A very long view pn the closure of Miyagino beya and Enhou
Moti Dichne
OK, this is very long and only half of the article, but it is intriguing and worth the read. Part two coming at some point..
Following this Miyagino beya closure news, some media outlets and public opinion, mainly on social media, have erupted with extremely emotional criticism of the Kyokai, calling it "a persistent attempt by the Kyokai to exclude Hakuhou" and "a sneak attack." However, do these arguments truly capture the essence of the situation? If we calmly analyze this from the perspective of organizational management and the "formality and aesthetic sense as a sacred ritual" inherent in sumo, it becomes clear that this decision is not "unjust oppression," but rather an extremely reasonable and inevitable "execution of governance" to maintain organizational discipline.
The Perversion of a Former Organization Member Speaking of "Future Domination"
Many media outlets, in a sympathetic tone, have quoted the remarks made by former Hakuhou at a press conference in June 2025, when he voluntarily resigned from the Kyokai. During the press conference, he expressed the following intention: "If someone from the former Miyagino beya emerges who will inherit the name, I will transfer the name to them, and I will do my utmost to ensure that their descendants can one day revive Miyagino beya." At first glance, this might sound like a heartwarming story of concern for his disciples and the future of the heya. However, if one considers this in light of corporate governance and organizational theory, it becomes immediately clear how illogical and "presumptuous" this statement is. First of all, why did former Miyagino Oyakata have to leave the Kyokai? This stems from a violent incident involving a deshi at Miyagino beya, and the fact that, despite being the Shisho, he failed to handle the situation properly and, unbelievably, attempted to cover it up using his entourage, demonstrating a fatal lack of competence as a leader and administrator. His own governance failure caused immense damage to the organization, forcing the heya to close (or be placed under temporary custody), and as a result, he himself left the organization through "voluntary resignation." Despite this, why does a retired person speak publicly as if he still has the power to decide on matters such as the "elder name (Miyagino)," which is an internal asset of the Kyokai, and the "restoration of the heya," which is authorized and managed by the Kyokai? This is an extremely absurd overreach of authority from an organizational perspective. In professional sumo, the authorization of "elder names" and the "establishment and restoration of sumo heyas" are not the property of a private individual, but belong to the Kyokai, a public interest incorporated foundation. The arrogant attitude of a person who broke the rules of the organization and voluntarily stepped outside of it, yet still tried to control the organization's system after retirement, was a significant challenge to the "formality" and "aesthetics" that the sumo world values. The Kyokai's refusal to compromise and its firm stance in this regard was a natural consequence for a public governance organization.
The "Enhou Succession Theory": A Systemic Failure and Public Misunderstanding
Among the voices hoping for the "revival" of Miyagino beya, Enhou's name was frequently mentioned. He overcame a serious injury, returned to become a sekitori with indomitable fighting spirit, and cleared the qualifications to inherit the elder name (30 tournaments as a sekitori). The media unanimously wrote that "Enhou's acquisition of Oyakata qualifications is a step forward in the revival of Miyagino beya," and reported the decision to dissolve the heya as "a heartless act that renders Enhou's efforts meaningless." However, such reporting is based on complete "ignorance" and "distortion" of the system design of sumo wrestling. There are two fatal errors here. First, there is a confusion between the qualifications to inherit the elder name and the "requirements for establishing or reviving a heya." Meeting the qualifications to inherit the name of an elder (Oyakata qualification) and fulfilling the requirements to "establish or revive a sumo beya" as the shisho of one's own heya are, according to the rules of the Kyokai, issues of a completely different dimension. Establishing or becoming independent in a sumo heya requires not only "qualification to become an Oyakata," but also extremely high achievements during one's active career (strict rank requirements such as 25 or more tournaments as a Yokozuna, Ozeki, Sekiwake, or Komusubi, or 60 or more tournaments in the top division), financial security, and above all, strict review and "approval" by the Kyokai Board of Directors. While Enhou has met the "qualification to inherit the name of an elder (become an Oyakata)" by having 30 tournaments as a Sekitori, he does not meet the above-mentioned active career achievement requirements necessary to establish or become independent as a Shisho (his highest rank was Maegashira 4, and his number of tournaments in the top division is significantly insufficient). Systematically, he is at a stage where he does not even have the qualifications to become a shisho. However, according to the rules of sumo, the high performance requirements that are required when establishing a new heya are waived only when taking over (inheriting) a heya that is "already functioning and existing" due to the retirement, death, or resignation of the previous shisho. In such cases, Enhou can become a shisho with only the normal Oyakata qualifications he has met (such as 30 tournaments as a sekitori). In other words, if Miyagino beya had continued to be operated normally, there would have been a path for Enhou to inherit it, according to the system. However, at the stage when the scandal occurred, Miyagino beya was placed under the "custody of Isegahama beya," a temporary measure of "suspension of activities and entrusted instruction." At the point of this "custody," Miyagino beya lost its standing as an "already existing heya" that was operating independently, and fell into a state of suspension and freeze. Therefore, the normal route of "heya inheritance," where the performance requirements are relaxed, was completely closed off from the system from the very beginning when the heya was placed under "custody" due to the scandal, even before the decision to merge was made. Then, at the board meeting on May 28th, the temporary suspension was officially lifted, and the rikishi belonging to the heya officially transferred to and joined Isegahama beya. As a result, Miyagino beya, which had been in a state of non-function and frozen, officially ceased to exist in both name and reality. To revive a heya that has ceased to exist, the "takeover (succession)" of an existing heya cannot be used, and the procedure of "establishing and reviving a heya from scratch" must be followed, and naturally, the strict performance requirements of "Yokozuna/Ozeki, 25 tournaments in the Sanyaku ranks, and 60 tournaments in the Makuuchi division" stand in the way, which Enhou cannot meet. The tragic reporting by the public and the media that "because of the transfer and merger decided on May 28th, Enhou's path to inheriting and reviving Miyagino beya has been cut off" is a complete misunderstanding of the facts. The truth is that "from the moment the temporary suspension was imposed, it was impossible for Enhou to inherit the heya in the first place." Such "theories of succession by Enhou," which ignore the strict institutional design and chronological facts of sumo wrestling, are nothing more than emotional propaganda designed to deceive readers who are easily swayed by loud voices.