extremely serious accusation by BBCNewsnight.For IOC for IOC to want the full BBCNewsnight investigation dossier has to imply they were seeking to become involved. Unfortunately There has been not been one word on the result of the IOC the investigation promise and after one year has passed it is still awaited.In the meantime IBA held an internal inquiry and cleared themselves of any wrongdoing. It would have been astonishing beyond words for IBA/WSB to declare themselves corrupt regardless of the evidence against them that might have been uncovered.If people accused of a criminal activity were allowed to make a final judgementon their guilt how many prison cells would be occupied? Probably one modest size prison would be sufficient for the whole of the country and even this one prison would have empty cells?  In an extreme case had Usama Bin Laden been allowed to investigate his own case it is a guarantee he would ‘not be sleeping with the fishes.’It is difficult to understand how IBA could conduct their own investigation without the full report on the investigation made by BBCNewsnight being available to them. Boxing Action is unable to find any reference to BBCNewsnight allowing any other than IOC to view their dossier, and this includes IBA, being allowed to have sight of the details of their investigation.In September 2011, BBCNewsnight broadcast and revealed on TV the result of its year long investigation. Their allegation was transparently clear and it alleged  that an, “anonymous investor” from Azerbaijan had agreed to invest US$10 million dollars  in WSB the Company said by BBCNewsnight to be a near bankrupt Company, in exchange for the guarantee of two Olympic boxing Gold Medals.The investigation included a volatile quote from an anonymous source whom the BBC described as an “insider” and the allegation was: Ivan boasted to a few of us that there was no need to worry about World Series Boxing having the coin to pay its bills. As long as the Azeri’s got their medals the WSB would have the cash.Last year, Ms. Anna Adams, a reporter for BBC’s “NewsnIght,” spoke with Ivan Khodabakhsh, the CEO. of WSB.Against a backdrop of posters claiming, “The Dream Place For Boxers,” Ms. Adams  conducted the interview with Mr. Khodabakhsh.The setting may have been “The Dream Place” for some boxers but no doubt Mr. Khodabahksh has enjoyed better dreams in other places.Ms. Adams revealed in the course of the BBCNewsnight investigation there was an allegation that IBA/WSB had conspired to fix boxing results in the London 2012 Olympic Games.She said to Mr. Khodabaksh “You promised Azerbaijan two gold medals at London 2012 in exchange for ten million dollars.”Mr. Khodabakhsh’s indignant response was the contradictory statement, “First of all, no comment,” he said. “Secondly, absolutely a lie.”For an 'investor' to decide to invest a sum as large as nearly US$10 million paper trail that should clearly indicate there exists a paper trail involving the principals, lawyers, accountants, banks representing the parties . This would be a mandatory commercial pathway. it is unheard of for this not to happen.  We now come to London 2012 London Games and the refereeing of a bout between Magomed Abdulhamidov from Azerbaijan and Satoshi Shimizu, from Japan.In this bout  the refereeing was so blatantly bad and the judgement made by the five ringside judges so controversial, the Japanese team filed a complaint.  The verdict of the Judges was overturned and the referee sent home in.It was pity he was sent out of the country because he might have wanted to be interviewed by the media and give his side of the story.Was it arrogance or something much worse that following the BBCNewsnight allegation  the referee and judges for all contests featuring Azeri boxers  in the London 2022 Games were not hand picked and known to be completely reliable?In the third round of the contest between Magomed Abdulhamidov and Satoshi Shimizu, with about a minute left of the round, Magomed was under pressure from Satoshi when suddenly he began to wave his right hand to presumably indicate some form of distress. The referee Ishanguly Meretnyyazov, from Turkmenistan, stopped the bout  and then for some inconceivable reason he made an adjustment to the headguard of the Azeri boxer.After more pressure from the Japanese boxer and punches on the target area, Magomed was on the canvas floor. Remarkably the referee did not commence the 10 count but instead he asked the Azeri to stand-up, which he obligingly did and the bout was allowed to continue. This happened no less on five more occasions in the final minute remaining of the round, yet on each occasion there was no count, instead the referee would request the Azeri boxer to stand-up to which he always obliged and the contests was allowed to continue without one standing count taking place.Was the involvement of an Azeri in such a badly flawed refereed and judged contest a coincidence or something else?The fight was telecast in America by NBC and their commentator the usually placid Bob Papa said in an angry tone, “This referee never administered an eight-count for an injured boxer. He should be eliminated from the Olympics.”Fiery Teddy Atlas, the former trainer of Mike Tyson, now NBC’s colour commentator exclaimed, : “IMMEDIATELY!” He then added the more caustic comments, "That’s what the referee wanted to do,” Mr. Atlas shouted. “He wanted to save that fighter!”Is anybody arguing?On appeal the decision was awarded to the Japanese boxer and the referee told to pack his bag and go home.It appears the Judges appear to have been absolved from any guilt, yet it was their decision that made the Japanese boxer the loser and the Azeri boxer the winner.It would be interesting to know in words their reasoning.Surely there wil be a full investigation hearing after the Olympics and we await the details on the judgement hearings on the referee and the Judges verdict by IBA.Clearly the referee has no future as a boxing referee.  He has been deemed to have been seriously at fault in failing to implement even elementary interpretations of the rules of boxing at the Olympic Games therefore it is obvious he cannot be trusted in the future. This must transparently be declared by IBA.While this is a shameful way for an IBA official, or officials, to behave, and IBA must exact any just punishment or punishments on any guilty party, it should not be lost on IOC this disreputable conduct happened in the Olympic Games and they have every right to monitor any proceeding instigated by IBA and the judgement, or judgements, they render.In the meantime we await with interest the investigation findings of IOC on the BBCNewsnight close to US$10 sale of two 2012 Olympic Gold Medals conspiracy allegation. ~

TEAM GB BOXERS AND COACHES SHINE

It needs to be understood GB Boxing Team has three boxers with very good chances of securing three Gold Medals and the reason i s they were prepared to compete and be at their best condition mentally and physically, and when their opponents were slacking due to their conditioning being inferior to the British boxers, the British team shone. At long, long last the old amateur bickering, petty jealous and dictatorial incompetence that was burdened upon past GB Teams in the years leading up to London Olympics was outlawed GB Team’s gymnasium and credit for this has to go Director of Coaching Rob McCracken, Richie Woodhall and their first class back-up team. It was also a delight to see GB Boxers show the courtesy of holding-up the rope to allow their opponent to exit the ring. This collective GB Team courtesy has never been seen before. Well, done.It was  a pleasure to watch the British boxers at their best and when they were beaten it was on merit by their opponents.  Super heavyweight Anthony Joshua pulled out all the stops to beat World bronze medallist amateur champion Ivan Dychko (Kazakhstan)  and when Ivan was found wanting in the 3^rd and last round Anthony Joshua remained composed and strong.Anthony said post-fight "He is a great fighter with a rangy jab and I'm happy everything has come together. I will be ready for the Italian in Sunday's final. I'm buzzing but I have to ride the steady roller-coaster."Anthony is into the super heavyweight final and defending champion Roberto Cammarelle (Italy) is ready for him.Roberto said: "I anticipated that my final opponent would by Joshua. We met in the world championships and he beat me deservedly."This time I will beat him."Luke Campbell fought his way through to the men's bantamweight final, and Fred Evans will compete in the men's welterweight final.Fred Evans (Wales) fought resolutely and refused to give ground against World champion Taras Shelestyuk (Uraine.) This was a close fight and once again the superior fitness of the Welsh star became the deciding feature.Taras appeared to be a little stale and lacked his usual vigour and his World champion class forceful boxinh was missing.Anthony Ogogo has to settle for a bronze medal after being beaten by the brilliant Brazilian Falcao Florentino in their semi-final.The British hope  trailed 6-3 going into the final round but was knocked down twice in the third to guarantee  a win for the outstanding Brazilian boxer.The Brazilian eventually triumphed 16-9 and goes on to face Ryota Murata from Japan in the final.Prior to the Ogogo – Florentino contest I was advised the Brazilian was something special and could prove to be one of the best boxing talent in the 2012 Games.The loss by Anthony Ogogo was disappointing but he will come back.Postfight Anthony said, "I was a bit tired after my journey getting to this stage, beating the world champion, and my last fight took a lot out of me."It was frustrating because I've beaten better people than him, but he box ed really well and I'll remain humble and gracious in defeat." ~

CHANGE IS COMING AT LAST TO BOXING VIA WBC + HOOK TO THE LIVER

WBC PRESIDENT Dr. JOSE SULAIMAN PROMISES A REMARKABLE CHANGE FOR PRO' BOXING. IT MEANS THE CHANGE OFFERS HOPE FOR THE BUSINES/SPORT. WITHOUT URGENT CHANGE BOXING IS DOOMED TO BECOME A LOST ONCE GREAT SPORT. THE CHANGE MUST NOT STOP HERE. THERE IS MORE TO BE DONE ACROSS THE WHOLE OF THE SPORT, BEGINNING WITH THE WAY BOXING COMMISSIONS OPERATE. 

Photo by Manuel Reyes

At the weigh-in for the Julio Cesar Chavez Jr.- Andy Lee fight, El Paso Mayor John Cook presented WBC President José Sulaimán with the key to the city.

The following is one of the weekly “Hook to the Liver” columns by WBC President Dr. José Sulaimán that are published in El Universal every Sunday.

From June 17, translated from Spanish: HOOK TO THE LIVER by Dr. Sulaiman

I am is proposing a scientific solution to controversial decision on the way boxing results are determined. The result of the recent Pacquiao-Bradley fight has outraged boxing fans around the world and the media, and cause even senior politicians in the U.S.A to enter the controversy.

The many damaging commentaries against boxing were unfortunate. Nevertheless,it was certainly a bad decision - Manny Pacquiao should have never lost this  fight, which he so clearly won. Some are talking about investigations, but for what purpose?  It was for me nothing but a wrong appointment of one judge without sufficient experience for this type of fight, and one other - well-known as a good judge who had sufffered a bad day. This could happen to any one- and it does occur to almost everyone of us.

There is unquestionable honesty and experience in Duane Ford. The Nevada Commission? There is no doubt of the rectitude and high respectability of all of its members. Boxing is perhaps the must subjective sport. The only score is punches thrown at high-speed from one boxer to the other that are practically impossible to count.

It is also excellency in dominating the round - either by the boxer not letting the puncher score, or the puncher not allowing the boxer to excel. Because of its subjectiveness, the appointment of ring officials needs extreme care and competency.

The decisive punching with power and accuracy that almost knocked down Bradley three times were scored by Manny Pacquiao, who was clearly far superior, according to basic guidelines, against the fast glove and arm punching by Bradley, that count for  much less. 

The main problem lies in the fact that the appointment of ring officials is no easy matter, is not as many might think  is just routine. The highest responsibility of a boxing commission is the right appointment of ring officials for the sake of justice and respect for the boxing fans - the appointment of ring officials is as important as being a judge in a highly competitive fight.

Judges have similiar mentality as boxers: they are either punchers, fine boxers, or a mixture of styles. If you appoint a judge who likes fine boxing in a fight that a puncher and a boxer are rivals, you are helping, inadvertently perhaps, the boxer.

People in other countries are not happy with some, but not all, commissions in the U.S.A. disregarding the neutrality of judges.

The NFL, MLB, the NBA, etc., send their own neutral officials, but not boxing. In the old days, New York used to score by rounds won. California by 0 to 0 on even rounds and 1 to 0 on wide margins. Great Britain had a 1/4 of a point as an advantage in a round, later modified to 1/2.

The amateurs had 20 for the winner an 19 or less for the loser. Today amateurs use a device that is highly criticized today - that is if three out of five judges click at the same time, the boxer scores one point. 

In 1963, the boxxing world got together to found the WBC and they all agreed to implement the 10-point Must system. It gives the winner of the round 10 points mandatory system and 9 or less to the loser. It has worked for 50 years. The big problem is that judges score 10-9 for the winner of the round, regardless if it is by a slight, clear, very clear, or overwhelming difference. It practically destroys the fairness of the system.

Boxer A wins slightly the first round: 10-9. Boxer B wins the second, but overwhelmingly, yet the scoring is also  10-9.  Where is this justice?

Judges are afraid of scoring 10-8 rounds, which to be correct they should not be afraid. In any of the systems, however, it is absolutely necessary to put the appointments in the hands of competent officials, who are constantly undergoing training and general boxing education, and appointed not by edict, "It is my turn" or any other form, rather than for proven professionalism to be seen in boxing matches. 

Due to all of the above, I believe that we have allowed the 21^st Century to leave boxing far behind on credibility. The invention of the computer has invaded most - if not all - today, in every activity of sport, science, medicine, industry and even in children's entertainment, and schools; but scoring in boxing has remained in the 20^th, or even 19^th century. 

We at the WBC are known to be people who practice reform.   Some times we have failed, while other times the reform has taken years to be applied by others. However,  with the unity and similar ideals of a good number of outstanding boxing commissioner. from all over the world, including many Americans. The WBC has changed the world of boxing. Many rules and actions of reform have been implemented to take the old legalised savage sport of boxing to the highest levels of safety, justice and equal opportunities. 

We at the WBC have another plan to reform - to bring the officiating of boxing into the present time of the 21^st Century. We will be bringing boxing into the computer era. We will have our judges leave the paper and pencils at home. We will present a new computerised system by having a computer device in the hands of each of the three judges, connected to a main computer that will be adding automatically, instantly, and accurately, the information sent by the judges’ devices into the computer. 

We will propose to totally change the system into clicks on buttons designating the differencesin the action, but not in numbers. We will let the judges click the buttons for: 1- very slight difference; 2- somewhat clear difference; 3- clear difference;  4- overwhelming difference; and 5- a beating. In addition to that, we will have: 6- one button for knockdowns; and  7- one other button for fouls.

We will let our English speaking friends find the right name for the buttons. And I apologise and feel very sorry for the ring card girls not to take the scorecards from the judges to show their beautiful bodies to the cheers of the crowd, but we can still have them show the number of the round, as ring card girls have become a tradition in boxing. 

We could still discuss, in addition, the possibility of raising the number of judges to five instead of three, not approved before because of the opposition of promoters, probably right, in not raising their total expenses. The computer and devices will be taken for demonstration to the WBC’s 50^th anniversary convention in the paradise city of Cancun, Mexico, where we all will find light blue-green waters, blue skies, warming sun, traditional Mexican hospitality, and a great reunion of the nicest people in the world:  the boxing family. 

Thank you for reading my weekly thoughts.

“VIVA DON KING II” BOXING CARD POST-FIGHT QUOTES

HONEST APPRAISALS BY BOXERS ON THEIR PERFORMANCES - TONY GRANO GOES MARCHING ON

Tony Grano: (Won the vacant NABF heavyweight championship): “DaVarryl caught me with a good right hand in the second round.  I didn’t want to get caught again, so I started moving to my right and resetting before he had a chance to try and tag me with those long arms.

From Alan Hopper

“I had him in big trouble and tried to take him out in the third round.  To be honest, I expended a lot of energy, so I regained my composure in the fourth and caught him right on the button with a right hand for the knockout.

“I think I showed everyone tonight that I have a knockout punch.  I’d like a shot at Vitali Klitschko before he retires.  Right now I can’t wait to get back to Connecticut to celebrate.”

Angelo Santana: “I was very happy with my performance tonight.  I didn’t know my opponent (Justin Savi] was going to switch to southpaw on me.  I trained for a right-hander but it turned out well at the end.

“He kept coming in and we kept butting heads from the opening round.  That happened because he kept changing his stance.  Savi was a very strong fighter tonight but I trained for 12 rounds and I was able to stop him early.”

Joey Hernandez “I was a little flat in the beginning but I found my groove quickly.

“A lot of people tell me I look a lot like Victor Ortiz but I sure have bigger balls than he does.  I heard he quit on his stool tonight in Los Angeles.  Now Canelo Alvarez needs an opponent, so if he wants to fight a young lion, I’m here in Miami.  I’m calling out all the junior middleweights”

Omar Henry “I tried to knock him [Tyrone Selders] down but he was a tough guy. I was full of speed tonight.  I was prepared well and felt great.  I loved putting on a great performance for the fans.  I turned it up at the end of each round because I wanted to finish strong for the judges.

“I’d like to fight K9 Bundrage or Cory Spinks after they fight for a world title one week from tonight.  I will fight anyone at 154 pounds.

“I tweaked my right hand but I’m sure it will be alright.”

Thomas Snow:  “A lot of people thought I couldn’t make 115, so I defied the odds to take it a weight class down [112 pounds] just to show I could.  The people who thought I couldn’t make 115 can kiss my ass.  Thanks to everyone and I’ll take all challengers at 115 pounds.” ~

---

• Like
• Dislike

L

• Image

                        Sort by popular now                                Sort by best rating                                Sort by newest first                                Sort by oldest first                  

SKY IS SERIOUSLY CUTTING BACK ON BOXING!

THE WARNING FROM BOXING ACTION THAT CHANGE IS DESPERATELY NEEDED TO BREATHE THE OXYGEN OF SUCCESS BACK INTO BOXING IS GIVEN FURTHER CREDENCE WITH THE DECISION BY SKY TO AXE THEIR CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER TOP PROMOTER. This hard news follows upon the alarm call from leading American boxing promoter Garry Shaw that boxing is in a serious state of despondency. comes the news that Some time back Boxing Action was told SKY is goingg to cut back on presenting boxing, so it is no surprise to us. Frank Maloney the manager of heavyweight prospect David Price has been advised that his contract with SKY will not be renewed. Frank is managing David in a firstlas way and Frank and David make a an excellent combination. When he was told the news David Price said, “This means I’ll no longer feature on the channel.” When this is added to the disappointment that he will not be making his debut in America in July as a pro’ boxer in Atlantic City, it has not beena good week for David. David has taken the two career blows on the chin and said, “Having fought in the USA as an amateur and trained in LA and Las Vegas on a number of occasions I was looking forward to making my US debut as a professional. However, my training camp has already started and I’ll continue working with Franny Smith as I’m hopeful of appearing ‘across the pond’ sometime in August. There has been lots of online speculation about who I’ll fight when I get out to America, but I can categorically rule out Franny’s suggestion of getting actor Carl Weathers to reprise his role as Apollo Creed aka The Count of Monte Fisto! “Having spent the last few weeks training hard in the gym it’s easy to put the business side of the fight game to the back of your mind. In my opinion that’s how it should be for a fighter because it’s important that your focus is 100% on getting physically and mentally prepared. However, sometimes it’s difficult not to let yourself get distracted by what’s goinon around you! “Obviously the Sky decision has come as a huge disappointment to all involved. Frank has worked in partnership with them for the last 23 years and, as a fight fan myself. “I’ve grown up watching the likes of Lennox Lewis, Naseem Hamed and Ricky Hatton develop and flourish under the Sky banner. “They have a proven track record of helping to build fighters reputations on a fantastic platform and to part company just as my own career is starting to progress nicely is a real shame. “My focus now is to keep working hard in the gym and work towards fulfilling my own personal goals. I’m in good hands with Frank, who’s talking to a number of potential broadcasters about my future fights, and the key for me is to leave the business side of things to the people around me. “Since I want to finish this week’s blog on a lighter note I’ll not mention England’s performance from last night! I’ll be running my first competition in next Monday’s blog so if you want to be in with a chance of winning a pair of signed boxing gloves make sure you check back next week. To keep-up wtht news on David Priced visit davidprice.co.uk

EXPERT LEGAL OPINION ON ESCALATING 'WAR' BETWEEN BBBofC AND FRANK WARREN PROMOTION - CHISORA - HAYE CALLS FOR COMMONSENSE TO BE GIVEN VOICE

THE MEDIA SPOTLIGHT IS ON THE 14TH JULY FRANK WARREN PROMOTION CHISORA - HAYE BUT THE THREAT BY BBBofC TO SUSPEND THE UNDERCARD BOXERS, THEIR MANAGERS, TRAINERS, SECONDS; MATCHMAKERS, MC's, WHIPS AND OTHER PERSONNEL IS SERIOUS ESPECIALLY AT A TIME THIS COUNTRY IS IN A DEEP FINANCIAL CRISIS. WHY IS THIS NECESSARY WHEN THE PROMOTION IS LAWFUL AND THE STANCE TAKEN BY BBBofC COULD BE UNLAWFUL? =====================================

PULLING THEIR PUNCHES: THE BRITISH BOXING BOARD OF CONTROL UNDER DOUBLE THREAT FROM LUXEMBOURG. Mr. Angus MacCulloch, Senior Lecturer, Degree: LL.B. (Hons.) (Dundee), LL.M. (European Law)(Strathclyde), M. Phil. (Manchester), Dip. LP Associated research centres and groups: Corporate, Commercial and Consumer Law , International, European and Comparative Law. Current Teaching EC & UK Competition Law; EU Law; Business Law & Regulation Legal Opinion by Mr. Angus MacCulloch British Boxing has never been a place for the faint hearted and it looks to be entering into a new era of internal strife. The announcement that Frank Warren intends to promote a bout between disgraced heavyweights David Haye & Derek Chisora in July 2012 has resulted in threats of disciplinary and legal action. Fight fans’ interest in a showdown between the two men was whetted by an unscheduled, and unseemly, brawl at a post-fight press conference after Chisora’s defeat by Vitali Klitschko. Boxing has never been slow to capitalise on pre-fight antagonism between boxers and this feud looked too good a commercial prospect to miss. The main problem for any promoter was the fact that neither boxer has a license issued by British boxing’s governing body; the British Boxomg Board of Control (BBBC). Haye’s licence lapsed after he announced his retirement in 2011, and Chisora’s licence was indefinitely ‘withdrawn’ after the events surrounding the Klitschko fight. Frank Warren’s approach to this problem was to look to the EU for a solution. The fight is to go ahead in July sanctioned by the Luxembourg Boxing Federation. The BBBC response to this challenge to their control over boxing in the UK was immediate. They published a Notice that any involvement by a UK boxing licence holder in the Luxembourg backed fight would be deemed to be a ‘repudiation’ of the BBBC’s Constitution and would be considered a ‘termination’ of their membership and licence. Any attempt to remove Warren’s BBBC licence, or any other person involved in servicing or supporting the fight, could well result in legal action. It is striking that the BBBC’s stance on the legality of LBF to sanctioning fights in the UK could be challenged under EU law and lead to another, more mannered, dispute before the Court of Justice back in Luxembourg. Two areas of EU law would come into play in such a dispute, but before discussing the specifics it is important to note that while sport has a special place in EU Law, following the Amsterdam Declaration on Sports and enhanced EU competence in Art 165 TFEU, the main provisions of EU law apply normally to professional sport – as to any economic activity in the EU. Amateur and Youth sport do receive special treatment, but this is not relevant in the case of professional boxing. Freedom to Provide Services The first question which is useful to address is whether the LBF is permitted, under EU Law, to stage boxing matches in other EU Member States; can it provide its ‘service’ across the whole of the EU, including the UK? But the question can also be alternately phrased: can the BBBC lawfully take steps to hamper the LBF’s entry into the UK boxing scene? In case C-438/05 Viking the Court of Justice made it clear that collective action to deter an undertaking from exercising its freedom of movement falls under EU law. The actions of the BBBC to require all its licence holders to support its policy, and isolate the activities of the LBF, could fall within EU law. It also stressed that freedom to provide services would be compromised if the abolition of State barriers could be neutralised by other organisations (at [57]). Although Viking itself was concerned with the Freedom of Establishment the CJEU has adopted similar reasoning across the whole of free movement jurisprudence. It is also clear from Viking that restrictions on those freedoms may be justified on some other ground; the special nature of sport would fall within that category. Before the BBFC could successfully argue that their collective action to discourage the LBF’s activities in the UK they would have to prove that they could not successfully achieve their purely sporting objective through any other means that was less restrictive of EU freedoms (at [87]). As I will suggest below the BBBC’s position appears to be based on prestige and economic concerns rather than a higher sporting motive. Competition Law The other area of legal interest is competition law. Where sport has becomes a person’s profession they clearly have a strong economic interest in being able to continue participating at the highest, and most lucrative, level. Any attempt by a sporting body to limit a person’s ability to compete, and earn, is potentially challenged as a ‘restraint on trade’. As sports governing bodies are often formed as a national collective of interested people it is easy to see how their decisions can be challenged under Art 102 TFEU as an abuse of a dominant position, by the national body acting an authority, or under Article 101 TFEU as a result of being characterised as an anti-competitive agreement, between the various stakeholders within the body. An example of how this unlawful restraint of trade argument can play out was seen in Case C-519/04P Meca-Median The case involved two swimmers who challenged an IOC/FINA doping ban as being contrary to EU law. Initially, the CFI (in Case T-313/02) exercised the ‘sporting exception’ and made the judgment that the bans were a sporting matter, analogous to the rules of the game, and fell outside the ambit of the Treaty; which only covered economic activity. The Court of Justice reversed this finding as (at [24]) it was clear these rules regulated ‘gainful employment and the provision of services’. The Court made it clear that it is very difficult to separate sporting and economic questions in professional sport. Where it is claimed that sporting rules are required they must be assessed to see whether they fulfil the terms of the Treaty provisions (at [28]). A licence ‘withdrawal’, or ban, can be assessed regarding its compatibility with the competition provisions. The Court applied the Wouters test (Case C-309/99) where the sporting justification for the restriction is considered in the overall context in which it is taken and produces potentially anti-competitive effects. In Meca-Medina the judgment was that the doping bans did not constitute a restriction on competition as they were ‘justified by a legitimate objective’; that being the ‘proper conduct of competitive sport’ (at [45]). Whether the BBBC could justify, on sporting grounds, the ‘termination’ of any BBBC licences for being involved in the Hay/Chisora fight is interesting. There could no doubt be an argument based on the BBBC’s record as being a leader in boxing safety, but its stance looks to be driven by its desire to maintain its position as the only body able to sanction boxing in its ‘jurisdiction’. It is more difficult to see how that is simply a matter of the proper conduct of sport, as opposed to its maintenance of market position through the restriction of competition, and, ultimately, its economic interest. The same sort of sporting justifications would be relevant in the free movement questions outlined above. Another interesting issue arises out of the BBBC Notice where they indicate they have made their position clear to the European Boxing Union. An attempt to reach out to the wider European boxing world, presumably to put further pressure on the LBF, might also be considered as potentially unlawful under the competition rules. EU competition law has always taken a very strong line in any situation where an undertaking has attempted to ensure absolute territorial protection across a national territory. If the BBBC were seen as colluding with other national boxing Federations to carve up the European Market State by State they could be entering difficult legal waters. The potential, of course, exists to try and justify the necessity for such territorial restrictions, which have been accepted in relation, for example, to international sporting events, but it is again difficult to see how such sporting arguments would apply to professional boxing. What is the legal position of the BBBC? Without undertaking a detailed analysis of the web of relationships that exist across the professional boxing world it is difficult to come to a clear conclusion. But on the basis of the simple analysis set out above it would appear that there are significant EU questions which stand in the way of the BBBC continuing to protect their position as the sole, or monopoly, authority in relation to boxing in the UK. Ironically many of their legal problems come from the fact that they hold such a position of power in the UK sport. They would be well advised to be careful before acting rashly and taking steps which could be perceived as limiting any persons freedom to undertake their boxing related profession; whether that be as boxer, promoter, trainer, or cornerman etc. Professional boxing already has an arguably tenuous relationship with loftier sporting ideals; economic concerns and pay-TV appear to be the biggest driving factors in many decisions taken in relation to the sport. It will be interesting to see if the sport’s authorities are able to justify its current organisational arrangements on the basis of special considerations given by EU law to ‘the proper conduct of competitive sports’. ~ Our grateful thanks to Mr. Angus MacCulloch and Anita Davies, Legal Information Officer Matrix Chambers Griffin Building Gray’s Inn London WC1R 5LN Tel: +44 (0) 20 7404 3447 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7404 3448