THE BOXING VIDEOGAME BLUEPRINT/WISHLIST BLOG | INDUSTRY ANALYSIS & GAME DESIGN
How Can Boxing Videogame Companies Include Boxers From Every Era Without Breaking Their Budgets?
Why Exclusivity Should Be Abandoned, Why Boxers Deserve Fair Compensation, And Why Gameplay, Features, And Modes Should Sell The Game.
Introduction: Are Boxing Videogame Companies Spending Money On The Wrong Priorities?
Imagine a boxing videogame where players could experience almost every generation of boxing history.
Imagine having access to heavyweight legends from the early 1900s, the golden age of boxing, the television era, the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and today's champions.
Imagine building a boxing universe where historical champions, contenders, gatekeepers, journeymen, prospects, and amateur boxers coexist across different eras.
Now imagine doing all of that without spending an unreasonable percentage of a videogame's development budget on licensing agreements.
Is it possible? Yes, potentially. But the industry would have to reconsider how it licenses boxers, negotiates contracts, structures compensation, and determines what actually makes a boxing videogame worth purchasing.
I believe boxing videogame companies have become too dependent on recognizable names to generate excitement.
Fans spend months debating whether a particular boxer will appear in a game, which company has exclusive rights, and whether another company can sign that same boxer.
Meanwhile, more important questions often receive less attention.
Where is the groundbreaking boxing gameplay? Where are the innovative modes? Where are the extensive creation suites? Where are the deep career ecosystems that could keep gamers entertained for years?
A boxer should not have to carry a videogame. The videogame should be good enough to make people want to play it, whether their favorite boxer is included or not.
The licensed boxers should be the icing on the cake, not the cake itself.
1. The Problem With Exclusive Boxer Licensing Agreements
Exclusivity may benefit the company securing the agreement, but what does it accomplish for boxing fans?
When a boxer signs an exclusive videogame licensing agreement, competing developers may be prevented from including that boxer for the duration and scope of the contract.
That creates several potential problems.
Boxing fans may have to purchase a particular game just to play as one of their favorite boxers.
Competing games may have incomplete historical rosters.
Developers may pay premiums to secure exclusive rights.
Fans can become more concerned with roster ownership than gameplay quality.
Smaller studios may find it difficult to compete financially.
Historical boxing matchups may become unavailable because different companies control different boxers' videogame rights.
Consider the possibility of two competing boxing videogames.
One company secures exclusive rights to Muhammad Ali, while another obtains exclusive rights to Joe Frazier.
What happens to gamers who want to recreate their historic rivalry with officially licensed versions of both men?
They may be unable to do so in either game.
That is not an ideal outcome for boxing fans or for the historical representation of the sport.
My position is simple:
Boxers should not sign exclusive videogame likeness agreements that prevent their inclusion in competing boxing games.
I understand that a boxer, their representatives, or their estate may view exclusivity as an opportunity to negotiate higher compensation.
But non-exclusive licensing can create opportunities to earn money from multiple games rather than one.
It does not guarantee greater earnings, but it provides additional potential revenue sources and broader exposure.
There is also a significant difference between compensating a boxer fairly and allowing licensing competition to consume development resources that could have improved the game itself.
2. Why Licensing Costs Can Become A Serious Problem
Licensing a boxer does not necessarily involve one simple payment.
Depending on the agreement, a developer might negotiate rights covering the boxer's name, likeness, voice, signature characteristics, promotional appearances, historical representations, and other protected elements.
There may also be additional costs for:
Contract negotiations and legal reviews.
Facial and body scanning.
Motion capture and animation reference.
Multiple historical versions of the boxer.
Marketing appearances.
Rights renewals and royalties.
Negotiations with estates or other rights holders.
Not every agreement contains all these expenses. Contract terms and applicable laws vary.
Nevertheless, the financial concern is real.
In a February 2024 interview with Insider Gaming, Steel City Interactive CEO Ash Habib discussed the difficulty of obtaining licenses when a requested fee reaches eight figures.
That raises a critical question.
How much gameplay development could a studio finance with the money it might spend acquiring one particularly expensive licensing agreement?
Could that money support better boxing AI? More authentic punch mechanics? A more sophisticated career ecosystem? A deeper creation suite?
This is not an argument that real boxers deserve less compensation.
It is an argument for developing a more sustainable licensing structure.
3. Create A Boxing-Wide Non-Exclusive Licensing Program
One of the most promising alternatives would be a voluntary, standardized licensing system.
Imagine an independent program called the Boxing Videogame Licensing Cooperative.
This would be a proposed business model, not an organization that currently operates as described.
Its objective would be to make boxer licensing less complicated, more accessible, and more affordable for participating developers.
Boxers, their authorized representatives, and estates could voluntarily register their available licensing rights.
Participating videogame companies could then negotiate from a standardized framework rather than starting every agreement from scratch.
Such a program could offer:
Standard non-exclusive licensing agreements.
Transparent royalty calculation methods.
Optional fixed-fee compensation.
Different licensing packages for independent studios and major publishers.
Clearly defined territories, platforms, and contract durations.
Separate permissions for historical versions and promotional uses.
Centralized records of authorized rights holders.
A dispute-resolution process.
Transparent reporting and auditing.
Renewal opportunities without mandatory exclusivity.
The cooperative would not automatically possess anyone's likeness rights. Each participant would need to authorize the specific rights being licensed.
It would also require independent legal oversight and safeguards against anticompetitive conduct. Developers and rights holders should remain free to negotiate independently.
Why this approach matters
Instead of paying a premium primarily to prevent a competitor from using a boxer, developers could direct more of their investment toward the product.
Participating boxers could potentially appear in several games simultaneously.
And gamers could choose which boxing videogame they prefer based on gameplay quality.
That is the competitive environment I would rather see.
4. Introduce Flexible Compensation Models For Boxers
Not every boxer needs the same financial arrangement.
There are legends with enormous commercial value, current champions, retired contenders, forgotten historical figures, and boxers who never received the recognition they deserved.
A single rigid pricing structure would not adequately reflect those differences.
Here are several proposed compensation models.
Licensing model | How it works | Potential advantage |
|---|---|---|
Fixed-fee license | Agreed payment for defined rights and duration | Predictable cost |
Royalty-based license | Boxer receives a contractually defined revenue share | Lower upfront expense |
Hybrid agreement | Smaller upfront fee plus royalties | Shares financial risk |
Multi-game non-exclusive license | Boxer licenses likeness to several developers | Multiple revenue opportunities |
Estate agreement | Authorized rights holder licenses a deceased boxer's likeness | Historical representation |
Optional promotional agreement | Separate pay for advertising or appearances | Keeps basic licensing distinct |
Revenue-sharing agreements would need clearly defined accounting, reporting, and audit requirements.
One model I find particularly interesting is a reasonable upfront payment combined with a long-term royalty opportunity.
If a game becomes commercially successful, participating boxers could benefit from that success.
But developers would also need to avoid agreements that create unsustainable royalty obligations.
The object is fairness and sustainability for both parties.
5. Stop Treating Every Boxer Like A Marketing Superstar
Some boxing videogame companies appear to treat their rosters as major competitive selling points.
A studio might advertise that it has dozens or hundreds of licensed boxers.
But I want to ask something more important.
How many of those boxers are actually represented like the real individuals they are supposed to be?
What is the value of including 150 licensed boxers if many use nearly identical punches, defenses, footwork, reactions, or fighting tendencies?
Are we building a realistic boxing videogame, or are we collecting digital action figures with recognizable names?
A licensed boxer should be more than a facial scan with a rating attached.
His or her individual boxing identity should matter.
That includes:
Signature punches and combinations.
Authentic offensive and defensive tendencies.
Ring intelligence and adaptability.
Footwork, rhythm, positioning, and balance.
Historical versions with distinct capabilities.
Clinching and inside-fighting characteristics.
Durability, recovery, pacing, and stamina management.
Personality, mannerisms, and recognizable behavior.
A boxer who primarily uses a jab to control distance should not behave identically to a boxer who relies on pressure, infighting, and devastating body punches.
A defensive counterpuncher should not feel identical to an aggressive knockout artist.
If developers cannot authentically distinguish their licensed boxers, what exactly are gamers paying for besides the names?
6. Use A Shared Boxer Development Framework To Reduce Production Costs
Licensing is only one part of the expense.
A studio also needs to create boxer models, animations, ratings, tendencies, and AI behaviors.
That can become extremely costly when hundreds of boxers are involved.
However, developers should not need to build every boxer entirely from scratch.
They could develop a modular boxer architecture.
Proposed Modular Boxer Architecture
Shared Boxing Simulation Engine
Movement, physics, defense, punches, stamina, AI, officiatingBoxer Identity
Name, likeness, era, physical characteristics
Boxer Capabilities
Speed, power, accuracy, balance, endurance
Behavior Profile
Tendencies, tactics, personality, ring IQ
Signature Library
Unique punches, defenses, mannerisms
Individual Boxer Versions
Amateur, early professional, prime, late-career, historical variationsThis could provide a foundation for creating hundreds of individualized boxers without developing entirely separate gameplay systems for every participant.
Developers would still need research, quality assurance, and specialized animations for boxers whose techniques are unique.
The key is to reuse common infrastructure without sacrificing individuality.
AI-assisted production tools might also help with data organization, reference preparation, and certain asset workflows, provided developers respect likeness rights, source rights, and applicable agreements.
Technology should be used to reduce repetitive production costs, not to erase what makes individual boxers unique.
7. Include Boxers From Every Era Through A Historical Licensing Initiative
Boxing's history is much bigger than the athletes currently appearing on television or social media.
A serious boxing videogame should recognize that.
The Early Boxing Eras
Fighters such as Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey would help introduce modern audiences to the sport's earlier generations, including their styles, equipment, rules, and historical circumstances.
The 1940s Through The 1960s
Sugar Ray Robinson, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, and many other greats helped establish boxing traditions that deserve proper representation.
The 1970s Through The 1990s
The great heavyweight rivalries, the Four Kings, and the rise of fighters such as Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield provide a tremendous foundation for historical matchups.
The 2000s Through Today
Modern boxing history should include men and women across weight classes, amateur achievements, champions, contenders, and overlooked competitors. Athletes such as Claressa Shields represent important parts of that history.
A comprehensive historical licensing initiative could prioritize boxers by era, weight class, fighting style, geographic representation, and documentary value.
It should also include women's boxing history, not just contemporary women's champions.
Legends such as Laila Ali, Ann Wolfe, Lucia Rijker, and Christy Martin should be considered alongside many others.
But developers must recognize that historical material is not necessarily free to use.
A deceased boxer's name or likeness may still be protected under applicable rights-of-publicity laws, estate arrangements, or other legal protections. Photographs, archival footage, and audio can carry separate rights.
The goal should be legitimate, affordable licensing, not bypassing rightful compensation.
8. Give Lesser-Known Boxers An Opportunity To Participate
Why should licensing programs concentrate so heavily on former world champions and globally recognized stars?
Boxing has thousands of athletes whose stories deserve to be told.
Some were contenders. Some were gatekeepers. Some were journeymen who fought future champions.
Others were exceptional amateurs who never achieved professional recognition.
A realistic boxing videogame needs all these types of competitors.
Not everyone can be a world champion. A believable career ecosystem requires an entire boxing community.
I would propose an optional Boxer Participation Program where eligible boxers can apply to license their likeness.
A verified application process could allow them to submit biographical information, career records, boxing footage they have the rights to share, photographs, and fighting-style information.
Developers could then assess potential inclusion based on licensing availability, production resources, historical relevance, and roster needs.
This could help expand the roster without depending entirely on expensive celebrity agreements.
However, participation would not automatically guarantee inclusion or payment. These conditions would need to be established in advance.
And a licensing agreement must never become an excuse to exploit boxers who are less commercially established.
9. Build A Career Ecosystem That Does Not Depend On Licensed Superstars
This might be the most important part of the entire discussion.
A properly designed boxing career ecosystem should function even if the videogame has no licensed boxers whatsoever.
Think about what that means.
You create a boxer, start in the amateur ranks, progress through tournaments, and eventually turn professional.
You enter an evolving boxing world populated by fictional and licensed athletes.
Managers scout prospects.
Promoters negotiate contracts.
Gym owners recruit trainers.
Matchmakers organize fights.
Sanctioning bodies rank contenders.
Champions defend titles.
Boxers age, improve, decline, retire, and get replaced by newly generated talent.
Rivalries emerge because of actual gameplay events.
Your created boxer might lose an amateur tournament to someone who eventually becomes a world champion.
Years later, those two boxers could meet again for a professional championship.
That is a naturally generated story.
You do not need to spend millions licensing an international superstar to make that experience enjoyable.
What makes the ecosystem valuable?
The interconnected systems, including scouting, progression, training, coaching, injuries, matchmaking, promotions, financial management, records, rankings, rivalries, and historical continuity.
Licensed athletes could enrich that environment, but they should not be required for it to function.
If one licensed boxer disappears because an agreement expires, the entire career ecosystem should not collapse.
And if all the fictional boxers were removed, licensed names alone should not be expected to replace that depth.
This is why I continue to emphasize systems over celebrity rosters.
10. Give Players An Extensive Creation Suite
Another important method for expanding the game's boxing universe is through a properly developed creation suite.
Gamers should be able to create fictional boxers, amateur prospects, gyms, trainers, managers, promoters, referees, judges, organizations, and championships.
They should also be able to establish alternate boxing histories, customize weight classes, and generate or edit fictional boxing records.
A robust creation suite can dramatically increase replay value.
But there must be a clear legal distinction between creating fictional characters and distributing unauthorized reproductions of real people.
Developers should provide legitimate fictional creation tools and appropriate policies for online sharing.
They should not market the creation suite as a way to circumvent boxer likeness agreements.
Even without recreating real athletes, a powerful creation suite can give players enough flexibility to construct entirely new boxing generations.
A great boxing game should be able to develop its own legendary boxers through gameplay.
11. The Financial Argument: Where Should The Budget Go?
Consider a hypothetical boxing videogame development budget of $40 million.
The following comparison is illustrative, not an estimate of EA's, SCI's, or any other company's actual spending.
Illustrative Budget Allocation
Two fictional approaches to the same $40 million budget
Roster-Heavy Strategy
$40M total
Licensing: $14M
Gameplay & AI: $10M
Modes & Creation: $6M
Other Production: $10M
Systems-First Strategy
$40M total
Licensing: $4M
Gameplay & AI: $16M
Modes & Creation: $10M
Other Production: $10M
In this hypothetical comparison, the systems-first strategy redirects $10 million from licensing toward gameplay, AI, career systems, and creation tools.
Would that automatically produce a better boxing videogame? No.
Execution, engineering quality, management, licensing negotiations, and production efficiency still matter.
But it illustrates the opportunity cost of spending large amounts on roster acquisition.
The important financial question is not simply how many boxers a company can afford.
It is how much value each expenditure contributes to the complete product.
12. Licensing Should Be A Partnership, Not An Arms Race
Companies should also explore licensing partnerships with retired boxers' associations, individual representatives, historical archives, gyms, and estates.
Properly negotiated multi-person agreements could reduce duplicated administrative work.
However, none of these partnerships would automatically authorize a developer to use every athlete associated with an organization.
Rights must be verified individually or through a party with appropriate licensing authority.
Developers could also negotiate agreements limited to particular game functions.
For example, a boxer might approve inclusion as a playable character without agreeing to appear in advertisements or to have their voice reproduced.
That distinction matters.
A smaller, clearly defined licensing package might cost less than a comprehensive agreement involving worldwide advertising rights, commercial endorsements, and multiple promotional commitments.
Another approach would be to limit licensing duration to a reasonable period, with optional renewal clauses.
Non-exclusive licensing could be especially useful here.
Rather than spending money to keep competitors from using a boxer, companies would invest in creating a better representation of that boxer.
13. Why Better Gameplay Could Benefit The Boxers Themselves
There is something else worth considering.
Suppose a company pays a substantial amount to license a legendary boxer.
That boxer appears in the game, but his punches, footwork, defense, intelligence, and mannerisms barely resemble his actual boxing style.
Is that really a good representation of his legacy?
I would argue that accurate representation should be part of the value proposition for both the boxer and the game developer.
A boxer should want his digital representation to reflect who he was in the ring.
Imagine younger gamers discovering Sugar Ray Robinson through a videogame that accurately demonstrates his rhythm, timing, combinations, and footwork.
Or discovering the tactical brilliance of Joe Louis, the defensive expertise of Pernell Whitaker, or the pressure fighting of Roberto Durán.
That is an opportunity for entertainment and boxing education.
A serious boxing videogame could help preserve the history of the sport.
The more faithfully those athletes are represented, the more valuable that experience becomes.
Of course, this would require historical research, expert review, and sufficient development resources.
Simply licensing a name does not accomplish it.
14. What Can EA, Steel City Interactive, And Future Boxing Developers Learn?
The licensing discussion is particularly relevant when examining established companies and emerging developers.
Steel City Interactive's Undisputed demonstrates the emphasis that can be placed on recognizable athletes. The game's official materials advertise more than 100 licensed playable fighters.
That is a substantial roster.
But the presence of licensed boxers does not, by itself, establish how realistic, deep, or enjoyable the complete boxing experience is.
Those questions require independent gameplay analysis and testing.
For EA, SCI, and any future competitor, I believe the priorities should be reconsidered.
Companies should ask:
Can our boxing engine accurately reproduce multiple boxing styles and generations?
Can we make career mode enjoyable without depending on licensed champions?
Can we implement an extensive creation suite?
Can we support boxer individuality rather than generic animation packages?
Can we reduce licensing costs through non-exclusive agreements?
Can we financially justify every licensing deal?
Can we create enough content to keep the game entertaining without continuously selling boxer packs?
Can we preserve a playable offline experience when licenses expire?
And perhaps the most important question:
If we removed every famous boxer from our videogame, would the underlying product still be worth purchasing?
If the answer is no, developers should investigate why.
15. A Realistic Industry Roadmap
Here is how I would approach building a boxing videogame that could eventually represent many generations of the sport.
Phase | Development priority |
|---|---|
1. Core gameplay | Build realistic boxing mechanics, physics, movement, defense, AI, and officiating |
2. Boxer architecture | Create modular data and behavior systems supporting distinctive boxers |
3. Career ecosystem | Develop a self-sustaining boxing world with fictional competitors |
4. Creation suite | Give gamers extensive offline editing and customization |
5. Licensing framework | Negotiate standardized, voluntary, non-exclusive agreements |
6. Historical expansion | Add licensed boxers across eras, weight classes, and genders |
7. Authenticity review | Validate historical styles, capabilities, and individual behaviors |
8. Sustainable updates | Expand rosters without undermining gameplay investment or offline functionality |
This strategy would not guarantee that every historical boxer could be included.
Some rights holders might decline. Some licenses might remain prohibitively expensive. Others might be legally uncertain or unavailable.
But it could establish a sustainable process for gradually building a broad historical roster.
That would be more constructive than making the entire game's commercial appeal depend on a few headline names.
16. My Message To The Boxers
I also want to address the boxers directly.
Your name, likeness, career, achievements, and legacy belong to you or the parties legally entitled to control those rights.
You deserve fair compensation when a videogame company uses them commercially.
But I would encourage you and your representatives to examine the long-term opportunities provided by non-exclusive agreements.
Why restrict your potential presence to one videogame when several companies might be willing to compensate you?
Why not negotiate an arrangement that allows you to appear in multiple products, reach different audiences, and potentially generate several revenue streams?
There may be circumstances where an exclusive offer is financially more attractive. Every athlete must evaluate that independently.
But I believe wider participation is better for boxing videogames as a whole.
Your legacy should not become a tool used primarily to prevent competition.
And when developers do include you, demand more than an accurate face.
Demand authentic movement, technique, tendencies, and behavior.
Your boxing identity deserves to be represented correctly.
17. My Message To The Gaming Community
Stop allowing roster announcements to overshadow conversations about gameplay innovation.
I understand wanting your favorite boxer included.
I understand the excitement surrounding legendary names and dream matchups.
But there is something fundamentally wrong when fans spend more time celebrating licensing announcements than demanding better boxing mechanics, smarter AI, deeper career modes, and innovative features.
A videogame company should not be able to distract fans from deficiencies in its underlying product simply by announcing another famous boxer.
I am not saying licensing announcements are inherently a distraction, or that companies acquire boxers specifically to mislead consumers.
I am saying the community should not allow roster marketing to substitute for substantive gameplay evidence.
Before celebrating another name, ask whether that boxer will actually behave like himself in the ring.
Ask whether his era, techniques, and individual characteristics will be respected.
And ask whether the developer has created a boxing game worthy of the athlete's legacy.
Conclusion: Sell Us A Great Boxing Videogame, Not Just A Collection Of Famous Names
My vision for boxing videogames has never been limited to having hundreds of licensed names.
I want a realistic boxing experience that respects the sport, understands its history, and gives gamers the ability to participate in an evolving boxing world.
I want developers to use technology intelligently to make the experience deeper, more authentic, and more sustainable.
I want a game in which a fictional journeyman can become a fan favorite because of his boxing style, toughness, and unexpected career accomplishments.
I want historical champions to fight like their real-life counterparts, not merely resemble them.
I want a career ecosystem capable of producing its own stories, rivalries, legends, and boxing history.
And I want boxing videogame companies to compete over which one creates the best boxing experience, not which one can prevent its competitor from licensing a famous boxer.
Exclusivity should not be the foundation of boxer licensing. Non-exclusive opportunities should become the industry preference.
Boxers should receive fair compensation. Developers should have sustainable licensing costs. And gamers should receive products that justify their investment.
A great boxing videogame should be able to stand on its own two feet.
The boxers are an important part of the overall presentation, but gameplay, modes, features, authenticity, and replay value should be what ultimately make the videogame successful.
Build the cake first. Make sure the cake is worth eating. Then put the icing on it.
Because no matter how many famous boxers appear on the roster, a poorly developed boxing videogame is still a poorly developed boxing videogame.
Final Question For Boxing Fans, Developers, Publishers, And Investors
Would you rather have a boxing videogame with 200 licensed boxers but shallow gameplay, limited features, and a basic career mode?
Or would you rather have a deeply developed, realistic boxing videogame with 50 licensed boxers, an extensive creation suite, authentic boxer individuality, and a career ecosystem capable of keeping you entertained for years?
And what if smart, non-exclusive licensing could eventually give you both?
That is the direction I believe the industry should investigate.
Editorial perspective: The cooperative, compensation frameworks, and development roadmap above are proposals. Actual licensing costs, commercial outcomes, and legal permissions depend on individual agreements and jurisdictions.
Written For The Boxing Videogame Blueprint/Wishlist Blog
The Boxing Videogame Blueprint/Wishlist Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment