DAVID ISAACSON | Whose interests are boxing promoters serving in legal battle with sport minister?

The late Bert Blewett, the doyen of boxing journalism in his day, used to write that controversy was the lifeblood of the sport.

And given that professional boxing seems to attract some of the world’s biggest riff-raff (along with some real gentlemen and ladies), I guess it’s only natural.

The latest brouhaha is that the new Boxing South Africa (BSA) board that was appointed by sport minister Zizi Kodwa with the intention of taking office on Tuesday is being challenged legally. Kodwa is fighting it and has instructed the new board to start work. 

The National Professional Boxing Promoter’s Association (NPBPA) — yes, it actually has the possessive apostrophe in the wrong place, as if it’s a single promoter — is taking court action against Kodwa’s appointment, claiming it’s unlawful.

The Boxing Act states: “The minister must appoint the members of Boxing SA on a part-time basis after consultation with the associations or federation of associations.”

The same piece of legislation allows for the formation of associations for promoters, boxers, trainers, managers and officials.

So far only the one association exists. 

Around July, Kodwa wrote a letter to the chair of the NPBPA, Ayanda Matiti, asking him to make submissions for the new BSA board.

In court papers Matiti says this was insufficient, arguing the invitation for submissions was not the same as consulting.

Some may think that Matiti indeed has a point. But possibly not. I have been told that Matiti and the association were sent a letter by the minister asking for submissions, and they sent a list of names, none of whom made the cut. 

But there is a legal definition of consultation, and it does not mean negotiation. It means, as I understand it, hearing a view. 

But what will the courts make of this, assuming the NPBPA actually decides to invest in a costly urgent interdict? The act clearly says the minister must consult the associations or federation of associations.

So what if there’s only one association, as is the case? The legislation doesn’t talk about what happens when only one or two associations are formed.

The lawmakers, in this instance, probably envisaged a scenario where the minister took advice from all licensees, not just a select few. In other words, he consulted with boxing as a whole, allowing all licensees to give input equally. 

If that is, indeed, the spirit of the act, then the NPBPA interpretation is wrong and, quite frankly, self-serving. 

People forget that the main reason South Africa has boxing legislation is to protect boxers from the exploitation of promoters. Before then, boxers were getting screwed over left, right and centre.

So the legislation stipulated that promoters must, for example, deposit all purses a month before a tournament.

The rule was simple: No money, no show.

But BSA, and especially the outgoing board, having got its priorities arse about face, backed the promoters instead.

This has resulted in an increased number of late cancellations because promised money never arrived. Matiti’s tournament at Sun City, cancelled the day before, was one of them.

A pre-Christmas show in Durban last year was postponed twice before being cancelled on the night of the tournament.

You get two types of promoters in South Africa. One relies on private sponsorships and possibly TV to fund their shows, the others are run-of-the-mill tenderpreneurs, reliant on government sponsorships and also TV in some cases.

The bye-bye board has apparently liked the tenderpreneurs, even though cash flow is invariably a problem for this breed.

Appearing before parliament last month, BSA said they were accepting letters of commitment from government departments as cash.

Given how long it takes government to actually make payments, what BSA was really saying was that boxers in this country are going to fight on a box-now-get-paid-later scheme for any government-funded shows.

This represents a major break from standard operating procedure and I’m not sure the BSA board has the power to introduce systems that are so contrary to the act.

BSA’s acting CEO Erick Sithole seemed to explain to parliament that BSA was paying boxers out of its own budget in some cases.

If I understood him correctly, he was saying that BSA was providing bridging finance to certain promoters.

First of all, where does the act talk about BSA playing the role of financier to promoters? It doesn’t.

I’d like to know what interest, if any, BSA charged. And if this were to be acceptable practice, what would happen if BSA were to pay boxers for 20 government-funded tournaments in a row? They’d go bankrupt.

Sithole, a qualified accountant, should know about the risks of poor cash flow. Profitable companies have gone bang because they had no cash on hand.

BSA’s questionable behaviour reached into other spheres as well. There was a show earlier this year, sponsored by the Gauteng government and promoted by Matiti, where the BSA board allowed an unrated boxer to challenge for a South African title.

The Boxing Act and the gazetted regulations that govern the sport have been trampled into the dust in the past 18 months or so.

And all of a sudden here is Matiti, in his role as NPBPA chair, decrying how the minister hasn’t fulfilled his own legislative requirement.

Oh, the irony!