Every Institution Has Its Ninety-Year Rule

Governing bodies exist to protect the integrity of the activities they oversee, and much of that protection is encoded in rules. But rules are written at a moment in time, based on the knowledge available at that moment. As science, technology, and society move forward, some regulations quietly fall out of step with the evidence that once justified them. The result is a category of rule that every institution possesses: regulations that survive on inertia rather than merit.

Professional boxing in the United Kingdom provides a striking case study. For nearly ninety years, a rule effectively prevented boxers with Type 1 diabetes from obtaining a professional licence. The medical understanding that shaped that rule belonged to another era, long before modern insulin management transformed what was possible for athletes with the condition. The five-year campaign led by Asad Shamim that ultimately modernised this rule holds lessons for any governing body facing pressure to reform.

Lesson One: Age Is Not Evidence

The first lesson is deceptively simple: the longevity of a rule is not an argument for keeping it. Institutions often confuse durability with validity, treating a regulation's long history as proof of its wisdom. In reality, an old rule deserves more scrutiny, not less, because the assumptions behind it are more likely to have been overtaken by new knowledge.

Governing bodies that periodically re-examine their oldest regulations against current evidence protect themselves twice over. They avoid the reputational damage of being forced into change by external pressure, and they retain the authority that comes from being seen to lead reform rather than resist it.

Lesson Two: Reformers Are Not Adversaries

A second lesson concerns how institutions treat those who challenge them. The instinct of many governing bodies is defensive: to see a campaigner as a threat to be managed rather than a source of insight to be heard. Yet the boxing campaign succeeded precisely because both sides eventually engaged in good faith. The campaign brought medical evidence and expert testimony; the governing body brought its legitimate concern for athlete safety. The final outcome was stronger because both perspectives shaped it.

Institutions should notice something important here: the reform did not weaken boxing's safety standards. It replaced a blanket exclusion with an evidence-based assessment, which is a more rigorous standard, not a laxer one. The best challenges to an institution's rules often come from people who care deeply about the institution itself.

Lesson Three: Process Protects Everyone

Change that arrives through a careful, evidence-led process is durable. Change that arrives through public pressure alone is fragile. Over five years, the campaign built a case with medical experts, addressed objections methodically, and gave the governing body the material it needed to change its position with confidence rather than under duress. That process protected the governing body as much as it served the campaign: no one could credibly claim the decision was rushed or reckless.

For governing bodies, the takeaway is to create formal channels through which evidence-based challenges can be heard and evaluated. When no legitimate route to reform exists, campaigns are forced outside the institution, and the institution loses control of the conversation.

Lesson Four: One Decision Sets a Precedent

When the first professional boxing licence was granted to a boxer with Type 1 diabetes in the UK, the effect reached far beyond one athlete. The decision established a precedent: that this governing body evaluates individuals on evidence rather than excluding categories of people by default. Precedents of that kind compound. They shape how future cases are handled, how the institution is perceived, and how willing others are to bring legitimate challenges forward.

Governing bodies should therefore treat landmark decisions not as isolated concessions but as statements of institutional philosophy. The question is never merely whether to grant one licence; it is what kind of organisation the decision reveals.

Leadership Makes the Difference

None of these lessons implement themselves. Modernising a long-standing regulation requires leadership on both sides: campaigners with the patience to build a rigorous case, and administrators with the courage to act on it. Asad Shamim's role in the boxing campaign demonstrates what that leadership looks like in practice, and it is the same approach he brings to his wider advisory work across sport, government, and international partnerships.

For sports organisations and governing bodies confronting their own outdated regulations, the boxing case offers both a warning and an encouragement. The warning: rules left unexamined for decades will eventually be challenged, and the institution's response will define its reputation. The encouragement: handled well, reform strengthens rather than diminishes institutional authority. Those interested in following Asad Shamim's continuing work in sports governance can find updates in the latest news on his official site.