Instead of one authority running the business and the competition, Sulaiman described a split system. Sanctioning bodies oversee rankings, rules, and medical standards, while promoters take on the financial risk and responsibility of putting events together. That includes securing venues, arranging broadcasts, handling logistics, and building the cards that fans ultimately see.
The absence of a single controlling entity leaves those roles separate by design. In Sulaiman’s view, that separation avoids conflicts tied to money and decision-making, while allowing different promoters to operate at every level of the sport. Smaller shows, often overlooked, were highlighted as the starting point for future stars, with fighters like Manny Pacquiao and Canelo Alvarez beginning their careers on modest cards before reaching the top.
That path, from local events to major international cards, depends on a network rather than a single system. Sulaiman acknowledged that promoters at the lower end rarely receive attention or financial reward, but positioned them as essential to the sport’s continuity. Without them, he wrote, there would be no fights to stage in the first place.
The argument lands as a defence of how boxing operates at a time when its structure is often criticised for being fragmented. Rather than pushing for a unified model, Sulaiman presented that fragmentation as part of the sport’s identity, one that has allowed it to function across different countries, promoters, and levels without a central authority dictating terms.
The alternative looks cleaner on paper, but it hands too much of the sport to one set of hands.
Read the full article here
