According to journalists who have written for The Ring, the post was not the first time the publication had been “weaponised” during the tenure of a man routinely referred to as “His Excellency”. Thomas Hauser, the award-winning author, writes a column for its monthly print edition and occasionally contributes to its website. He told Telegraph Sport that the print product was “pretty clean in terms of not having overtly partisan editorial content” but the same could not be said for its digital platforms.
“It’s highly unlikely that you will see anything critical about the Saudi boxing programme on the website. And that’s nothing new. When it was owned by Golden Boy, it wouldn’t trash Golden Boy.” Indeed, during the Golden Boy era, senior editors of the print edition lost their jobs, while three members of its Ratings Advisory Panel quit over changes to how its championship belts were awarded. That was amid concerns about partisanship Hauser claimed had become “more exaggerated” under the Alalshikh regime.
He added: “It’s more dangerous because, in effect, they have weaponised The Ring. The Ring is promoting fights. They are elevating The Ring belt to something more than an afterthought. They are trying to make The Ring belt the belt for the general population and the Zuffa belt for all the people signed to Zuffa. I have a lot of problems with the sanctioning bodies but these people aren’t any better.”
‘Sad that it has not been challenged’
Declan Warrington writes for BoxingScene and Boxing News and also contributed to The Ring during the Golden Boy era. He admitted a publication that had “long been treated as sacred” had “a chequered history” but added: “It’s previously attempted to pretend it hasn’t, at least. Whereas, now, it’s just given up.” He branded the X post about Queensberry “entirely unsurprising”, saying: “It wouldn’t surprise me if they still claimed now that it’s neutral.” Saying he found it all “pretty f—— sad”, he added: “Frankly and disappointingly, the boxing media as a whole hasn’t been challenging this s— like it ought to have been.”