By Gary Burns

The big sports story currently in the NBA is that LeBron James has decided to ‘opt-out’of his contract with the Miami Heat and become an un-restricted free agent. LeBron has been with the Miami Heat over the past four years, winning two championships with them. 

Having an‘opt-out’ feature in a sports contract would be unfamiliar to those more familiar with soccer, so what does this actually mean? As with other American sports, in the NBA there are no transfer fees for players. Once contracts are signed players generally remain with the franchise unless traded for college draft picks, other players or to free up salary cap room (teams have a limit on what they can spend on contracts to promote competitive balance). However a player may decide to include a ‘player option’ for a particular year in their contract which allows them to become a free agent and sign for another franchise or indeed re-sign for their current team. This is exactly what James has decided to do by ‘opting-out’ of his contract with the Heat and is a free-agent on the 1st July. 
 
Although somewhat expected, the news has still sent ripples through NBA hierarchies as James is regarded as the one of the best currently in the NBA. Arguably, one of the best of all-time. Other franchises will have to ‘make-room’ for James if they want his signature. In real terms this means that franchises will have to clear-out expensive contracts to accommodate the approximately $22 million James was due if he remained with the Heat. Some of the early contenders include the LA Lakers, LA Clippers, Houston Rockets and perhaps a return to his hometown and former team Cleveland Cavaliers. He could also, and very likely, return to the Miami Heat.  It appears that the Dallas Mavericks, Phoenix Suns and LA Lakers all have sufficient salary cap room to sign James.

There is shrewd economic thinking behind LeBrons decision to opt-out.  His decision could be a signal to Miami Heat to off-load some ageing talent that takes up large salary space and replace them with talent to help LeBron win a third championship. Also money may be a factor. Players in the free market can acquire greater salaries than those in contracts. Due to the collective bargaining agreement the NBA has with franchises, the upper end players tend to lose out. James is expected to seek the maximum contract on offer as he took a lower contract to allow the “Big 3” to happen in Miami four years ago. Or perhaps he may be opting out of his contract to allow Miami more salary-cap space to sign top talent, and then he can re-sign at a lower rate than his current contract states.

There is also other very notable free agents already announced and expected to become free agents. Carmelo Anthony, Nick Young, Dirk Nowitzki , Kyle Lowry and both  of the other “Big 3” teammates of James in Miami, Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade who have early termination options in their contracts and have opted out. 

This should make for an interesting summer as the equivalent of the football transfer window opens as the most talented players are up for grabs. Unlike Association Football, the real difference here is that technically all teams can compete for the talent. Strategic positioning of a team is important in the NBA as they must ensure that the contracts they offer do not prohibit them from competing for free agency talent when available. Whatever happens, fans of every franchise will argue their case for Lebron to choose their city as his impact in Miami has proven that he has the talent to change the landscape in the NBA.  

By Gary Burns

After the Froch-Groves rematch some time back, I was asked by many people why boxing rematches are so common. The concept of a rematch clause or negotiated rematch is one that many sports do not encounter because of centrally governed bodies. Rematches occur naturally when these bodies exist and contracts do not have to be recurrently drawn up. Very rarely do rematches, or indeed any encounters, occur naturally in boxing.

There is probably a blend of  sporting and economic reasons that ensure rematches occur in boxing.  The sporting ones include a boxers desire to right a wrong or to correct for a poor performance while  economic ones may include the mutual monetary benefits of a rematch and the need to diminish the effect of a previous defeat to invest in ones reputation for future big fights. A champion can reduce the risk of losing a title for a prolonged period by including a rematch clause if they lose and is really a means by which a champion can insure against the loss of future earnings. 

In the most recent high profile rematch, Carl Froch once again defeated Georges Groves albeit a lot more convincingly this time. In weeks previous, Manny Pacquiao overcame Timothy Bradley, which many believed to be the correction of a controversial and some would say poorly judged first match.

If we assume that both fighters are of similar elite level (rematch clauses would generally not be applied to lower level opposition), generally if the champion loses the fight, they will have the right to invoke a rematch upon loss. If the rematch is not granted a fighter may be taken to court or  can potentially be stripped of any titles by the governing body in question. There seems to be distinct reasons for the inclusion of the clause depending on the fighter. When defeated in a huge shock knockout in 2001 to Hashim Rahman, Lennox Lewis was forced to go to court to invoke the clause. He subsequently regained the heavyweight championship. This case is an example of a straightforward champion wanting to regain his title in light of an unexpected result.

Another example is Scottish lightweight Ricky Burns who lost his world title to Terence Crawford. Although insisting he does want a rematch, many analysts believe any repeat of the first fight would detrimentally affect his value as a prize-fighter and thus the rematch clause should not be invoked in this case.

An unusual case of a winner wanting a rematch clause invoked was that of Timothy Bradley who won his first bout with Pacquiao. He was so distraught by criticism of his controversial victory levelled at him he wished to prove his critics wrong by beating Pacquiao again. The economic motives of fighting the much followed Pacquiao surely played a significant role too. Unfortunately for him he lost the rematch.

Arguably the greatest of his generation, Floyd Mayweather Jr insists on rematch clauses. A recent opponent Robert Guerrero, when asked about the rematch clause that Floyd Mayweather insisted upon, said it showed him “where his head is”. In a sport like boxing, the admittance of even the potential of defeat by a champion can give a challenger a
psychological edge.

Rematches can also be negotiated. As can be seen historically, they have gone some way in cementing the legacy of fighters. Perhaps relying on each other is not only a lucrative tactic but also a means to strengthen ones place in the sport. Rematches generate interest through the formation of a rivalry which can be difficult to create in a sport where once off opponents are more common. Part of the success of Froch-Groves II can certainly be attributed to this. Manny Pacquiao- Juan Manuel Marquez (4 fights), Israel Vasquez – Rafael Marquez (4 fights), Arturo Gatti –Micky Ward (3 fights) Erik Morales – Antonio Barrera (3 fights), Muhammad Ali –Joe Frazier (3 fights), Roberto Duran- Sugar Ray Leonard (3 fights) are just some examples of great multiple fight rivalries.

What is the net effect of a rematch clause in economic terms?  Research has been conducted on this question. In Rematches in Boxing and Other Sporting Events, J. Atsu Amegashie and Edward Kutsoati look at the incentive effects of rematches, particularly in professional boxing and found that if there was a high chance (mandatory) of a rematch or very low chances of rematches it generated greater aggregate effort. In reality however as most elite boxers need other elite boxer’s, chances are rematches are quite high without any clauses. 

By Gary Burns

A‘Franchise Tag’ is a concept that exists in the NFL that allows each team (franchise) a once off mechanism to restrict the movement of a player that is (generally) due to become a free agent. This restricts from a player in that year from moving to another team. The window to apply the tag opened on Monday 17th February and will close on the 3rd of March.

Due to the differences in wage caps and not having transfer fees, it is almost impossible to apply to concept to association football but is a novel idea to think about all the same.

There are two types franchise tags, exclusive and non-exclusive and can get quite complex as there is also a transition tag. I’ll focus on explain the exclusive and non-exclusive tags here. Contracts in the NFL work as per association football but transfer fees are not offered to contracted players to move to other teams and once a contract ends a player becomes a free agent and thus is free to discuss, with other teams, terms and conditions. The equivalent of a footballer who is out of contract. There is also restricted free agency where the NFL team in which the player is currently playing for has the option to match other offers made to that player. Finally an NFL franchise can apply one ‘Franchise Tag’ per annum to one player to keep them at the team for at least  one more year. There is set ‘Franchise Tag’ wages for the player depending on their position. For it to be an Exclusive Tag According to the NFL's collective bargaining agreement, the player must be paid the average salary of the top five players at his position or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. The player is guaranteed his salary for the next season and the club is guaranteed his services. 

A non-exclusive Franchise Tag, allows the player to negotiate contracts with other teams with their current team is given the right to match whatever contract they sign, if the team decides not to match the contract they are given two first-round picks as compensation for the loss of the franchise tag that year. The contract salary formula for a non-exclusive Franchise Tag is based off the average of the last five years of salaries for the top 5 players at that position.

Teams can keep prized assets for another year so new longer term contracts can be negotiated or they can position themselves for when the player eventually leaves. 

The economics behind the concept is important as the mechanism is designed to reduce player movement. As with the Draft system in the NFL, it does not allow dominant markets (teams) to emerge as have happened in football. Coupled with salary caps, it promotes competitive balance. 
 
A team can tag the same player for consecutive years but will have to pay 120% in the second year of the salary and 144% of the second tag salary if the wish to pursue a third year which is highly unlikely. 

Problems do occur of course. At the moment the biggest story stateside is that of New Orleans Jimmy Graham. The New Orleans Saints wish to apply the tag to Graham but as a Tight End. Graham believes he is a Wide Receiver. The salary disparity is nearly $5m depending on whether he is designated as a tight end or wide receiver.

So applied to Association Football, what franchise tag would you apply to your team to restrict a player leaving in another year? With Wayne Rooney’s reported£300,000 per week contract almost agreed, assuming an opportunity cost of a large transfer fee for Rooney maybe Manchester United would have been better served allowing him to become a free agent in 2015(when current contract is up), apply the franchise tag and keep his services until 2016 when he would be 31 that October? Instead they will probably contract Rooney until 2019 when Rooney will be in his 34th year.

By Gary Burns

The draft in the NFL is seemingly quite simple. The Number 1 pick goes to the team with the worst record from the previous season. Each team then picks starting in reverse order of performance until we’re back to the worst team again. Currently the draft consists of seven rounds.  
 
The reason why this occurs is also quite simple; competitive balance.  As College football is such a high standard in the US, teams are picking from almost ‘NFL ready’ players. That means then you can pick the best player in the country to add to your team, thus raising standards with the aim of becoming more competitive.

Some recent number one draft picks include Andrew Luck, whom the Colts ousted Peyton Manning for, and prompted a race to the bottom ‘Suck for Luck’ campaign amongst fans in order to acquire his talents, Cam Newton of the Carolina Panthers and Eric Fisher, who is now part of the undefeated Kansas City Chiefs. Those teams went from being the worst to some of the most competitive in the NFL in a short amount of time.

But are perverse incentives at play to get the best college players? Is it worthwhile for a team with a losing record halfway through a regular season and no hope of a playoff spot to perform badly to ensure they get a high draft pick? For instance as of last week Tampa Bay Buccaneers (0-7), Jacksonville Jaguars (0-8) and Minnesota Vikings (1-7) are all front runners, or back runners if you will, for the number one pick in next year’s Draft. If they continue their poor form, they will be rewarded with an incredibly talented college footballer such as Quarterback Teddy Bridgewater from University of Louisville, Defensive End Jadeveon Clowney from University of South Carolina or University of Oregon’s
Quarterback Marcus Mariotta. These are just examples, but all of them are athletically ready for the NFL. 

Every team has different positional needs, so to have the number one overall pick a team must ensure it has the worst record. An astute acquisition can change a franchises fortunes for a future decade. John Elway probably being the most famous number one draft pick of all time by the Baltimore Colts but was traded later to the Denver Broncos where he won two Super Bowls. That same draft Dan Marino and Jim Kelly where both drafted in a particularly vintage year for QB’s.

Of course getting a high pick does not mean the chosen player will turn around the franchises fortunes and also low picks can also develop into Super Bowl winners (Tom Brady was drafted as 199th overall pick in 2000), but surely the option of having a high pick is better than not. 

So what’s stopping NFL teams from angling for this number one overall pick? In the NBA for example a lottery system has been introduced as to not give the worst record team an automatic number one pick. All 14 non-playoff teams have a chance, although not equal, to get one of the top 3 picks. Its weighted so the worst teams have a higher chance of a top three pick. Beck Taylor and Justin Trogdon, in a paperpublished in 2002 in The Journal of Labour Economics showed that NBA teams, prior to the lottery introduction, were more likely to lose, then would otherwise would be the case, if there was an incentive of a high draft pick. However an interesting point is one player drafted will have a much greater effect on a basketball team than an American Football team. One player can only take a team so far. This uncertainty of one players success reduces the incentive to do everything you can to improve your draft position in the NFL.

An argument against teams wanting the worst record is that players and coaches alike, need to perform to their highest ability constantly to ensure contract extensions, lucrative bonuses and playing time due to the extremely competitive nature of the industry. A high draft pick may mean one player being cut from the roster. That player has absolutely no incentive to perform poorly. This is sport and those that have made it to the level of the NFL have spent their entire careers being the best or striving to be. That attitude is not easily changed.

By Gary Burns

While risk assessment and strategic decision making have positioned Floyd Mayweather far and above his peers, it may not be in this remit that his next opponent will be decided. He is contracted for another four fights with Showtime in the US, however finding four suitable, worthy opponents is another matter. Names being booted about include the three times beaten Brit, Amir Khan. 

Khans most recent victor Danny Garcia, Timothy Bradley, Adrien Broner and far reaching speculation of a bout with 48 year old light heavyweight Bernard Hopkins are names that have also been mentioned. Unfortunately for Mayweather his skill, talent and position as the most talented boxer of his generation means  that decisions concerning opponents are not as simple as sanctioning bodies official rankings.

The Contenders?
In the US a fight with Khan would not generate half as much attention as the record breaking Canelo fight however it
would have a positive effect on revenues in the United Kingdom. However, Khan is not even the best welterweight from the U.K., Kell Brook has overtaken him.

Bradley, coming off a decision victory over Juan Manuel Marquez, whom Mayweather dispatched with relative ease, does not have the style or fan backing to put up big PPV numbers. Problems in negotiations may also materialise with Bob Arum's Top Rank who promote Bradley, unwilling to negotiate with Golden Boy promotions that partially promote Floyd.

Garcia is an interesting opponent, particularly due to his position on the Mayweather/Canelo undercard, a ploy often used by promoters to generate interest in future bouts. But again there would be doubts as to his chances and whether the public would see him as a live opponent. Although a mix of Garcia’s father and Mayweather in the build up
to the fight would be worth the PPV fee alone.

Broner, I suggest,  would not be risked against Mayweather. He is being groomed as the ‘Next Floyd’ and therefore promoters want an extension strategy for boxing when Floyd finally decides to hang up his gloves. Broner is that strategy. Floyd does not need gimmicks. A catch weight fight with a 48, nearly 49 year old Hopkins would do nothing to enhance his legacy.

Perhaps then what the public has called for the last five years, a bout with Pacquiao may be one of the only viable option for Floyd. Manny, in his next fight, takes on Brandon Rios in a fight that could regniitie his career or perhaps the end of it. He has suffered two recent defeats including a devastating knockout loss to Marquez. Heavy knockout losses
of that nature have proved time and time again most difficult to rebound from. What Pacquiao has though is an international appeal, exciting style, huge support and an impressive career record. If Rios wins he could throw his hat in the ring, although less likely. Pacquiao seems the most likely opponent although the Top Rank stumbling block is evident here also.

Dark Horses?
Ruslan Provodnikov is an interesting fighter. His most recent destruction of Mile Alvarado has backed up his controversial loss to Bradley. If he can get one or two big wins under his belt in the next year, Floyd could consider him. What he also has is a loss on his record which unlike Bradley means he has less to lose. Kell Brook could also
fall into this category, but again not just yet.

Unfortunately for Floyd his career trajectory has simply not been matched by anyone of his ilk at present and has meant that in a sport with a unique competition structure, where opponents are chosen and not devised in a league/championship format, Floyd may have very few options if he is to end his career on a high which it so richly deserves. Floyd, however, will finish his career on his terms. You will not see Floyd fighting into his forties due to financial woes such as the once great Sugar Shane Mosley. Therefore the next year and most importantly next opponent will tell us a lot about how Floyd wants to end things. Five fights equates to about 2 and half years in boxing terms. Perhaps someone new will emerge, like Saul Canelo Alvarez.

But one thing is for certain, whoever Floyd decides to fight, it will be on his terms once again. More likely than not,
 Las Vegas, MGM Grand, 147lbs – 150lbs.

By Gary Burns

The heavyweight division is quite different from other divisions in boxing as no upper weight limit exists for fighters. In other weight categories a new division is created every 3lbs to 8lbs.  Only within the cruiserweight division is there a potentially larger gap (175lbs to 200lbs).

Boxing currently has a significant 17 weight categories. The newest of which is the minimum-weight (Straw-weight or mini flyweight) division introduced in 1987. Before this new division, the most interesting introduction, was the cruiserweight division in 1980 when a upper weight limit of 195lbs was set and later extended to 200lbs. Before the introduction of the Cruiserweight division Heavyweights were fighters above the Light-Heavyweight limit of 175lbs.

A quick scan of the data from the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, suggests why such a division was introduced. The average weight of heavyweight contenders and champions in 1954 was 86kg. By 1984 that had increased to 110kg. Due to an increase in the size of competitors, the cruiserweight division was introduced as a matter of competitive parity.  Boxing was now making structural changes based on fairness. Smaller men should not have to compete against bigger men. The result of the cruiserweight division was that the Heavyweight division was now only available to fighters over 195lbs and later 200lbs. The crux of the problem however remains; as there is no upper limit for Heavyweights, smaller Heavyweights still have to fight much larger opponents.

The most successful heavyweight clash, at least financially, of the last number of years was undoubtedly Wladimir Klitschko v David Haye that took place in Hamburg in 2011. The disparity in size, in what was considered Klitschko’s
biggest challenge to date, was enormous in boxing terms. Weighing in at 242lbs, Klitschko was 30lbs heavier than Haye. Coupled with a height and reach advantage, the result was not surprising. Haye’s next fight is against an even larger opponent, Tyson Fury, who weighs in excess of 255lbs and is 6 foot 9 inches.

Putting it in terms of other divisions it is the equivalent of a Super-Middleweight (perhaps somebody like Carl Froch) fighting a Lightweight or even Super-Featherweight. I think most boxing analysts would agree that the size, height, power and reach advantage that a super-middleweight would have would simply be too much. So why is it ok for the heavyweight division to allow such disparities?  And why would a fighter such as Haye, who was a dominant cruiserweight, want to be a Heavyweight against a much larger opponent? 

In short, the risk is easily off-set by the financial reward, with Haye making a reported £15 million for the Klitschko fight and potentially £5 million to fight Tyson Fury. This far exceeds any potential earnings Haye would get at cruiserweight.  

Since its introduction the Crusierweight division has been seen primarily as a training ground for future heavyweights and has, as a result, garnered very little respect in boxing circles, relative to other weight categories.  It also highlights the financial incentives to become a heavyweight even if the risk is greater at heavyweight. All cruiserweight champions who have fought the Klitschkos in recent years have lost; Thomas Adamek, Jean Marc Mormeck and David Haye. Arguably, the cruiserweights most notable champion, Evander Holyfield, is primarily remembered as the Heavyweight he became. The general public, I would imagine, would only remember him as a heavyweight such is the lack of notoriety the cruiserweight division holds.

Is a Super Heavyweights division an answer?

One solution mooted to combat the disparity between Heavyweight competitors is the introduction of a Super Heavyweight division. Perhaps an upper limit of 225/230lbs. But I feel this will further dilute the value of the Heavyweight division. I would also argue that there is a case for diminishing returns when it comes to weight in the Heavyweight division. Bigger fighters are not always better fighters. Larger weights can often lead to poorer performances. The biggest champion ever of the division, Nikolai Valuev, would be a prime example of where size does not always equate to dominance. This point is also highlighted by the fact Haye is a firm favourite to beat Fury based on his record and ability. 

Perhaps more of a promotion, by broadcasters and promoters alike, of the cruiserweight division would be of better value to boxing.
 
One of many such examples, in what is regarded as one of the greatest heavyweight fights of all-time, saw Rocky Marciano overcome Jersey Joe Walcott in 1952 in their first meeting. If that fight were to take place today, the fight would be in the cruiserweight division. Nobody could argue that the fight would be less significant because of this. However the perception that it’s for the heavyweight title may make it more valuable in peoples mind. And that is the problem for the cruiserweight division and more importantly smaller heavyweights. The public, that dictates the success of fights through ticket sales, pay per view purchases and TV numbers, simply have a bias towards Heavyweight fights. 

By Gary Burns

Recently I spoke about the structural change in the American Heavyweight boxing division and in particular its decline in recent decades. Below is an extension of this analysis.

The fall-off in American success is seismic when viewed in a historical context. By the mid 2000’s fighters from the former Soviet Bloc began to dominate the division. The current top 10 contenders for the heavyweight crown, according to The Ring Magazine, contains one American. Five are from former Soviet Bloc countries or Soviet satellite states.

So why has this happened?

Perhaps looking at the calibre of Heavyweight American amateur fighters coming through the ranks may provide some clues. Looking down through former American Olympic medallists who later held world champion status in the professional Heavyweight Division, the names of Floyd Patterson, Cassius Clay, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Leon Spinks, Evander Holyfield, Riddick Bowe and Roy Jones Jr all appear. In the amateur ranks, Professional Heavyweight fighters traditionally come from the Light Heavyweight, Heavyweight and Super Heavyweight amateur categories. At the Olympics, the United States has not won a medal in the Light Heavyweight category since Athens
2004.

In the Heavyweight Division only 2 bronze medals have been won since Atlanta 1996. The last gold medal was in Seoul 1988. In the Super Heavyweight division the last medal was won in Seoul 1988, silver for Riddick Bowe. While this trend is indicative of the entire American Olympic boxing team, from casual observation performance at the Olympics appears to be a crude indicator of future professional success.

In Los Angeles 1984 for example, the American team won 9 gold medals. In London 2012 the Americans went with a team of 12 but only won 1 gold medal, 0 silver and 0 bronze. This gold medal was won by Clarissa Shields in the women’s Middleweight category. 
 
Whilst maybe a crude predictor of future success, The Games prepares athletes at an elite level as they are fighting the best available opponents from other countries. The next major Heavyweight championship bout is the long overdue Wladimir Klitschko vs. Alexander Povetkin of Russia; both are former Olympic gold medallists.

Remarkably, the heavier boxing divisions in America have regressed to a relatively greater degree when compared to other  weight divisions.The fall in success at the Olympics has not adversely affected American performance in the smaller professional weight divisions. Of the 4 main belts, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO and including interim belts, Americans hold 41% of titles between Lightweight and Light-Heavyweight but 88% of the two heaviest divisions, Cruiserweight and Heavyweight are occupied by Europeans.

Except for the Heavyweight division, American boxing is in good health. This makes the fall in success of the Heavyweight Americans even more of an anomaly. Several explanatory reasons have been suggested to account for this including the already mentioned growth of European and, in particular, former Soviet/Communist states. Furthermore the fall in American success in the division has been attributed to a reduction in participation rates of young black Americans, traditionally from poorer socio-economic backgrounds.

An increase in educational opportunities perhaps, or an increase in the numbers going into other American sports such as American Football, Basketball and Baseball, all of which require athletes of large size and stature has further
hindered the enrolment rates of boxing. Many Heavyweight Americans come from a different sporting background and only turn to boxing when their ambitions are not met with their desired sport.  Finally, reduced funding in a competitive American sports industry has been cited as a cause .

Should Americans interested in the division be worried?

Heavyweight boxing has always had its apocalyptic predictions. The 1920’s world champion Gene Tunney lamented boxing’s demise when Cassius Clay and Sonny Liston locked horns in 1964. Bob Arum described the Heavyweight landscape as “waiting for the old fat bums to disappear” in 1985 just before Mike Tyson ripped through the division bringing a dangerous, compelling edge to the weight class.  Despite the dark days, there is hope for American Heavyweights.

Deontay Wilder has just overcome his most difficult opponent to date, Sergei Liakhovich, to take his record to 29-O with all victories coming by way of Knockout or Technical Knockout and is an exciting American Heavyweight prospect. 

For now the Heavyweight division has its home in the stadiums of Poland, Germany and Russia. Madison Square Garden and Las Vegas may have to wait a while longer for the return of a title once revered as the greatest crowning glory in all of sports;  Heavyweight Champion of the World.

By Gary Burns

Through greats like Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano, America has dominated the heavyweight boxing division like no other country since the introduction of the Marquess of Queensbury rules in the late 19th century. Some champions like Max Schmelling, Primo Carnera and Ingemar Johansson provided a European flavour to proceedings in the first half of the 20th century but were largely the exception to American supremacy.

The American dominance of the division was at a high point between the 1960's and 1980's, with a new era of greats becoming household names. These included Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Spinks, Holmes and, of course, Mike Tyson. Today however, American Heavyweight boxing is a shadow of its former self.

So what went wrong?

Some boxing purists look at the knockout of Mike Tyson by James Buster Douglas in February 1990 as a watershed moment, with this fight spelling the end of the Heavyweight Divisions glory days but data collected on the Pay Per View numbers and gate receipts of the most successful PPV Heavyweights fights would suggest otherwise.

While I couldn’t acquire a full dataset on gate receipts the table below indicates the popularity of the division during the 1990’s. This is in no small part due to the presence of American fighters in all of the top ten fights by PPV numbers.

However a shift in the structure of the division, away from American domination, began to occur in the 1990’s. This decade saw increasing numbers of non-American boxers such as Axel Schultz, Andrew Golota, David Tua and Francois Botha become prominent. In particular, British fighters started to challenge the supremacy of their American counterparts. Frank Bruno, Herbie Hide and Lennox Lewis all had varying degrees of success during this period.

Americans still accounted for the lions share of top ten contenders for the Heavyweight crown but it was a Brit, Lennox Lewis, who began to dominate the division by the late 1990’s and into the 2000’s.

By September 2002 Hasim Rahman had stunned Lewis and Chris Byrd won a version of the title against Evander Holyfield in December of the same year. America's fall from grace continued as Shannon Briggs became the last American to hold world champion status when he lost to Russian Sultan Ibragimov in June 2007.  

American success in the division meant that historically the audience predominately came from that side of the Atlantic. It would be interesting to see the most recent data and ask whether the disappearance of this success has led to a fall in interest from its traditional target audience, the American public? By the mid 2000’s the main broadcaster of PPV boxing in the states,HBO, had at certain times refused to show the Klitschko brothers fights. HBO sports President Ross Greenburg cited a largely disinterested American public, poor quality opponents and the fact the fights were in Europe and would not fit into prime time scheduling (if not time delayed) as reasons for the move. HBO and Showtime have showed some of the Klitschko brothers fights but not on PPV, hinting at the lack of confidence they may have in sales of the fights.

This was a guest contribution by Gary Burns - Gary holds a degree in economics and has made various contributions both to print and online media on Boxing

By Gary Burns

On the 14th of September, Floyd Mayweather Jr will take on Saul Alvarez at the MGM Grand, Las Vegas, Nevada at a catchweight limit of 152lbs. The fight is major box office business and to the general public the weight limit of the fight is of little consequence. To Floyd Mayweather Jr the fight at a catchweight is indicative of his decision-making in the latter part of his career.
 
Floyd Mayweather jr is undoubtedly the elite boxer of his generation as he is undefeated after 44 professional bouts and was the highest paid athlete according to Forbes in 2012, earning a reported $85 million (knocking Tiger Woods off the top earners spot for the first time since 2002). Added to this, he was involved in the biggest Pay Per View of all time in 2007 when he fought Oscar De La Hoya.

While Mayweather’s decisions in his personal life have recently landed him in prison, when it comes to making decisions in the ring, concerning which opponent to take on, he is the shrewdest operator of them all. His choices here have allowed him to surpass his peers and have cemented his legacy as an undoubted future Hall of Famer.

Boxing is of interest to economists and decision theorists as there is no other sport with a comparable competitive structure to it. Boxing has no central governing body, there is no set league or competition and no set future schedule. What it has is a number of governing organisations, each with their own belts in each weight division. The problem with such a structure is that fighters may not end up fighting the best available opponent. A singular weight division for example can have numerous legitimate world champions at any one time (IBF, WBC, WBA and WBO are all considered the most legitimate governing bodies but there is a number of others including WBF and IBO). Champions then have to defend their belts against mandatory challengers within their organisation or risk losing their 'world champion' status. Champions in a singular weight division however, do not end up facing each other, mainly due to organisations having different rankings and for the fear that defeat could mean a downward trend in a fighter’s career and in some cases, the end of a career.

If a team or individual lose in another sport it is often looked upon as a reason to come back stronger. Boxing however, due to the explicit physical dangers, is different. A fighter carries a high cost if defeated. It is not unusual if a fighter is defeated for many to question their ability to continue (certainly at the level they are defeated).Decisions on opponents are therefore all the more important and it has become a highly strategic game. 
 
But this is only one blade of the scissors; the economics of a fight is essential for it to go ahead also. The success of bouts is dependent on the interest the public take in the fight. No matter how talented a fighter is, it will not necessarily mean they will be financially successful. The market truly decides on whether a fighter will be financially successful or not.
  
Thus to have a successful career you not only need the ability but you must tick both the boxes of choosing wisely over opponents and meeting the market’s needs, something Floyd Mayweather excels at.

Mayweather’s impressive record is in no small part due to his decision-making where he evaluates his position in the market and the abilities of his opponent. The risks of fighting remain the same for every boxer but what Mayweather has done particularly well in the latter half of his career is make calculated risks and chosen opponents whereby most of his challengers have to leave their ‘comfort zone’ while he remains in his. Mayweather understands that having that zero on his record allows him to earn more than any other fighter. Boxers, outside of the heavyweight division and local fighters, find it difficult to catch the general public’s imagination at the consistent level of other sports. Mayweather understands his undefeated status is a signal that allows him to stimulate interest amongst the general public and make more money through Pay Per View sales. On the flip side, he also understands a defeat would be detrimental to his earning potential. A good example of this was his decision not to fight Manny Pacquiao that was widely criticised.

While not denying his superior talent, his excellent decisions on who to fight support his record. In particular Mayweather has chosen wisely over the last six years if one considers the optimum weight of an opponent and the weight they fight Mayweather at.

For most fighters there is a positive correlation between their weight and number of fights. Weight increases as fighters get into the ring more. Mayweather is no different here (see below). When fighters are younger they can maintain a lower weight but as they age this becomes more difficult. Naturally they move up in
weight classifications. Mayweather has followed this trend with few deviations. Furthermore, It is generally accepted that fighters lose speed and may potentially not maintain their punching power as they go up through weight divisions fighting naturally bigger opponents. On the other hand, fighters may lose conditioning which effects their durability if they are forced to come down weightdivisions and fight opponents who are more natural at lighter weights. 

If we look at the De La Hoya fight in 2007 as a starting point in achieving his worldwide elite status, Mayweather actually jumped up in weight from welterweight (147lbs), his most comfortable weight, to junior middleweight (154lbs). This was a calculated risk. De La Hoya fought only twice in the previous three years and one was a loss at middleweight (160lbs). Mayweather won a largely unimpressive bout but it helped elevate him to a household name outside of boxing and the United States.

His next opponent was Ricky Hatton. This fight was at welterweight,
Mayweathers optimum weight. Hatton had only fought as high as light welterweight (140lbs) before this fight. Mayweather won by impressive TKO in round 10. 
 
The following bout was against Juan Manuel Marquez. Again the fight was at welterweight. Marquez had previously fought as high as junior welterweight but many would argue lightweight was his optimum weight (135lbs). Mayweather won an easy unanimous decision.

Following this he took on Shane Mosley, again at welterweight. Like the De La Hoya fight, the decision to fight Mosley was calculated. Mosley was campaigning at welterweight but was in his 39th year and had fought at a higher weight some four years earlier. He also had five defeats on his record by the time he stepped into the ring. Mayweather won an easy unanimous decision. 

Mayweather won his next bout against Victor Ortiz with a 4th round KO in controversial fashion. Again, Ortiz had only fought once at welterweight and had mainly campaigned as a light welterweight in the previous years.
  
Perhaps Mayweathers biggest risk in recent years was moving up to light middleweight for the first time since fighting De La Hoya for his fight with Miguel Cotto. His classed showed over twelve rounds with a unanimous decision victory over Cotto.

The most recent bout of Mayweather was against Robert Guerrero at welterweight once more. Guerrero, while fighting at welterweight twice was only three bouts previous campaigning at lightweight (135lbs).

So what’s next for Floyd?

As I mentioned at the beginning, this September he will take on Saul Alvarez, a young undefeated Mexican World Champion at light middleweight. The fight will take place at a catchweight 152lbs even though the light middleweight limit is higher at 154lbs. Alvarez is a relatively big light middleweight with many boxing analysts saying he may be a more natural middleweight. In between fights he certainly walks around at a much bigger weight than light middleweight. Mayweather on the other hand says his natural weight between fights is about 150lbs. While Alvarez has shown no problems in getting down to the light middleweight limit of 154lbs, those extra two pounds may not seem a lot but at this elite level of sport fine margins are where victory is gained or loss is suffered. 

This is, in my opinion, why Floyd Mayweather Jr is the undefeated fighter he is. He never has to push his body beyond its limits to meet weight limits. His opponents more often than not, do. Since his 2005 fight against Sharmba Mitchell, Mayweather has fought at welterweight with only two exceptions, Cotto and De La Hoya. His ability and undefeated status has allowed him the bargaining power to stay within his preferred weight category, removing a variable that could potentially damage his chances of success. His opponents however often do not fight in their preferred weight division. In addition, the comfort zone of Maywether is extended to only fighting in Las Vegas since 2006 which happens to be his city of residence.

Perphaps the take home message is that boxing at an elite level leaves very little room for error. A sport like boxing, unlike others, affords fighters the opportunity to choose opponents. Because of this and the due to the high price of loss, fighter must do a cost-benefit analysis like very few other athletes. Floyd Mayweather Jr and his team have perfected this. 

This was a guest contribution by Gary Burns - Gary holds a degree in economics and has made various contributions both to print and online media on Boxing