By Billie Sloane, IFL TV

In the world of boxing, few things ignite debate quite like the rematch clause. Initially intended to ensure deserving fighters a fair shot at redemption, rematch clauses have evolved into one of the sport’s most controversial mechanisms. Today, they’ve become a staple in boxing contracts—a tool to guarantee another shot, another payday, another chance to reclaim glory. But here’s the question: Is this truly about fairness, or are fighters and promoters gaming the system to secure lucrative returns?

Rematch clauses mean big money for fighters and promoters alike. But are they clogging up the division with familiar faces, preventing new talent from breaking through? Are fans getting the matchups they crave, or are we stuck in a repetitive cycle of reruns?

What Is a Rematch Clause, and Why Is It So Important?

For those not familiar with boxing’s contractual mechanics, let’s break down what a rematch clause actually is and why it’s such a significant part of contract negotiations.

A rematch clause is a contractual agreement that guarantees one fighter—usually the champion—a second fight if they lose their title in a bout. If the champion loses, the clause kicks in, giving them the right to challenge their opponent again in a rematch, often on similar financial terms to the first fight. This means that a dethroned champion doesn’t lose their claim entirely; they get a second shot to regain their belt.

Why is this clause so crucial? For champions, it’s a safeguard—an assurance that their hard-earned titles won’t be stripped away for good after a single off night. Champions train for years to reach the top, enduring grueling matchups along the way, and they’re understandably hesitant to risk it all on a single loss. As Dillian Whyte put it in an IFL TV interview, “One fight shouldn’t decide a career. If you lose the belt, you should have a shot to get it back.”

But champions aren’t the only ones who see value in the rematch clause—promoters are major proponents as well, and for good reason. Boxing is as much a business as it is a sport, and rematch clauses bring stability to the narrative. By guaranteeing a second fight, promoters ensure that marketable stars have built-in redemption opportunities, keeping fans engaged. As Eddie Hearn explained, “Rematch clauses give us a storyline. If a champ falls, there’s always that question: Can they come back?”

Rematch clauses ensure financial security for fighters and promoters, turning a single showdown into a two-fight series. But is this practice about preserving boxing’s spirit, or is it more about securing guaranteed profits? That’s where the controversy begins.

The Rematch Clause: Protecting Champions or Blocking Competition?

Let’s face it—rematch clauses can be a safety net, especially for champions. When a titleholder steps into the ring, they know that one unlucky punch or slip-up won’t necessarily end their reign. This sense of security is a comfort for fighters who’ve spent years working to reach the top. Frank Warren, in an IFL interview, defended the practice, saying, “If a champion loses, they deserve the chance to prove it was just a bad night. It’s about respecting their journey.”

For many, the rematch clause is about justice. It gives a champion the right to reclaim what’s theirs, to prove that a loss was just a fluke. Boxing is a brutal sport where a single mistake can mean defeat. Shouldn’t champions get a second chance?

But on the other hand, isn’t a champion supposed to prove they’re the best under any circumstances? When a fighter loses, shouldn’t they be willing to climb back up without a built-in safety net? Are rematch clauses shielding champions from genuine competition, creating a system where the same faces keep cycling through, blocking new contenders from their shot?

Fans are desperate for new blood, fresh matchups, and fresh stories in the ring. But with rematch clauses in play, are we stuck in a system that favors familiar faces over true competitive challenges?

Are Fighters Gaming the System for Guaranteed Paydays?

Let’s be real—rematch clauses aren’t just about pride or redemption; they’re about money. A rematch can bring in hefty paydays, sometimes even bigger than the first fight. Bob Arum highlighted this business reality in an IFL TV interview, saying, “Rematches are insurance policies. They make sense financially. If people know the fight will happen again, they’re invested.”

With a rematch clause, a fighter who loses a belt doesn’t walk away empty-handed. They’re given a second shot and another check. For big names, these checks only get larger, as promoters know that high-stakes rematches sell tickets and drive pay-per-view buys. But are fighters too focused on these guaranteed paydays to care about fresh, real competition? Are they using rematch clauses to lock in financial security rather than taking risks with new challengers?

Tony Bellew addressed this concern in an IFL interview, noting, “It’s a tough business. Fighters are always thinking about the next paycheck. But at some point, you’ve got to ask—are you in this for the sport or the money?” Bellew’s words cut to the heart of the issue: while fighters have legitimate reasons for wanting financial security, there’s a risk that this focus on money could overshadow the spirit of competition.

Are Rematch Clauses Delaying Fresh Matchups?

For fans, nothing’s worse than seeing the division, whether heavyweight or otherwise, stagnate under the weight of endless rematches. The trilogy between Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder, while thrilling, kept other heavyweights waiting on the sidelines for years. After his second bout with Wilder, Tyson Fury told IFL TV, “The fans want fresh blood. They want new faces. It’s good for boxing.”

That’s the crux of the argument: Is boxing thriving when it serves up the same rematches repeatedly, or is it suffocating under the weight of these repeated bouts? Fans want to see champions fight new opponents, face new challenges. In a world without rematch clauses, champions would be forced to defend against whoever’s next in line, bringing a faster pace and more excitement to the sport.

But could removing rematch clauses lead to chaos? David Haye pointed out to IFL TV, “You take away the rematch clause, and suddenly there’s no structure. Fighters lose, belts change hands, but the storylines are lost. Rematches give boxing a narrative, something to follow.” Haye makes a fair point: rematch clauses provide continuity, a way for fans to stay invested in ongoing rivalries and follow the ups and downs of champions.

Rematches vs. Redemption: What Do Fans Really Want?

Here’s the question: Do fans crave these endless rematches, or are they looking for something new? There’s a unique thrill in watching a fighter who’s just lost work their way back up from scratch. Without a rematch clause, a former champion would have to prove themselves all over again, bringing a fresh sense of urgency to every fight. Derek Chisora, known for his no-nonsense views, once told IFL TV, “If you’re the best, fight the best. I don’t care about no rematch clause. Just get in there and prove yourself.”

Chisora’s attitude is refreshing, a call for champions to rise and fall based purely on skill and grit. But the reality is that boxing has become as much about business as it is about sport. Rematch clauses keep the money rolling and give promoters an easier way to build narratives. 

Yet, rematches have given us some of the sport’s greatest moments. Without rematch clauses, would we have seen Ali vs. Frazier or Leonard vs. Duran play out to their unforgettable conclusions? For some, eliminating rematch clauses is unthinkable; they bring drama, redemption, and a chance to see if a true champion can make a comeback. So, does the rematch clause add depth to boxing, or is it holding the sport back?

The Final Bell: Is It Time to Ban Rematch Clauses?

The rematch clause controversy strikes at the heart of what we want boxing to be: a fair sport, a business, a spectacle, or a combination of all three. Do we want champions forced to defend their belts against whoever’s next, or do we prefer champions who have the chance to reclaim their titles after a single bad night?

There’s no easy answer. On one hand, rematch clauses provide fighters with a chance at redemption and bring continuity to boxing’s storylines. They allow for rivalries to develop and keep fans invested. But on the other hand, they can stagnate divisions, block fresh talent from emerging, and turn boxing into a cycle of repeated matchups.

So maybe the real question is for us, the fans, to decide: Are we here for the thrill of new matchups, or do we relish the drama of ongoing rivalries? 

Should boxing let go of rematch clauses and let the chips fall where they may, or do we need these clauses to keep the sport alive?

What do you think—should rematch clauses stay, or is it time for boxing to move on? Share your thoughts.

Billie Sloane takes a ‘no holes barred’ approach as he has his say on some of the major talking points in the crazy world that is boxing.