Connect with us

Published

on

As the clock ticked down towards 12.01am Eastern Standard Time on 12 March, Liam Bates kept refreshing his browser.

Over the preceding weeks, Marcegaglia, the stainless steel company whose long products division he headed up, had rushed to melt and ship as much metal as it could from its furnaces in Sheffield across to the east coast of America, ahead of the imposition of tariffs.

Stainless steel

UK and US industrially interlocked

Of all the varieties of steel, stainless steel – an alloy of iron and chrome, along with other elements like nickel, molybdenum and carbon – is among the most important. Unlike most other iron alloys, which can rust when they encounter oxygen, stainless steel has a passive film that protects it from corrosion and can even self-heal. That makes it essential not just for use in sinks and cutlery (where most people will encounter it on a daily basis) but, arguably even more essential, in surgical instruments, heavy machinery and the pipes and ducts out of sight but essential to keeping civilisation working.

The trick of how to make stainless steel in large quantities was discovered here in Sheffield by Harry Brearley, and while the laboratories he worked for shut down long ago, the furnace at Marcegaglia, in an industrial park just outside the city, can trace a continuous thread back to him. This furnace used to be owned by British Steel, the nationalised corporation responsible for most of Britain’s steel manufacture until the days of privatisation.

Marcegaglia steel furnace
Image:
Marcegaglia steel furnace in Sheffield

Ever since the invention of stainless steel, Britain has melted, cast and exported vast quantities of the stuff to America. For all that the US has a sizeable stainless steel sector, the two countries’ stainless sectors have nonetheless been industrially interlocked since the days of Henry Ford. You can see it in the way Marcegaglia functions.

It melts down scrap in its electric arc furnace in Sheffield – an enormous cauldron whose electrodes create a storm of lightning that consumes the same power as a sizeable northern city – and adds the relevant alloy ingredients to form a long, heavy metallic bar, a billet as it’s known. That billet is then shipped across the Atlantic to the company’s other site, where the billets are processed into bars that are then sold into the North American market. It is a single economic organism, split only by an ocean.

But today that ocean and that cross-country split have become an enormous problem. The last time Donald Trump imposed tariffs on steel imports, back in 2018, so-called “intermediate” products like the billet made by Marcegaglia and then processed in America were excluded from the duties. This time around, the initial tariff rules had no such exemptions. The upshot was that any steel arriving in American ports after 12.01am Eastern Standard Time on 12 March – including Marcegaglia’s half-finished stainless billets – would incur hefty 25% tariffs.

A race against time

All of which was why Liam Bates had raced to get as much steel as possible into the US before that deadline. But as he refreshed his browser in the run-up to that deadline, he noticed two straggling shipments, still stuck on the Atlantic. The two ships, the Eva Marie and the Atlantic Star, were, between them, carrying about $12m of steel and they had been due to dock in the US on 10 or 11 March. If so, they would have avoided having to pay those 25% tariffs. But now storms and squalls were spreading across the North Atlantic. Would they stray into the ships’ path, disrupting shipping?

If the cargo arrived late, it would obliterate any margin the company hoped to make on its steel. And since those bars were destined for Marcegaglia’s own plant, the company would have to pay all those costs itself (tariffs are technically paid by the importer). Somehow, Bates had found himself helplessly witnessing an unexpected collision of politics and weather – with profound commercial consequences.

Of all the metal items Britain exports to the US, stainless steel is by far and away the biggest category. And the vast majority of that steel comes from the melt shop at Marcegaglia. But the quandary facing Liam Bates, and those companies he sells to in the US, helps illustrate the difficulties of economic policy-by-tariff.

Americans will see cost of most things go up

The prevailing theory behind the White House measures is that by raising the price of all imported metals, it will encourage domestic producers to build new production. It will help the US to reindustrialise – or so says Donald Trump. And in the long run, that might well prove right. Already, metals producers are raising money, promising to restart old, mothballed smelters. After all, if your main overseas competitors have seen their prices rise by 25%, that’s quite a competitive opportunity.

The problem is: building industrial production takes time. Marcegaglia itself is planning to replace its old furnace with a newer model, but the planning process has already taken years; the construction itself will be measured in months if not years too. In other words, even if everything goes to plan, America is very unlikely to replace imported steel with domestic production within the period of Donald Trump’s term as president.

In the meantime, American consumers will see the cost of pretty much everything going up. After all, steel – ignored or dismissed as it sometimes is – is the single most important metallic substance in the world. If something isn’t made of steel it’s made in machines made of steel. And lifting some of those steel prices by 25% will travel like an economic tidal wave through US supply chains.

UK flooded with cheap imported steel

The tidal wave is already washing back elsewhere too. With so much steel now unable to get into the US at a decent price, exporters are redeploying shipments elsewhere. All of a sudden countries like the UK are seeing a flood of cheap imported steel – good news in the short run for consumers, but disastrous for what is left of Britain’s domestic industry.

Sheffield Marcegaglia steel furnace

As the deadline approached and Bates nervously refreshed his live vessel tracking map, disaster struck. The squalls across the Atlantic mounted and the Eva Marie and Atlantic Star slowed nearly to a halt. By the time midnight struck and the tariffs came into place, the two vessels were still many miles off the US coast. They had lost the race. The upshot was Marcegaglia would have to pay around $4m in tariffs – about £3m.

That a company was struck with a somewhat arbitrary fee simply to pass goods from one of its factories to another might be among the most egregious examples of the collateral economic damage wrought by trade barriers, but it is likely to be the first of many perverse episodes, with consequences all around the world. For steel is not the only metal to be hit with tariffs. If anything, the drama is even greater for another metal: aluminium.

Aluminium

The world’s biggest factory – hidden in Scotland

Here’s a riddle for you: what is the biggest factory in the world?

You’re probably thinking of vast, cavernous car production lines in Michigan, of shipyards in Korea or steelworks in China. But there’s a strong case to be made that the world’s biggest factory is instead to be found deep in the Highlands of Scotland.

Not that it looks anything like a factory. To the untrained eye, it looks, instead, like heather, forests and bubbling burns of water trickling into lochs. But the 114,000 acres of estates in Lochaber and Badenoch – the third biggest rural estate in Scotland – play a crucial role in helping produce one of the most important substances in the world.

Part of the side of the mountain running into an enormous hydroelectric power station for Fort William aluminium plant
Image:
Part of the side of a mountain running into a hydroelectric power station for Fort William aluminium plant

The Fort William aluminium plant sits under the shadow of Ben Nevis, the tallest peak in the United Kingdom. Once upon a time, it was just one of a constellation of smelters dotted around Scotland, that made this country, all told, one of the world’s biggest aluminium producers.

For all that it is very prevalent in the earth’s crust, aluminium used to be one of the world’s most precious metals – so much so that no one had even laid eyes on it until the 19th century. When he wanted to impress his guests, Napoleon III served them dinner not on gold plates but on aluminium.

An extraordinary metal

Why? Because aluminium is very difficult – even harder than iron – to convert from the ores you find in the ground into its metallic form. Burn iron ore hot enough, in the right kind of furnace alongside the right kind of charcoal or coal, and you eventually smelt out a form of metal. But aluminium needs a different kind of force to be persuaded to loosen its bonds and form into a pure metal – the force of electricity.

So only when the Hall-Heroult process, which allows you to smelt aluminium via electrolysis of alumina (a processed version of the bauxite you get out of the ground), was invented in 1886 did aluminium become a widely available metal. Few people talk these days about the Hall-Heroult process, but it was a breakthrough of earth-shattering proportions. Aluminium is an extraordinary metal – strong but light. And those qualities make it essential in aeronautic deployments. No aluminium, no planes.

Fort William aluminium plant
Image:
Fort William aluminium plant

It is no coincidence that the Wright Brothers’ plane at Kitty Hawk had an engine made out of aluminium. Steel would have weighed the glider down too much. And it’s no coincidence that powered flight happened shortly after aluminium became widely available. Without the Hall-Heroult process, the world would have been a very different place.

While the process wasn’t dreamt up in the UK, British industrialists rapidly embraced it, building smelters all over the country. But the catch with aluminium is that you can’t smelt it without a big and (this is important) very reliable supply of power. Turn off the power to those enormous carbon electrodes inside an aluminium smelter and in a matter of hours the metal at its base will solidify, effectively destroying it. More than nearly any other industrial process, this is not something you can just switch off willy-nilly, which helps explain why smelters aren’t typically dependent on variable power sources like wind and solar.

It also explains why, throughout history, these plants have been seen as some of the most important industrial locations throughout the world. The Fort William plant provided most of the aluminium used in Spitfires during WWII. It was repeatedly targeted by the Luftwaffe – indeed there is an old German bomb kept as a memento just near the turbines that power the cells here.

Fort William aluminium dam
Image:
Fort William aluminium dam

Some of the world’s earliest smelters were powered by hydroelectricity – most notably the ones which drew their power from the Niagara Falls plants near Buffalo, New York. But the Fort William plant was subtly but importantly different. Those other hydro plants would typically piggyback off a big dam generating power from a big river – such as the ones you find in the US or Canada, or the fjords of Norway. But none of Britain’s rivers is quite powerful enough or with a reliable enough flow to provide that kind of uninterrupted power.

Radical design

So the designers of the Fort William plant did something radical. They bought up vast stretches of the countryside around Ben Nevis (including Ben Nevis itself). And within that estate, they built a series of dams to collect the rainwater trickling down from local watersheds. Those dams weren’t there to generate power for homes – they were there to collect the water and channel it through a series of tunnels, running 16 miles through the hills and through the flanks of Ben Nevis. Then the water, collected from those 114,000 acres, feeds five pipes running down the side of the mountain which run into an enormous hydroelectric power station.

Fort William aluminium dam

There are many aluminium smelters around the world and many hydroelectric dams. But none are quite like this one. The point being that without the estate, without all those trickling streams and heather-covered watersheds, the plant here simply wouldn’t function. It is all part of a single ecosystem.

These days the plant is connected to the national grid, meaning it also serves another function: balancing. This comes back to one of the dysfunctions of the grid: it doesn’t have enough high-voltage lines connecting Scotland, with all its wind farms, and the south. So on windy days, when there’s too much power in Scotland, instead of curtailing those farms and wasting the electricity, the plant can suck in extra power from the Scottish section of the grid and leave its water where it is as a sort of battery.

Competition from China

The problem the plant has faced is that these days aluminium is a commodity metal. And it’s becoming harder and harder to compete with the cheap metal being exported from China. China dominates the global supply of the metal, in large part because its suppliers benefit from cheap energy and generous government subsidies – neither of which are available in the UK. As the years have gone by, the workers at Fort William have watched as, one by one, every other plant in Britain was shuttered. Rumours still abound that they may eventually be next.

Fort William aluminium plant
Image:
Fort William aluminium plant

And, much as for Marcegaglia down in Sheffield, the tariffs on aluminium will only make life tougher for Alvance, the unit of Liberty House – part of Indian-born Sanjeev Gupta’s business empire – that now owns the Fort William plant. Arguably, the impact could be even greater. The last time Donald Trump imposed tariffs on aluminium back in 2018, the rate he chose was 10%. The difference with the steel tariff level (which was 25% then and now) reflected the fact that the US imported far more aluminium than steel. Imposing severe extra costs on it would, the White House worried, cripple the American aerospace and car businesses dependent on the metal. No such concern this time around. The tariff is 25%.

Quite how that will affect the plant here in the Scottish Highlands remains to be seen. After all, Alvance itself doesn’t sell anything directly to the US, sending its large slabs of metal to other firms in England which process and roll them into sheets and specialised components, some of which end up in the US. Perhaps, as the defence industry ratchets up in the coming years, more of that aluminium will be used by domestic industry. But what’s to stop UK manufacturers doing what they’ve been doing for years, and simply opting for the cheapest metal available, which usually comes from China? Either way, life for the last remaining aluminium plant in the UK is about to get harder, not easier.

But while the main upshot of the trade war building across the Atlantic and the Pacific will be to make both sides worse off – that, at least, is the prediction from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – that doesn’t mean there won’t be some beneficiaries in this country. For a small but important example, let’s travel from the far north of Britain to its far south.

Tungsten

UK has one of its biggest resources in world

Drive across Dartmoor, the windswept national park in the heart of Devon, and every so often you come across the remains of an old tin mine. At Fox Tor you find the remains of alluvial mining; there is Golden Dagger Mine, which ran all the way to the 1930s, as well as the hollow stone chimney of the pumping house at Wheal Betsy.

Hemerdon tungsten mine
Image:
Hemerdon tungsten mine

For much of the ancient era, tin – which when mixed with copper creates the alloy bronze – was what we would today call a “critical mineral”, essential for the production of the strong tools and weapons of the Bronze Age. And for centuries, the majority of Europe’s tin came from Cornwall and Devon.

That, of course, is long in the past. But just on the outskirts of Dartmoor is a site that could – just could – make this an important site for critical minerals once again. For here, beneath the soil of southwest England, is one of the world’s biggest resources of tungsten.

Tungsten among few substances on everyone’s list

Tungsten is among the 21st century’s most important critical minerals. Nearly every country has a list of these materials – the kinds of things they need to make their most important products – and the members of those lists vary by region. But tungsten is one of the few substances that feature in everyone’s list. The hardest metal in existence, with the highest melting point, it is essential in the production of hard steel tools, weapons, armour and as the electrodes inside semiconductor circuits. If you are making electronics you need tungsten. If you are going to war you need tungsten.

Hemerdon tungsten mine

Perhaps it’s no coincidence that the main heyday for this mine, which contains plenty of tin as well as tungsten, was in the First and Second World Wars. Much as the Fort William plant provided aluminium for British Spitfires, Hemerdon provided the tungsten and tin needed for the weapons Britain used to fight the Nazis. But ever since then, its history has been chequered, to say the least.

It went into hibernation for decades, a sleep broken for only a single day during the Korean War. Then, a few years ago, investors tried to get it up and running again. They built a vast processing plant and began to mine the metal. But by 2019 the operation had run out of money and imploded. All that was left was an even bigger hole in the ground, a large tailings dam for waste and a hangar filled with processing equipment.

In part, the reason Hemerdon went belly-up that time was because the company made the mistake miners often make: they misjudged the type of ore they were expecting to grind through, meaning their processing plant was far less efficient than it could have been. But an even bigger challenge came back to something that will sound familiar: they were trying to compete with China.

China dominates world tungsten production – even more so than for aluminium and steel. It essentially controls the global market and, just as importantly, the tungsten price. Anyone trying to sell tungsten is contending with Chinese prices which can yo-yo for reasons no one can entirely explain. That makes it fiendishly difficult to compete.

But in recent years, new investors have begun to put fresh funds into the Hemerdon mine, hoping history will not repeat itself and this time around it can exploit that enormous ore resource. And there are at least a couple of reasons to believe (famous last words in finance) that “this time might be different”.

The first is that, in retaliation against Donald Trump’s latest metal tariffs, China has begun to put export limits on tungsten. How this will work in practice remains unclear (remember that like most markets China controls, the way tungsten sales function is almost completely opaque) but if it encourages domestic buyers to look for local suppliers, that could help the mine to find buyers. After all, in theory, it could produce a few thousand tonnes of the metal each year, which would instantly leapfrog Britain to become the world’s second or third-biggest producer (albeit a long way down from China).

Supplies matter more than ever

The second big shift comes back to defence. With the world remilitarising, all of a sudden tungsten supplies matter more than ever. And since defence suppliers pay outsized attention to where metals come from, again, that might allow a British tungsten mine to succeed where predecessors have failed.

Add to this the fact that the mine itself is nearly ready to be exploited and that the new owners reckon they’ve ironed out the problems that beset their predecessors, and it’s a compelling case. They think they could be getting metal out of the ground as soon as next year.

But those overarching challenges haven’t gone away. And nor has another, bigger problem facing the entire industry, not just in the UK but – perhaps even more so – in the US. How can you plan in a world where you just don’t know what’s coming out of the White House in the next few days, let alone the next few years?

Consider: imagine you’re a stainless steel producer or an aluminium smelter in the US. Those 25% tariffs mean all of a sudden in theory you have a competitive advantage over anyone shipping metal into the country. All of a sudden, there’s a strong case to build a smelter or a stainless steel melting shop. So you get to work looking for backers.

Uncertainty creates challenges

But building a plant like this takes time. You need to find a site, connect it to high-voltage power, and build the facilities and all the necessary infrastructure. Best case scenario: it might take a couple of years, but even that is ambitious. And as you contemplate this and map out your plans, those backers will ask you the same nagging question you’ve been asking yourself: sure, the economics of an aluminium smelter might add up today; but what if the president changes his mind tomorrow, or next year? What if those tariffs are pulled by the next president? Then, all of a sudden, the sums very much don’t add up.

All of which is to say, uncertainty around tariffs is a challenge not just for those companies hoping to ship products to America, but for American firms hoping to benefit from this trade war. And bear in mind metals are only the first chapter of what could be a long saga, which ends up engulfing all corners of American trade. These are unpredictable times, however you look at it.

Continue Reading

Business

Chancellor Rachel Reeves expected to announce further welfare cuts in spring statement

Published

on

By

Chancellor Rachel Reeves expected to announce further welfare cuts in spring statement

Rachel Reeves will unveil further welfare cuts in her spring statement after being told the reforms announced last week will save less than planned, Sky News understands.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has rejected the government’s assessment that the package of measures, including narrowing the eligibility criteria for personal independence payments (PIP), will save £5bn.

Politics latest: Ex-Labour leader says Starmer ‘an enormous disappointment’

The fiscal watchdog put the value of the cuts at £3.4bn, leaving ministers scrambling to find further savings.

Ms Reeves is now expected to announce that universal credit (UC) incapacity benefits for new claimants, which were halved under the original plan, will also be frozen until 2030 rather than rising in line with inflation

As originally reported by The Times, there will also be a small reduction in the basic rate of UC in 2029, with the new measures expected to raise £500m.

A Whitehall source told Sky’s political editor Beth Rigby that it is “hard to tell how MPs will react”, as while the OBR’s assessment means fewer people will be affected by the PIP changes than thought, they “might be unhappy about the chaotic nature of it all”.

The government did not publish an impact assessment of the crackdown on benefits it announced last week, saying that would come alongside the spring statement on Wednesday.

Several Labour MPs criticised the measures as pushing more sick and disabled people into poverty, while former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called the package a “disgrace” on Tuesday and accused the government of imposing austerity on the country.

Watch and follow the spring statement live across Sky News from 11am

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Labour MPs are upset’

Spending cuts expected

Ms Reeves is expected to announce a large package of departmental spending cuts when she gives an update on the economy on Wednesday, potentially putting her on a further collision course with her own MPs.

Having only committed to doing one proper budget each year in the autumn, the spring statement was meant to be a low-key affair.

However, a turbulent economic climate since October means the OBR is widely expected to downgrade its growth forecasts for the UK while the government has borrowed more than previously expected.

This has wiped out the £9.9bn gap in her fiscal headroom Ms Reeves left herself at her budget last year – money she needs to make up if she wants to stick to her self-imposed fiscal rule that day-to-day spending must be funded through tax receipts, not debt, by 2029-30.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves during a visit to Bury College in Greater Manchester. Picture date: Thursday March 20, 2025. Anthony Devlin/PA Wire
Image:
Pic: PA

The chancellor has sought to blame global factors but the Conservatives blame measures like the national insurance tax hike on employers, saying this is choking business.

Shadow chancellor Mel Stride urged Ms Reeves to “use the emergency budget” to “fix her own mistakes and end Labour’s war on enterprise”.

Ms Reeves will defend her record in the spring statement, saying she is “proud” of what Labour has achieved in its first nine months in office.

However, on the eve of the statement, polling showed the public is pessimistic about what is to come.

According to More in Common, half think the cost of living crisis will never end, while YouGov found three-quarters of people want to see a tax on the richest over spending cuts.

Ms Reeves is not expected to announce any tax hikes, having said her tax-raising budget in October was a once-in-a-parliament event.

Read more:
Chancellor can make decisions now without too much fallout
Expect different focus from Reeves at spring statement

Defence increase to ‘deliver security’

In a bid to fend off criticism, she will also announce an extra £2.2bn will be spent on defence over the next year to “deliver security for working people”.

The money is part of the government’s aim to hike defence spending to 2.5% of the UK’s economic output by 2027 – up from the 2.3% where it stands now.

Ms Reeves will insist this plan, set out by the prime minister in February, was the “right decision” against the backdrop of global instability, saying it will put “an extra 6.4bn into the defence budget by 2027”.

“This increase in investment is not just about increasing our national security but increasing our economic security, too,” she will say.

The money is coming from reductions to the international aid budget and Treasury reserves, and will be used to invest in new technology, refurbish homes for military families and upgrade HM Naval Base Portsmouth.

Continue Reading

Business

UK’s fiscal position as tight as ever but expect a different focus from Rachel Reeves at the spring statement

Published

on

By

UK's fiscal position as tight as ever but expect a different focus from Rachel Reeves at the spring statement

Remember “securonomics”? It was the buzzword Rachel Reeves gave to her economic philosophy back before the election.

The idea was that in the late 2020s, the old ideas about the way we run the economy would or should give way to a new model.

For a long time, we ignored where something was made and by whom and just ordered it in from the cheapest source. For a long time, we ignored the security consequences of where we got our energy from. The upshot of these assumptions was that over time, we allowed our manufacturing base to become hollowed out, unable to compete with cheap imports from China. We allowed our energy system to become ever more dependent on cheap Russian gas.

Money blog: Supermarket puts buying limit on new Lindt version of viral chocolate

The whole point of securonomics was that it matters where something is made and who owns it. And not just that – that revitalising manufacturing and energy could help revitalise “left-behind” corners of the economy, places like the Midlands and the North East.

Back when she came up with the coinage, Joe Biden was in power and was pumping billions of dollars into the US economy via the Inflation Reduction Act – a scheme designed to encourage green tech investment. So securonomics looked a little like the British version of Bidenomics.

That’s the key point: the “security” part of “securonomics” was mostly about energy security and supply chain security rather than about defence.

More on Defence

But when Rachel Reeves became chancellor, it looked for a period as if securonomics was dead on arrival. Most glaringly, Labour dramatically trimmed back the ambition and scale of its green investment plans.

But roll on a year or so, and we all know what happened next.

A new era

The Democrats lost, Donald Trump won, came into office and swiftly triggered a chain reaction that panicked everyone in Europe into investing more in defence. Today, much of the focus among investors is not on net zero but on defence.

All of which is to say, securonomics might be about to resurface, but in a markedly different guise. In the spring statement, I expect the chancellor to bring back this buzzword, but this time, the emphasis will not be on green tech but on something else: the defence sector.

Expect to hear about weapons

This time around, the chancellor will say securonomics 2.0, which is to say government investment in the defence sector will also bring an economic windfall, as old naval ports like Plymouth and Portsmouth see regeneration. This time, the focus will not be on solar and wind but on submarines and weapons.

Whether this rendition of securonomics is any more successful than the last remains to be seen. For the chancellor hardly has an enormous amount of money left to invest. While this week’s event is billed as a mere forecast update, the reality, when you take a step back, is more serious.

Read more:
What do you need to know about the spring statement

The chancellor will have to acknowledge that, without remedial action, she would have broken her fiscal rules. She will have to confirm significant changes to policy to rebuild the “headroom” against these rules. These will stop short of tax rises. Instead, the spending envelope in future years will be trimmed (think 1.1% or so spending increases rather than 1.3% or 1.4%). Those welfare reforms announced last week will bring in a bit of extra cash. And thanks to an accounting quirk, the decision (announced a few weeks ago) to shift development spending into defence will also give her a bit more space against her rules.

The austerity question

But even these changes will raise further awkward questions: is this or is this not austerity? Certainly, for some departments, that spending cut will involve further significant sacrifices. Are those benefits gains really achievable, and at what cost? And, most ominously, what if the chancellor has to come back to parliament in another six months and admit she’s broken her rules all over again?

The return of securonomics might be the theme she wants to focus on in the coming months – but that, too, depends on having money to invest – and the UK’s fiscal position looks as tight as ever.

Continue Reading

Business

New boxing format STRIKR packs punch with $50m funding round

Published

on

By

New boxing format STRIKR packs punch with m funding round

A new boxing format which promises to eliminate often-controversial human judging decisions is in talks to raise $50m from heavyweight investors amid a broader shake-up in the funding and marketing of combat sports.

Sky News has learnt that STRIKR, which will use data-driven scoring by embedding sensors in combatants’ mouthguards and deploying technology from partners including Hawk-Eye, is in detailed talks with a large number of prospective backers about its first major funding round.

Sources said that scores of prospective investors were due to attend the first alpha test of STRIKR’s technology in action at an event to be held at The Outernet, an entertainment venue in Central London, this week.

People close to STRIKR’s development said its proprietary technology could track the exact trajectory, speed and force of punches.

This, they said, would open up huge betting market opportunities by enabling live in-play gambling, which they added would boost consumers’ engagement with the sport.

Among the architects of STRIKR are Greg Nugent, who oversaw the marketing of the London 2012 Olympic Games, and Michael Sutherland, former chief transformation officer at Real Madrid.

Stephen Duval, founder of sports and entertainment corporate finance group 23Capital and creator of Superset Tennis and Superfighter, is also among STRIKR’s co-founders.

More from Money

Sources said the initial fundraising of about $50m would be followed by a larger capital-raising as the concept gained momentum.

Oakwell Advisory, a sports-focused corporate finance firm, is advising STRIKR on its talks with investors.

They added that STRIKR had the potential to “revolutionise” boxing in the same way that T20 had changed international cricket and that data-driven technology and smarter marketing had introduced Formula One motor racing to new audiences.

STRIKR is understood to work by using artificial intelligence combined with technology from Hawk-Eye Innovations and Protecht to generate more than 3,000 points of data about each punch thrown by a boxer.

By promising to eliminate the controversy which frequently accompanies the ringside verdicts of boxing judges, the new format is likely to claim that its advent will deliver a greater level of objectivity, integrity and transparency to one of the world’s most popular sports.

Responding to an enquiry from Sky News, Mr Duval said: “STRIKR is a new format of boxing that uses world-class technology to generate real-time objective scoring.

“It will create a different approach to fighting, using a new format, enabled by new technology, to engage the existing audience and attract a new one, to the benefit of the market overall.”

Mr Duval declined to comment on the identity of the investors in discussions with STRIKR, although people close to the fundraising said it had already secured indicative commitments encompassing a sizeable chunk of the $50m target.

The company also refused to be drawn on further details of commercial partnership discussions ahead of Monday’s test event.

STRIKR fights are expected to be free to watch, including on digital platforms such as YouTube, and will incorporate features such as personalised shopping and loyalty-based premium content.

The arrival of STRIKR – which is expected to include its maiden competitive events in the UK and US next year – will come at a time when investor interest in combat sports has surged amid an influx of funding from sovereign funds and other prominent pools of capital.

An official launch of the new format is said to be planned for May, with a series of exhibition events to showcase the technology later this year.

TKO Group, which owns UFC and WWE, this month struck a deal with the Saudi General Entertainment Authority to create a new international boxing league.

The Saudi government has already sanctioned an enormous investment in the sport through the creation of the Riyadh Season to secure the hosting of some of boxing’s most lucrative fights, including December’s world heavyweight title rematch between Oleksandr Usyk and Tyson Fury, which was won by the Ukrainian.

Continue Reading

Trending