Story By: Isaac Asempah
Boxing is often celebrated for its narratives of grit, discipline, and triumph. Yet beneath the spectacle lies an industry sustained by fighters whose long-term welfare is rarely addressed once the crowds disperse. In recent years, a growing body of sports journalism—led in Ghana by journalist Bernard Djanie Neequaye—has begun to confront this contradiction by shifting attention from individual bouts to the governance systems that shape boxers’ lives before, during, and long after their careers end.
This form of reporting treats boxing as a regulated labor environment rather than a self-contained entertainment product. It interrogates how athletes are licensed, medically protected, financially compensated, and supported in retirement—questions that have historically fallen outside the scope of mainstream fight coverage. In Ghana, this approach has gained visibility largely through Neequaye’s sustained reporting, which has examined structural neglect and regulatory responsibility within the sport.
Rather than amplifying promotional narratives or championship trajectories, the journalism has focused on institutional performance. Under Neequaye’s byline, articles have scrutinized the absence of formal pension schemes, inconsistent medical monitoring, and weak enforcement mechanisms, drawing attention to how these failures affect fighters long after their earning years. By documenting these gaps, the reporting reframes boxing as a public-interest issue with measurable social consequences.
Having worked with Ghana’s state-owned Graphic Sports and Graphic Online for a decade, Neequaye extended the conversation beyond boxing audiences to include regulators, lawmakers, and sports administrators, effectively repositioning boxing coverage within a broader governance discourse. A defining moment in this reporting came with the publication of “Forgotten Champions: The Harsh Reality of Ghanaian Boxers After Retirement,” which traced the post-career realities of retired fighters, many of whom reported living with untreated injuries, financial instability, and social isolation. Their testimonies highlighted a systemic absence of long-term care frameworks and challenged the assumption that sporting success guarantees post-retirement security.
“When the fights end, so does the support,” one former boxer said in the report. “Nobody plans for what happens to us afterward.”
The public response to the article intensified scrutiny of the Ghana Boxing Authority (GBA) and related stakeholders. Following sustained discussion sparked by the report, the GBA established a Boxing Fund intended to provide assistance to retired fighters—an acknowledgment that welfare concerns highlighted in Neequaye’s reporting had been inadequately addressed. While the initiative marked progress, it also underscored how journalistic exposure, rather than proactive policy, often precipitates reform.
The reporting has further situated Ghana’s boxing challenges within an international regulatory framework. Through Neequaye’s analysis, references to governance models such as the United States’ Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act demonstrated how legislation can mitigate conflicts of interest, enhance financial transparency, and strengthen athlete protections. These comparisons framed regulation not as an abstract ideal but as a practical mechanism with real-world implications.
In addition to Neequaye’s welfare advocate for fighters, he’s had the opportunity to partake in international competitions such as the 2021 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) in Cameroon and the Birmingham Commonwealth Games in 2022 as a media officer. Across these platforms, Neequaye managed to bring coverage of two prestigious sporting events to the doorstep of Ghanaians. With all these good deeds, Neequaye was recognized by the Ghana Boxing Authority (GBA) — a Boxing Writer of the Year award for exceptional boxing journalism which reflected institutional engagement with this body of work. Yet such acknowledgment exists alongside unresolved issues, particularly regarding enforcement consistency and long-term welfare guarantees. The contrast highlights the limits of recognition without structural follow-through.
Ultimately, this evolving strand of boxing journalism—driven in large part by Bernard Djanie Neequaye—illustrates the profession’s capacity to function as a watchdog rather than a promotional echo. While journalism alone cannot enforce reform, it can expose institutional blind spots, elevate marginalized voices, and sustain public pressure.
As boxing continues to honor endurance and sacrifice inside the ring, the demand for accountability outside it grows louder. Whether the sport can translate scrutiny into lasting protections remains an open question—but one that Neequaye’s reporting has made increasingly difficult to ignore.
