MARK WILSON/NEWSMAKERS Ever successful in firing up the American media, boxer Mike Tyson now draws criticism overseas.

ELItorial

Now on pay-per-view: Tyson v. Brits

The British government dropped a bombshell on the sports world on Tues., Jan. 11 when it announced that Tyson might not be allowed into the country for a fight because of stringent immigration laws. According to British rules, anyone who has been convicted of a crime carrying a sentence of 12 months or more may not enter the country unless there are "compassionate grounds" to waive the restriction. In the Tyson case, the so-called "compassionate grounds" were purely financial. Fight promoters argued that Tyson would be bankrupted if he were not allowed to fight. Small businesses around Manchester, England—the site of Tyson's next match—would be crippled by the financial loss. Along with the monetary issues, promoters said that holders of the 21,000 tickets sold for the bout would be irreparably crushed by its cancellation—even though their money would be refunded.

These arguments, unfortunately, hold no water. No one has ever had his life ruined by the fact that he was unable to attend a boxing match. The ticketholders would get their money back and go about their normal lives. As for nearby small businesses, the financial impact should not be overstated. It is not as if these businesses were promised a set amount of money that would substantially change their profits. A restaurant can serve only so many people in a single evening, a hotel can fill only so many rooms for a one-night stay.

The true problem is not even that the grounds for Tyson's exception from the rules were so shaky—it's that the British government tried to deny that its own laws could be broken for financial reasons. Soon after government officials announced the potential problem, they cried to the media that they had never given Tyson permission to come into the country in the first place. However, it only took two days for Straw to find "compassionate grounds" that would allow Tyson into England. Straw said that he was allowed to exercise his discretion as far as the law was concerned, and a judge agreed, refusing to hear a protest of the decision from a women's group. The group had a valid argument that won them immediate support around the world and the British government, while on one hand promoting anti-domestic violence and sexual assault programs, was at the same time allowing a convicted and unrepentant rapist into the country under false pretenses.

Tyson and his promoters are hardly without blame in this matter. Laws like this one are not uncommon around the world; anyone planning a fight on international turf would naturally have investigated the immigration laws of the host country. If Britain, as they claim, had never given permission for the fight, what right did Tyson's agents have to sell tickets for the bout in the first place? They should not have publicized the fight without first securing the blessing of the British government.

Tyson himself was not exactly sympathetic to Britain's dilemma. In typical Tyson fashion, he made it clear that no matter what the government decided, he would still try to come to England to fight. He dared the government to try to find a customs official willing to stand up to him and deny him entry. This is the same person for whom the British were willing to break their own rules? All they did was open themselves to worldwide criticism and give boxing promoters exactly what they wanted—more publicity.

This debacle has embarrassed both the sporting world and the British government. It should not have been a subject that emerged two weeks before the fight. It should have been dealt with much earlier, and if the laws were followed to the letter—Tyson should never have been allowed anywhere near the British Isles.

Back to Sports...