In the last article we delved into the critical, subtle, and more direct role that the Boxing Commission of Fiji plays in how boxing is managed in Fiji, the framework within which it operates, and the direction it takes. We focused on programs, weigh-ins, fight nights, and fight officials.
Prior to that, we talked about promoters and reporters as two key players within the boxing framework. It was highlighted that promoters think within the business paradigm of necessity because they view their involvement as an investment.
Sure, there are times when they put in money after suffering losses. The end aim, however, is to recoup those losses at subsequent programs. If the downturn persists, many simply bow out or take a break.
That’s how promoters work. So, the relationship between promoters and the boxing commission is one of mutual support as well as mutual antipathy. They will not hesitate to pull a fast one whenever they can, and they have done this. It is a classic case of rules v freedom to make decisions.
The empirically proven solution to this is the creation of mutual trust and respect. We have worked hard at this all along. There is only one promoter who has repeatedly defied us, and we have refused to renew his promoter license.
Boxing Commission of Fiji is focused on: ensuring fairness in matchups and title fights; mutually beneficial fight contracts; adherence to provisions of fight contracts; fair purses; drugfree boxers; smooth and professional weigh-ins; professional and controversyfree programs, etc.
This might appear easy on paper, but in practice, we have had to struggle with our hands full all the time.
We have set weigh-in and program rules to standardise the process and make it easier for all concerned.
These have been resisted all the way. Boxers have to be told repeatedly that only three supporters are allowed in each corner. There have been so many instances when corner-men simply flood the ring after an exciting or controversial fight.
The rule clearly says that only one corner man is allowed with one boxer in the ring; the other two simply wait outside the ring. One promoter engaged a lawyer challenging our program and weigh-in rules.
The lawyer insisted that our rules needed to be gazetted even though they were simply enabling operational rules. The promoter wanted his people on the dais during weigh-ins.
We could not allow this as the weigh-in is a BCF undertaking. We had also witnessed so many family members and hangers-on from the promoter’s side totally submerging and distorting the weigh-ins to the extent that the boxers became unimportant on the stage.
This totally defeated one of the keys aim of the process and that is to showcase the boxers prior to fight night. This also allowed shenanigans to enter the weigh-in process as boxers were “assisted” while on the scale to hide actual weights and appear lighter.
We also noted that ring announcers were not professionals. In one case, the promoter’s financier insisted that he could do better announcing than a professional announcer.
This became a huge bone of contention that we had to struggle with.
Luckily, all this is now history as BCF managed to prevail. An article written by boxing official Setoki Mafi on Fiji Boxing appeared in the Fiji Sun (26/6/23). Let me comment on it here.
Response to Setoki Mafi
Firstly, his assertion that there have been “no improvements” in boxing is proven false by the very visible reality of what we have been presenting as boxing programs this year.
True, the appearance of Lewis-Hill Boxing Promotions last year and Tuwai Boxing Promotions this year has taken our programs up another notch. The difficulties faced in the past were directly linked to the promoter’s lack of open co-operation with BCF.
The two new promoters have been working very closely with us hence the marked difference in the quality of programs. In the first set of proposals listed under: “The Fiji Boxing body must address these issues”, let me focus on only the ones that need to be addressed.
With setting up a constitution, we are working on a constitution that needs to be vetted by the board. On referees and judges, we consider it imprudent to set up a referee’s body at this juncture because we do not have enough professional referees yet – they are undergoing training.
With registering managers/ trainers and clubs, we are 30 per cent there. It needs to be noted that if we set up a boxing referees and judges (R&Js) association, control will move to that body and there is likely to be unwanted and ugly disagreements.
We already encountered this in one of our programs where a senior official who was assisting with the scheduling stopped our R&Js from assisting around the ring when a commotion erupted.
He was insisting on using rules followed in amateur boxing and he was overruled as it was a BCF event, but this did not go down well with him. The reasons for this were simple.
We have our officials in clearly identifiable uniforms, and these are respected by the public. Thus, they are able to quell potential ugliness without too much effort. The idea of an association for R&Js is good, but premature at this stage for the reasons stated above and many more. That article revisited the issue of Fijian boxers fighting overseas.
It should go without saying that fighting overseas is a non-issue now, we have it under control. All the other concerns raised in that section of the article are history. With regard to involving foreign embassies in our attempts to manage boxer participation overseas, we are working on two memorandums of understanding (MOUs). This need has arisen because one boxer and one trainer have challenged BCF and taken boxers abroad without official clearance.
Both these persons have been dealt with decisively and the next step is the signing of the MOUs. That should put this issue to rest once and for all. I promised in my last article that I would share with your knowledge on disinformation campaigns, especially in this age of enhanced ICT and widespread use of social media.
You will have noted the virulent and scurrilous social media campaign against BCF by one promoter and his cronies, many using fake profiles. The same people have also been repeatedly announcing the removal/ replacement of the BCF board and chair over the past four months.
Let me share with you how disinformation works.
Disinformation
Disinformation is defined as false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumours) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.
The aim of disinformation is to distort the truth and confuse the public into thinking that something is bad when it is really good and vice versa. Misinformation, on the other hand, is defined as false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.
One is covert while the other is done in the open. The aim in both cases is ignoble and misinformation is sometimes questioned on the basis of “deliberate intent”.
That, however, is a legal issue. Both have been used against BCF and its chair particularly virulently in the past five months. Joan Donovan, research director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy says that “disinformation is effective because it shows up looking like authentic source material”.
A small number of bad actors are able to exploit social media platforms’ technology to hugely amplify their messages, often using memes to take messages from the fringe to the mainstream.
She adds they’re “leaving little breadcrumbs” around the internet, in the form of catchy memes, targeting politicians or eager journalists who they know could take the bait.
And the nature of modern news means it can be all over news services, and countless repeater sites and accounts, before the misinformation is debunked.
This is something we have to be particularly careful about. It calls for vigilance from each one of us. I will continue with this in my next article.
• DR SUBHASH APPANNA is a USP academic who has been writing on issues of historical and national significance. He is also the Chair of Boxing Commission of Fiji. The views expressed here are his alone and not necessarily shared by this newspaper or his employers. He can be contacted on subhash.appana@usp.ac.fj
