Imagine a legendary boxer, hailed as one of the greatest in history, stepping away from the ring only to be lured back by the siren call of financial necessity—despite having just embarked on a new chapter as a political powerhouse. That's the gripping tale of Manny Pacquiao, whose decision to unretire in 2016 sparks endless debate. But here's where it gets controversial: Was his return a savvy move or a desperate gamble, especially when fans and critics alike questioned if he should have stayed retired after his lackluster showdown with Floyd Mayweather?
Back in 2016, Manny Pacquiao emerged from a short-lived retirement, a move that surprised many in the boxing world. Critics have been vocal about the idea of him facing Floyd Mayweather for a rematch, especially given how their first bout in 2015 left such a bitter taste—many felt it marked the twilight of both fighters' careers. And this is the part most people miss: Even after that memorable showdown, Pacquiao has repeatedly declared his boxing days over, only to keep lacing up the gloves and proving everyone wrong.
One pivotal shift in 2016 signalled he might truly be done for good—this time, he transitioned into politics, becoming a Senator in the Philippines. For beginners wondering what that means, think of it as stepping from the adrenaline-fueled chaos of the boxing ring into the structured, policy-driven world of government. It was a massive career pivot, especially right after he'd beaten Timothy Bradley in their final match in April of that year, during which he claimed retirement yet again.
Yet, the allure of the fight game proved too strong, and Pacquiao admitted his comeback was driven largely by money matters. Despite his new role in the Senate, which came in May, he explained that boxing remained his primary income source. He couldn't depend solely on his public official salary to support his family, including his wife's relatives, and even help out those who approached him for assistance. It's a candid admission that humanizes the champ—showing how even icons face real financial pressures, especially in a sport where earnings can fluctuate wildly.
This led to his fight against Jessie Vargas at the Thomas & Mack Center in Nevada, aiming for his second straight win after the Mayweather loss. For context, the WBO, or World Boxing Organization, is one of the major sanctioning bodies in boxing, and this bout crowned Pacquiao as the new WBO welterweight champion—a title that signifies dominance in the 147-pound division. And get this: He did it all while juggling Senate duties, which some argue could have been a distraction, yet he emerged victorious with a unanimous decision, earning scores of 118-109 from two judges.
To add some modern flair, picture this tweet from SportsCenter back on November 6, 2016: 'Manny Pacquiao defeats Jessie Vargas by unanimous decision, becoming the new welterweight champion after coming out of retirement.' It captured the moment perfectly, highlighting his triumphant return.
But alas, Pacquiao's winning streak didn't endure. His political journey continued until he ran for president in 2022, but in boxing, things took a downturn. After the Vargas win, he was rumored to face big names like Amir Khan, yet he suffered a shocking, highly debated loss to the relatively unheralded Jeff Horn in July 2017. This defeat is still a hot topic—many believe Pacquiao was robbed, citing poor officiating, while others argue it was a sign his skills were waning. He rebounded with three straight victories, culminating in a notable win over Keith Thurman in 2019, which stands as his last triumph to date.
Do you think Pacquiao's financial motivations justify returning to boxing despite his political commitments? Or is it a betrayal of his own retirement promises? Share your thoughts in the comments—I'm curious to hear if you side with the critics or defend his choices. What controversies in his career stand out to you, and could there be a counterpoint that his multi-role lifestyle actually made him a better fighter? Let's discuss!
