Executive Summary

Sanctioning bodies face substantial reputational, financial, legal, and political risks when approving fights that pair an elite world-class heavyweight such as Anthony Joshua with a celebrity-driven, unevenly credentialed fighter such as Jake Paul. While such contests can generate enormous financial upside—driving new audiences, pay-per-view revenues, and global media attention—the potential downsides are profound. They include:

Liability exposure if an inadequately qualified fighter suffers catastrophic injury or death. Perceptions of corruption or negligence, reducing trust in the sanctioning body. Regulatory blowback from state athletic commissions and government authorities. Long-term degradation of the sport’s legitimacy, damaging all sanctioned title fights. Athlete-management unrest, as fighters protest safety compromises for spectacle. Precedent-setting dangers, opening the door to increasingly mismatched, dangerous bouts.

This paper evaluates these risks in detail across three scenarios:

(1) Jake Paul wins,

(2) Anthony Joshua wins cleanly, and

(3) Anthony Joshua wins via violent or catastrophic outcome.

1. Background: The Trend Toward Spectacle Boxing

The past decade has seen the rise of “spectacle boxing”: influencer matchups, crossover athletes, and exhibition fights with massive commercial value but dubious athletic parity. Examples include:

Floyd Mayweather vs. Logan Paul Jake Paul vs. Nate Robinson, Tyron Woodley, Anderson Silva, Mike Tyson KSI vs. Tommy Fury Crossover MMA-to-boxing contests

This model succeeds financially because it merges entertainment audiences with traditional fight fandom. However, sanctioning bodies—WBA, WBC, WBO, IBF, state commissions—face increasing pressure to legitimize such bouts via rankings, belts, and regulatory approval.

A fight such as Jake Paul vs. Anthony Joshua represents the most extreme form of this trend: the pairing of a novice heavyweight with an Olympic gold medalist and former unified world champion.

2. Core Risks to Sanctioning Bodies

2.1. Legal Liability and Negligence Claims

Risk Description

If a fighter with comparatively minimal amateur or professional pedigree suffers severe injury or death, sanctioning bodies may be accused of:

Gross negligence Failure to conduct adequate medical evaluation Approving a fight with foreseeable, unequal risk Ignoring “reasonable duty of care” standards expected in combat sports

Even if an athletic commission technically bears primary regulatory responsibility, sanctioning bodies can be named in lawsuits for:

Assigning rankings Certifying belts Publicly endorsing the matchup Benefiting financially from sanctioning fees

If Jake Paul Is Seriously Injured

Liability exposure is highest if the underqualified fighter is harmed. Plaintiffs could argue:

He lacked sufficient experience or amateur pedigree. The bout constituted a “reckless mismatch.” The sanctioning body acted in commercial self-interest over safety.

If Anthony Joshua Is Injured

Less likely, but if Paul uses an unorthodox technique or if a freak injury occurs, critics would argue:

The spectacle format encouraged unsafe conditions. Sanctioning bodies allowed circus-style competition inconsistent with normal elite bouts.

2.2. Reputational Damage and Perception of Corruption

Sanctioning bodies are frequently accused of:

Manipulating rankings Granting title shots based on finances rather than merit Enabling unsafe mismatches

Approving Jake Paul vs. Anthony Joshua exacerbates all these concerns. Stakeholders may perceive:

“Money over merit” Undermining of sport purity Willingness to assign top-10 rankings to YouTubers for financial gain

If Jake Paul Wins

The reputational fallout could be catastrophic:

Claims of “rigged fights” or fixed outcomes Mass ridicule of rankings Institutional delegitimization of the heavyweight division

A sanctioning body’s authority depends on perceived meritocracy. Allowing a novice to beat a former world champion destabilizes that foundation.

2.3. Political and Regulatory Blowback

State athletic commissions may react to extreme mismatches by:

Tightening match-making rules Auditing sanctioning bodies Reducing collaboration or limiting event approvals Suspending the body’s ability to sanction fights in their jurisdiction

Legislators may push for:

Federal baseline standards for fight approval Heightened medical thresholds Investigation into sanctioning fees and conflicts of interest

A Jake Paul vs. Anthony Joshua bout heightens political scrutiny because of:

Enormous media attention Celebrity connection Potential for high-profile medical crisis

This is not a low-visibility mismatch—it is a global spectacle where political figures feel pressure to respond.

2.4. Risks to Fighter Welfare and Long-Term Industry Stability

Elite fighters may reject working with sanctioning bodies that endorse dangerous mismatches. This could trigger:

Boycotts Refusal to pay sanctioning fees Increased fragmentation (fighters using independent belts or new associations)

If sanctioning bodies become synonymous with spectacle mismatches, they risk:

Loss of credible champions Long-term erosion of ranking legitimacy Devaluation of world titles

2.5. Insurance and Medical Oversight Risks

High-disparity fights create complications in:

Event insurance Medical screening sign-offs Liability coverage for catastrophic injury Underwriter willingness to insure future events involving the sanctioning body

If a case such as Paul vs. Joshua results in serious injury, insurers may classify such events as:

High-risk entertainment stunts rather than athletics Requiring expensive premiums or refusal to insure

This affects all future bouts.

3. Scenario Analysis: What Happens If…?

Scenario A: Jake Paul Defeats Anthony Joshua

3.1. Institutional Chaos

A victory by Paul—especially by knockout—creates massive reputational instability:

Rankings appear meaningless. Sanctioning integrity collapses. Fans and journalists claim “the sport is fake.” Fighters accuse the sanctioning body of corruption or incompetence.

The public will assume:

Fixing Bribery Political pressure Influence of celebrity promoters

Even if the fight is clean, the result looks illegitimate simply due to the disparity in background.

3.2. Long-Term Damage

Sanctioning bodies may face:

Broad mockery undermining future PPVs Difficulty collecting sanctioning fees Decline in mainstream credibility

A Paul victory becomes a permanent stain, similar to scandal eras in boxing history.

Scenario B: Anthony Joshua Wins Cleanly (Decision or Technical KO)

This is the least damaging scenario but still carries risks.

3.2.1. Accusations of Exploitation

Critics claim:

Paul was used as a commercial pawn The bout was competitive only on paper The sanctioning body legitimized a mismatch for money

The narrative becomes one of:

Safety concerns dismissed Rankings manipulated to justify spectacle bouts

3.2.2. Future Precedent Problem

If the fight goes acceptably, promoters will push for more:

Tyson Fury vs. influencers Deontay Wilder vs. crossover athletes Celebrity “title eliminators”

The sanctioning body becomes trapped in an escalation cycle.

Scenario C: Anthony Joshua Wins by Brutal Knockout or Catastrophic Injury

This is the nightmare scenario for a sanctioning body.

3.3.1. Regulatory Fallout

Governments may open investigations into:

Negligent matchmaking Undue commercial influence Failure to protect fighter health

Sanctioning bodies may be banned temporarily from certain jurisdictions.

3.3.2. Moral and Ethical Backlash

Media narratives would emphasize:

“A YouTuber was allowed to be beaten to death for profit.” “Boxing has abandoned all standards.”

Sponsors flee. Advertisers exit. Networks reconsider broadcasting deals.

3.3.3. Legal Exposure

Families may sue:

Sanctioning body Promoters Commissions Broadcasters

Lawsuits could run into tens of millions, as juries are sympathetic when uninformed or inexperienced participants suffer catastrophic harm.

4. Economic Considerations Versus Risk Exposure

Sanctioning bodies gain:

Sanctioning fees (up to 3% per fighter) Visibility among new audiences Influence over event structure

But financial upside is short-term compared to the long-term existential risks:

High-Revenue But High-Risk

Short-term PPV may generate $50–150 million One catastrophic injury could destroy a sanctioning body’s legitimacy for decades

Opportunity Cost

If major fighters or promoters lose trust in sanctioning bodies, they can:

Establish competitor belts Use MMA-style promotional rankings Shift to unsanctioned exhibitions

Sanctioning bodies cannot survive as mere entertainment rubber stamps.

5. Risk Mitigation Strategies

5.1. Implement Tiered Eligibility Requirements

Require a minimum level of:

Fights against ranked opponents Amateur experience Recorded rounds Medical testing Weight-class acclimation

This allows novelty fighters but creates clear developmental pathways.

5.2. Mandate Independent Safety Reviews

An independent medical board should evaluate high-risk mismatches, reviewing:

Reflex standards Cardiac screenings Sparring data Past concussions

This protects both fighters and sanctioning bodies.

5.3. Structural Safeguards for Spectacle Bouts

If high-profile mismatch fights cannot be resisted:

Do not assign world-title implications Shorten rounds (e.g., 8 rounds max) Increase glove weight Ban exhibitions from affecting rankings

This reduces reputational damage.

5.4. Communication and Transparency Reforms

Sanctioning bodies should publicly explain:

Why a fight was allowed Safety measures implemented Ranking justification

Transparent governance reduces accusations of corruption.

6. Conclusion: The Sanctioning Body’s Strategic Choice

Approving fights like Jake Paul vs. Anthony Joshua is not merely a match-making decision—it is a test of institutional identity.

Sanctioning bodies must choose between:

Short-term commercial gain, or Long-term credibility, safety, and regulatory trust

The financial upside is enormous, but the risks—legal, reputational, political, and ethical—are existential. In a system where legitimacy is everything, one catastrophic or scandalous outcome could irreversibly damage the authority of any body that approves such a matchup.

Thus, while spectacle matchups draw attention, sanctioning bodies must exercise extreme caution, enforce transparent safety standards, and avoid legitimizing contests where the risk floor is significantly elevated.