Ah yes remember putting that up now

My poor brain has been under stress recently

Do a search on 'anti-competitive behaviour' (or visit http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Anti-competitive_behaviour) then you'll see why any current promotion/promoter trying to set up a governing body (or trying to dictate what other promotions can/can't do, where they may display their product etc) would be opening themselves up for legal action from other companies, which could effectively lead to the promotion/promoter in question folding due to getting sued.

I've looked into starting a governing body myself and it would be very easy if promoters subscibed to it voluntarily. But then if I were associated with a current promotion, and phoned venues pursuading them not to run shows from any promoter who did not hold a license from me (even though it's voluntary), then I would effectively be trying to dictate who can and can't run shows in this country... which could be perceived as anti-competitive behaviour. Just a small part of my argument why any current promoters/wrestlers should not be able to work as an oligopoly/cartel to control the industry and effectively limit competition (not that I'm saying that would be it's goal, but it's the way things could turn out... politics!).

But Lee, if that were the case, how could the British Boxing Board of Control operate???

I dont think monopoly can apply so long as "unauthorised" events can happen. The point becomes would the public buy into "authorised"??

Realistically, they should, as the product is better. The Back Yard crews can hang out together and get injured together.

So, lets find some great and good marks to revive Mountevans..........

Something I didn't realise till I saw a recent documentary is that the British Board of Boxing Control doesn't have all-seeing legal powers over boxing. Although they issue licenses and so on, it's perfectly legal to operate a professional boxing match without their backing.

I'm not sure how the BBBofC operate, but the WBC (who filed for bankruptcy on June 14th this year) operated like this, as far as I can make out:

- They were a not-for-profit organisation
- If a fighter wanted to be ranked in the WBC rankings, they would have to fight on a WBC sanctioned show under WBC rules and hold a WBC licence... as would the promoter of the event.
- By being a WBC ranked fighter, you gained the opportunity to fight for a WBC championship _title_
- This wouldn't stop you fighting for shows promoted through other boards of control, such as IBF, WBA etc.
- Special rules existed for _title_ matches and ranking for the purpose of tile unifications
- If a promoter wanted to feature a WBC championship match, he/she would have to pay WBC $500,000 for the privilige, remembering to abide by WBC rules.
- So while all events wouldn't necessarily have to be governed by WBC, a venue may choose to only hold events that are governed by a board such as WBC. Therefore, if WBC govern them/give them a licence then good, the show goes ahead. If they don't give them a licence, the promoter of the event/fighters can't really kick up too much of a fuss and accuse them having alterior motives as they were independent.
- WBC effectively had a huge say in how the sport was run, including getting rules of the sport changed. Again, people would respect their efforts and not questions their motives as they were independent.

...let me reprint that with 'WBC' replaced as 'FWA' (who apparently are interested in starting a governing body) as well as other details changed to reflect the differences in the organisations:

- They are a for-profit organisation
- If a fighter wanted to be ranked in the FWA rankings, they would have to fight on a FWA sanctioned show under FWA rules and hold a FWA licence... as would the promoter of the event.
- By being a FWA ranked fighter, you would gain the opportunity to fight for a FWA championship _title_
- This may/may not stop you fighting for shows promoted through other companies or non-FWA licensed promoters.
- Special rules may/may not exist for _title_ matches and ranking for the purpose of tile unifications
- If a promoter wanted to feature a FWA championship match, he/she would have to pay FWA £???,000 for the privilige, remembering to abide by FWA rules.
- So while all events wouldn't necessarily have to be governed by FWA, a venue may choose to only hold events that are governed by a board such as FWA. Therefore, if FWA govern them/give them a licence then good, the show goes ahead. If they don't give them a licence, the promoter of the event/fighters could complain and accuse them having alterior motives (anti-competitve behaviour?) as they are not independent.
- FWA could effectively have a huge say in how the sport is run, including getting rules of the sport changed. People may question motives of their every move as they are not independent.

--- On a side note, Frontier Wrestling Limited was incorporated at Companies House on 19/3/2004 with a certain well known regular FWA performer as Company Secretary, and someone who appears to be his relative as Director. Perhaps this is the company that would be the new board of control as Frontier Wrestlin Alliance Limited, with Mark Sloan and Elisar Cabrera listed as directors, is also still listed as a live company? On the surface, the Director would be someone not associated with any wrestling company (as far as I know), and the secretary would also appear to be independent as he wrestles all over the UK (and the world). Perhaps this would combat any possible legal action of anti-competitive behaviour by having a company that would seemingly be independant of the current FWA as we know it (even though their names are very similar, but I'm sure they won't go suing the board of control under the law of passing off!).

-- Could I just add, I'm not totally against FWA setting up a governing body, I'm just totally aginst any one company holding too much power over the rest of the industry. I don't doubt that they are trying to do some real good for British wrestling, but it could just be difficult trying to do the best for the industry as a whole whilst also doing the best for your own company. I would be really interested in hearing the strategy for the proposed governing body though as I think one (or more) are definitely needed and I would love to see a way of it working without all the possible legal issues getting in the way.

...btw, about half of what I just said was summed up by John in one small paragraph (Didn't see that reply until I just posted).