Re: Why are British fighters treated the worst?
Part of the hostility derives from tribalism, national rivalries, ignorance, etc. The UK is the US's little brother in the boxing world, so what occurs here will be critiqued by those overseas and will have greater scrutiny applied than that applied to some loud mouthed quasi-kraut in a Belorussian backwater.
Equal part of the hostility occurs because we've been unlucky with certain fighters getting a lot of hype but never really testing themselves on the big stage at the earliest opportunity, and generally not justifying that hype either with their skills or mentality if and when they do 'step up'.
Any fighter who comes along who is half decent and marketable is hyped up so much they feel obliged to pretend to be heir to the pound-for-pound throne. I now refer to that as Amir Khan Syndrome. Highly contagious, has spread to the Travelling community and Sheffield. Old school humility is the only known cure. Our media is dishonest with their expectations and analyses of fighters and it's no surprise that annoys people overseas.
Then there is the Calzaghe Deficiency, which is a type of German-influenza symptomatic of grabbing an empty accolade and using it to generate a lot of money in fights of little consequence over a number of unremarkable years. This disease has largely passed into history although Cleverly may present a carrier-risk.
If you notice, Carl Froch gets a lot of respect for those overseas. This is a guy who is hardly humble, but he hasn't had the hype, doesn't claim to be something he's not, and has consistently fought the best and maximised the effectiveness of his skill-set.
So, like I said, it's a mixture of reasons.