A few years back, I was pegged to be a consultant for some investors who aimed to put together the most ambitious project in the history of boxing. The goal was to create the sport’s first full-time, 24-hour boxing network.
I’m sure the idea had occurred to others over the years, but what made this particular project unique was that it aimed to integrate all of the sport’s major promoters (or as many as possible) as share-holding partners.
The goal was to create an ESPN-level network, dedicated fully to boxing, with each promoter holding a piece of the business.
So, while Top Rank, for example, would be able to broadcast their own fights (and profit from those fights), they’d also, as part network owners, have a stake in seeing Golden Boy or DiBella succeed (and vice versa, of course).
I liked this project for many reasons, but the true genius of this boxing network idea was that it forced cooperation towards a common good. In other words, it would’ve been to everyone’s benefit that things ran smoothly and that fights got made. It would flat-out kill, at least to a great degree, the handcuffing business of boxing that keeps some of the biggest fights from getting made. No more promoter vs. promoter wars or network complications due to exclusive deals with specific fighters. Big-time boxing would all be in one place, under one umbrella, maintained by business interests that would need to work together for their mutual benefit.
Nobody involved with the project was under the impression that untangling decades of business ties and underlying bad blood would be easy. But the hope was that smart boxing people with a longterm interest in building the sport and turning a sustainable profit would be able to work their way into cooperation.
Under absolute perfect conditions, we could see talent trades between promoters as well as cross-promotional shows where, again, everyone would benefit as partners in the business. So, if Top Rank really wanted to get Terence Crawford into the thick of the welterweight mix, he could reach across the aisle and negotiate with Haymon Boxing for Danny Garcia and then, in turn, Haymon could maybe ask for Bryant Jennings from Top Rank as an opponent for Deontay Wilder. Multi-promoter deals could be worked out so that each promoter gets the fights that their guys need.
Bob Arum has recently talked about the idea of trading talent with other promoters, but that’s hardly a viable, sustainable present day solution to boxing’s business conflicts. One can just imagine the issues that would arise from trying to negotiate trades and from trying to establish fair value regarding those trades. The talent trade concept only works if it’s not one side trying to get over on another, which would surely be the case in the here and now. If the goal, however, is just to make the best and most salable fights for everyone’s shared bottom line, then it makes sense.
How far along did this boxing network idea get? Well, we had a name, a logo, a promo reel video, feelers for equipment, proposed staff hirings, fleshed-out programming ideas, and preliminary pitches to possible partners. We also had a clear philosophy on how things should be run, hammered out over the course of months via online and on-the-phone meetings.
Ultimately, however, things fell apart. I wouldn’t be the one to ask why-- I was down for the cause and working towards that cause right up until everything just stopped. Money may have been the issue (money always seem to be the cause of things falling apart) or maybe those involved just lacked the contacts and/or leverage to get the right people on board.
Whatever the reason, the fact that the project died before takeoff shouldn’t stop others, with perhaps more startup capital and greater industry pull, from picking up where we left off. It’s certainly an idea worth exploring, at least on some level. Anything that promotes cooperation and growth-minded business strategies can only be a positive for the sport.