The word mandatory gets thrown around constantly in boxing. It’s usually said with frustration.

“He’s ducking the mandatory.”

“He’s being forced to fight the mandatory.”

“That fight can’t happen because of the mandatory.”

But once you actually dig into the rulebooks of the World Boxing Association, World Boxing Council, International Boxing Federation and World Boxing Organization, you realise one thing quickly:

The boxing mandatory challenger rules are not one clean system. They’re four similar-but-different systems trying to coexist in one sport.

This follows on from my breakdown of how world rankings actually work, because you can’t understand mandatories without understanding how contenders get ranked in the first place.

So let’s strip it back properly — and then look at how it plays out in real careers.

What “Mandatory” Is Supposed to Mean

Under standard boxing mandatory challenger rules, a champion must defend against a designated contender within a set timeframe.

If they refuse?

They risk being stripped.

That’s the safeguard. It exists to stop champions endlessly taking easy voluntary defences and avoiding deserving contenders.

In theory, it protects sporting merit.

In practice, it operates inside a sport driven by negotiation, timing and money.

Why The Four Bodies Make It Confusing

Each sanctioning body has its own variation:

• The International Boxing Federation is generally the strictest. It often enforces eliminators and has stripped champions for non-compliance.
• The World Boxing Council allows more flexibility, including step-aside agreements.
• The World Boxing Organization uses committee discretion alongside rankings.
• The World Boxing Association complicates everything further with Super, Regular and Interim titles.

So when fans argue about boxing mandatory challenger rules, they’re often arguing about four different rulebooks at once.

And that’s before we even get to politics.

When Mandatories Protect the Sport

Let’s start with a clean example.

The Fight That Collapsed Because the Mandatory Said No

In 2021, Anthony Joshua and Tyson Fury were close to agreeing a historic undisputed heavyweight fight.

It would have been massive.

But the WBO mandatory — Oleksandr Usyk — enforced his position.

The WBO backed him.

Joshua had to defend.

The Fury fight collapsed.

That is boxing mandatory challenger rules working exactly as designed. Sporting order over spectacle.

Usyk got his shot.

He won.

History shifted.

Sometimes the system does its job.

When Mandatories Stall a Career

Now let’s flip it.

Joshua’s First Reign: Business vs Obligation

During his first heavyweight title reign, Anthony Joshua repeatedly spoke about wanting certain fights — including unification bouts that fans were desperate for.

Instead, he often found himself tied to mandatory defences, particularly under the IBF structure.

From a sporting perspective, that’s fair.

From a commercial perspective, it can stall momentum.

Big fights sometimes couldn’t materialise because negotiations had to pause while a mandatory was satisfied.

This is the part fans don’t always see: boxing mandatory challenger rules can protect contenders — but they can also freeze the market.

Joshua wasn’t ducking anyone.

He was navigating obligations.

When Money Jumps the Queue

Here’s the uncomfortable truth.

Sometimes the mandatory challenger isn’t the biggest fight.

And when a mega-event generates significantly more revenue, sanctioning bodies often allow:

• Step-aside agreements
• Delays
• Temporary exceptions for unifications

You see it across divisions. A blockbuster fight appears, and suddenly the mandatory timeline stretches.

Is that corruption?

Not necessarily.

It’s business.

But when the bigger fight consistently jumps ahead of the mandatory challenger, you have to ask how rigid the boxing mandatory challenger rules really are.

When Money Jumps the Queue

Here’s the uncomfortable truth.

Sometimes the mandatory challenger isn’t the biggest fight.

And when a mega-event generates significantly more revenue, sanctioning bodies often allow:

• Step-aside agreements
• Delays
• Temporary exceptions for unifications

You see it across divisions. A blockbuster fight appears, and suddenly the mandatory timeline stretches.

Is that corruption?

Not necessarily.

It’s business.

But when the bigger fight consistently jumps ahead of the mandatory challenger, you have to ask how rigid the boxing mandatory challenger rules really are.

Would One Unified System Fix This?

Here’s the dream scenario:

One governing structure.

One set of rankings.

One set of mandatory rules.

Clear timelines. No grey areas.

But this is boxing.

The four major bodies can’t even agree on structural basics across the sport — including consistent standards in areas like women’s round length — so expecting full alignment on unified mandatory frameworks is unrealistic.

Each body protects its sanctioning fees.

Each body protects its autonomy.

Each body protects its leverage.

And that’s why the boxing mandatory challenger rules remain fragmented.

The Honest Bottom Line

Mandatory challenger rules aren’t pointless.

Without them, champions could avoid risk indefinitely.

But they aren’t absolute either.

They operate inside a commercial ecosystem where:

• Money influences timing
• Politics influences enforcement
• Negotiation influences order

Sometimes they protect the sport.

Sometimes they stall it.

Sometimes they quietly bend.

Understanding that tension is key.

Are These Explainers Worth It — Or Are We Just Exposing the Chaos?

Let’s be honest — we’ve done a few of these lately.

World rankings.

Mandatory challenger rules.

Governance.

Selection processes.

None of it is glamorous. None of it goes viral. But all of it shapes the fights we either get — or don’t get.

So here’s the real question:

Are these explainers helping you make sense of the sport?

Or are they simply proving how fragmented boxing governance really is?

Because the more you dig into the rulebooks, the clearer it becomes that boxing isn’t one unified system. It’s four separate power structures trying to operate in the same division at the same time.

And if fans don’t understand that, frustration gets aimed in the wrong direction.

If you’ve found these breakdowns useful, let me know in the comments on CMBoxing. If there’s another part of the sport’s rulebook you want unpacked properly, tell me that too.

Share the piece if you think more fans need clarity rather than conspiracy.

And keep checking back on the site — because if we’re going to criticise boxing, we should at least understand how it actually works first.