A Look Behind the IBF’s Demand of $20,000 from Super Middleweight Champion Lucian Bute for a Unification Bout with Carl Froch
Since October 19, 2007, when Lucian (Le Tombeur) Bute stopped Alejandro Berrio in the 11th round to win the International Boxing Federation’s super middleweight title, the undefeated Romanian-born Quebecois has been at the epicenter of boxing in Canada. Through three title defenses, including a controversial thriller with Librado Andrade, Bute, now 24-0 (19 KOs), has routinely packed the Bell Centre in Montreal with his sizeable and vocal fan base. Bute is now scheduled for a rematch with Andrade, but there had recently been some talk of matching Bute with Nottingham, England’s Carl (The Cobra) Froch, the undefeated WBC super middleweight champion, 25-0 (20 KOs).
A unification bout between Bute and Froch, fresh off of his sensational twelfth round knockout of former undisputed middleweight champion Jermain Taylor, is one of the biggest matches that can be made in the super middleweight division at the moment. This fact is not lost on the International Boxing Federation (the “IBF”), as it was recently reported that the IBF was seeking a $20,000, non-refundable fee for an “exception” to allow Bute to face Froch.1 This demanded fee, which is not unique to the IBF, begs the question of what the sport’s managers and promoters have to do to play ball with the sport’s major sanctioning bodies on the one hand, and protect themselves and their boxers from financial exploitation on the other. As to the IBF in particular, an analysis of what purportedly justifies their demand of Lucian’s “booty” in exchange for permission to face Froch and how to protect your rights under the IBF’s rules follows.
A History of Questionable Activity
On August 17, 2000, a federal jury in New Jersey convicted former IBF president Robert W. Lee, Sr. of money laundering, tax evasion, and interstate travel to aid in racketeering.2 The case against Lee was based upon allegations that he and his son, as the leadership of the IBF, demanded and accepted $338,000 in bribes from nearly 24 boxers, managers, and promoters in exchange for the inflation of rankings that were used to qualify boxers for world title shots.3 Originally charged under the RICO Act,4 the Lees were not convicted of the main racketeering counts in the case against them, but it was clear that the jury believed that there was a substantial amount of suspect activity going on at the IBF in exchange for rankings and title shots. Pending the outcome of the case against the Lees, the IBF was placed under federal supervision from 1999 until 2001.5 Eight years and one federal monitor later, the IBF demanded the $20,000 from Bute to grant an “exception” to face Froch. Whether anything has changed since 2001 is a question the reader can answer for his or her self upon reading further.
1 Dan Rafael, “ESPN.com’s Divisional Rankings [Super Middleweight],” ESPN.com, June 22, 2009. Available at: http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/columns/story?columnist=rafael_dan&id=3911650 (last visited on June 27, 2009).
2 Ronald Smothers, “Boxing; Lee Cleared of Bribery; Convicted on Other Charges,” New York Times, August 18, 2000. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/18/sports/boxing-lee-sr-cleared-of-bribery-convicted-on-other-charges.html (last visited on June 27, 2009).
3 Id.
4 RICO is short for “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.” The Act is a federal law that has generally been used to prosecute and dismantle organized crime groups in the United States since the 1980s. Among some of the past targets of RICO prosecutions are two former professional boxers turned alleged mob bosses, Vincent (The Chin) Gigante, a light heavyweight who was 21-4 (1 KO) prior to his legendary and lengthy tenure as boss of New York’s Genovese crime family, and middleweight Dominick (Quiet Dom) Cirillo, who was 1-3 (1 KO) many years before he was identified as part of a ruling panel of the Genovese family following Gigante’s 1997 RICO conviction. For Gigante’s record, see http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=59280&cat=boxer, for Cirillo’s see http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=123370&cat=boxer (both last visited June 30, 2009), or generally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominick_Cirillo (last visited June 30, 2009).
What Exactly Would Bute Being Paying for an Exception From?
Under Rule 5(B)(1) of the IBF/USBA Rules Governing Championship Contests, effective September 1, 2006 (hereinafter the “IBF Rules”), “[e]ach Champion so recognized by the IBF/USBA in his respective weight class from Mini Flyweight to Cruiserweight shall mandatorily defend his Championship within nine (9) months after its acquisition by him in a contest scheduled for twelve (12) rounds against a leading available contender as designated by the Championships Chairman.” Between mandatory defenses, an IBF champion may “enter into any contest with any contender rated in the top fifteen (15) boxers in his weight class as set forth in the ratings of the IBF/USBA subject to the approval of the Championships Chairman and the President.”6 In the event that an IBF champion seeks a unification bout, as Bute sought with Froch, he needs “prior approval” by the Championships Committee.7 However, “[f]or the purpose of the unification of titles, the Champions of the World Boxing Association (“WBA”), the World Boxing Council (“WBC”), and the World Boxing Organization (“WBO”) may be designated as ‘elite contenders’ and may be permitted to fight for the unified title. Any unification bout, if approved by the Championships Committee, will take priority over the mandatory.”8
With regard to Bute’s situation, the controlling portion of the IBF Rules appears to be Rule 11, which addresses exceptions to its regulations. Under Rule 11(A), “[a] request for an Exception to the enforcement of any IBF/USBA rule may only be made by a reigning Champion and must be in writing setting forth the reasons for making such a request.” A written request for an exception “shall be accompanied by a certified non-refundable Exception application fee of $20,000.00.”9 Once the request for an exception is made, it “must be approved by a majority vote of the Board of Directors.”10
On the surface, IBF Rule 11 may appear to be a curious provision, but one that need not be sought out all that often, as there are not many other types of championship fights that a given champion would seek other than a mandatory defense, an optional defense, or a unification. As applied to Bute’s request to face Froch, however, Rule 11 seems inappropriate and in contravention of the IBF’s rules on unification bouts. This is because, on the one hand, a unification bout requires only “prior approval” by the Championships Committee,11 but on the other hand, Bute had to pay the non-refundable “exception” fee if he wished to clear the way for the Froch fight. Given that the title of Rule 11 is “Exception to Regulations[,]” the question is begged as to what regulation Bute was seeking an exception to, if there are already regulations in place for unifications. Read together, it would appear that Rule 11 would kick in only if a reigning champion sought a championship bout other than the mandatory defense, optional defense, or unification bout governed by Rule 5. In short, Bute does not appear to have sought an exception at all, but rather “prior approval” for a unification bout with Froch, as he is entitled to do pursuant to IBF Rule 5(E)(1).
The implication, therefore, is that the Championships Committee would not or did not approve a unification bout with Froch, and then simply reclassified Bute’s request for “prior approval” as one for an “exception” that it would then approve for $20,000. If such a conversion is within the discretion of the IBF, one may wonder why it would ever grant “prior approval” for a unification bout outright if it can just make $20,000 a request by reclassifying a denied approval for a unification bout as one for an exception. But is it within the discretion of the IBF?
5 Ronald Smothers, “Boxing; I.B.F. Supervision Ends; Founder Gets 22 Months,” New York Times, February 15, 2001. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/15/sports/boxing-ibf-supervision-ends-founder-gets-22-months.html (last visited June 30, 2009).
6 IBF Rule 5(B)(2). The IBF Rules are available online at: http://www.ibf-usba-boxing.com/ (last visited on June 30, 2009).
7 Id. at 5(E)(1).
8 Id. at 5(E)(2).
9 Id. at 11(B).
10 Id. at 11(E).
11 Supra, note 7.
How Does One Appeal a Decision of the IBF?
Under IBF Rule 12(A)(5), a champion may appeal “any…alleged violation of the rules of the IBF/USBA that may have a detrimental effect on the rights of the complainant.” Said appeal “shall be in writing from the complainant or his designated representative and shall be sent to the President of the IBF/USBA within ten (10) days from the date of the subject fight or any alleged infraction of the rules. Failure to appeal within ten (10) days shall constitute a waiver of the right to Appeal.”12
A non-refundable fee of $10,000.00, to be delivered to the president of the IBF/USBA alongside the appeal, is required to cover the expense of a hearing on the appeal.13 The hearing will then be conducted by a chairperson appointed by the IBF president and two additional members of the IBF that are selected according to the type of appeal at issue.14 A decision is subsequently issued in writing within 10 days of the hearing.15 Prior to that time, the appeals panel “will present its findings to the President, who, after consultation with the Championships Committee, shall take that action deemed appropriate based upon said recommendation.”16 An aggrieved champion must “exhaust this internal Appeal procedure prior to taking other actions, including commencing litigation under Rule 15.”17
Once the IBF rules on an appeal, an aggrieved champion must then venue any subsequent state or federal lawsuit against the IBF in New Jersey and apply the laws of the State of New Jersey to said lawsuit.18 In the event that the lawsuit filed against the IBF is dismissed or resolved in the favor of the IBF, the party that filed the lawsuit “shall pay all costs of the litigation, including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees incurred by the IBF/USBA.”19
The IBF Appeals Process as it Applies to the Bute-Froch Situation
Applying the IBF Rules on appeals to the Bute-Froch situation, Bute had to have filed his appeal within 10 days of the IBF’s demand for a $20,000 exception fee to sanction a unification bout with Froch. Bute would then have to pay $10,000 to the IBF to consider his appeal, even though the appeal would appear to have been spawned by little more than the IBF deciding not to follow its own Rule 5. Then, if the IBF rejected Bute’s appeal and Bute took sued the IBF, he would need to file suit in New Jersey, rather than his adopted hometown of Quebec, and would be at peril of being compelled to pay the IBF its attorney’s fees if the IBF prevailed in the lawsuit. For those of you that thought Bute would never want to see Andrade’s face in the ring ever again, therefore, perhaps you can now understand why he has opted for the Andrade rematch instead of the unification with Froch at this time. There was just too much of Bute’s booty at peril to make it worth his while.
12 IBF Rule 12(B).
13 Id. at Rule 12(D).
14 Id. at Rule12 (F).
15 Id. at Rule 12 (G).
16 Id. at Rule 12(F).
17 Id. at Rule 12(H).
18 Id. at Rule 15(A) and (B).
19 Id. at Rule 15(C). Whether this provision would hold up in court is a question for another day, as fee shifting is not particularly common in the United States in lawsuits where there was a non-frivolous ground for their filing.
* * *
Sanctioned Offenses Part 3.5: Apparently, a few hours of not being able to defend your championship is enough for the WBA to justify an interim championship. Prior to the recent postponement of the “WBA world light welterweight title” fight between defending champion Andreas Kotelnik and British sensation Amir Khan, the bout was scheduled to take place on June 27, 2009, the very same night as Victor Ortiz’s bout against Marcos (El Chino) Maidana for the “interim WBA world light welterweight title.”20 The Kotelnik-Khan bout was to take place in Britain, while the Ortiz-Maidana bout took place in the United States. The only possible reason that an interim champion should have been named given the circumstances is if Kotelnik were deemed a “Champion in Recess” under the WBA Rules for being unable to defend his title overseas within six hours or so of his defense against Khan.21 Noticeably absent from contention for either championship was the WBA number one ranked junior welterweight contender, Dmitry (Star of David) Salita, despite his apparent availability.22
20 http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=257790&cat=boxer (last visited on June 30, 2009).
21 For more on the WBA Rules on interim championships, please see my article “Sanctioned Offenses Part I,” available at http://www.8countnews.com/news/125/ARTICLE/1566/2009-05-03.html (last viewed on June 30, 2009).
22 See the WBA’s official ratings as of April 2009 at http://www.wbaonline.com (last viewed on June 30, 2009).
Don't be a hater. Messages with offensive or abusive language will not be posted.
