A Controversial Loss and a Contractual Right
Just last month, the boxing world witnessed a pivotal moment when Alberto Puello, defending his WBC super-lightweight title, faced the formidable Subriel Matias. The fight concluded with Matias being awarded a majority decision victory, snatching the belt from Puello`s grasp. However, the decision was not without its detractors, with many fans and observers expressing a belief that Puello had, in fact, done enough to retain his championship.
Puello, with a professional record of 24-1 (10 KOs), had been elevated to full WBC champion in June of last year. His tenure as champion, though brief, included a mandatory defense against Sandor Martin, which he won by a split decision just five months prior to his encounter with Matias. Now, in the aftermath of that loss, Puello and his trainer, Ismael Salas, are not content to simply fade into the background. They assert a critical detail: a contractual rematch clause, which they intend to activate.
The Mandatory Challenger vs. The Rematch Clause
The plot thickens with the entry of Dalton Smith. Smith, an undefeated challenger from Sheffield with a record of 18-0 (13 KOs), holds the prestigious position of the current WBC mandatory challenger. Following Matias`s win over Puello, promotional powerhouse Turki Alalshikh swiftly moved to align Matias with Smith for what promised to be a thrilling championship showdown. This bout was reportedly all but confirmed for the highly anticipated Riyadh Season card on November 22, potentially joining an already stacked lineup headlined by David Benavidez and Anthony Yarde.
However, Puello`s decision to activate his rematch clause presents a direct challenge to this grand plan. The conundrum is clear: should the WBC prioritize a contractual obligation to a recently deposed champion, or honor the established path of a mandatory challenger who has patiently earned his shot?
The WBC`s Dilemma and Puello`s Frustration
The World Boxing Council, under the leadership of President Mauricio Sulaiman, now finds itself in a precarious position. Navigating the delicate balance between contractual agreements, mandatory challenger rules, and the commercial interests of major promotional events is no simple task. Puello himself has voiced his frustration publicly, taking to social media to claim that the WBC is actively “obstructing the execution” of his rematch clause.
His argument is concise and carries a certain weight: “I gave Matias the opportunity [to fight] for the World Title. I am convinced that I won the fight… We have a rematch clause, but they are obstructing its execution. I remind Mauricio Sulaiman that I recently complied with the mandatory requirement.” This statement underscores a perceived injustice, suggesting that a champion who fulfilled his duties is now being sidelined for what might be a more commercially appealing, albeit irregularly scheduled, matchup.
The Ripple Effect: What Happens Next?
The outcome of this dispute will have significant implications for all parties involved. For Subriel Matias, his first defense of the WBC super-lightweight crown hangs in the balance. Will he face the man he just beat in a controversial decision, or the undefeated mandatory challenger who represents a fresh test? For Dalton Smith, a lifelong dream of fighting for a world title could either materialize or be frustratingly delayed. And for Alberto Puello, his entire career trajectory depends on whether his contractual rights are upheld or dismissed.
This situation highlights the often-complex nature of boxing politics, where the best-laid plans of promoters and sanctioning bodies can be tangled by the fine print of a fighter`s contract. The “sweet science” sometimes requires a good lawyer as much as a good jab. As the November 22 date draws closer, the boxing community waits with bated breath to see how the WBC will rule on this contractual standoff. Will justice, as seen by Puello, prevail, or will the path for the mandatory challenger remain clear?
Tristan Blackwood