50-40 to Mayweather and 10% to the winner?

80/20 in favor of fmj is a realistic offer than can be made. It's almost impossible for floyd to accept fighting pac even if he gets a lot more than pac, earning zero is much better than losing his so precious ball (zero) if there's still one left anyways. It's still a bargain though considering the cost of humiliation he will get when pac knocks him out into coma while senior dies of heart attack.

 

2007 is when Mayweather started working with GBP. If you want to make it more fair, you can take Mayweather's numbers from 2007 on, and Pacquiao's numbers from the De La Hoya fight on. If there is significant difference in the per fight revenue, then it seems logical that the person bringing in the more money should get the bigger split. Schaefer even recommended an independant auditor crunching the numbers. That seems very fair.

 

What if there is a robbery?

 

There will never be a 50/50 because Floyd doesn't get paid, he puts his money in the product and gets more than he pays out to fighters. Now 40 million to Manny would be a career high payday for him and to refuse because it isn't 50/50 is ridiculous.

 

Yeah I'm not arguing the concept of a third party doing the numbers. the issue here is from when. And with evaluating any statistics, it's recent numbers that are indicative of their current drawing power. Lebron didn't win this year's league mvp based on his other years. There's also other factors one needs to consider...such as if you're not the A-side of an event, then you shouldn't count it as one of your ppv's (that's right, I'm talking about the Hoya/Floyd fight). The last 3 years is fair since that's how long they've been haggling over this fight. If splits are the issue now, then discuss their drawing power over the last 3 years...and have a split proportional to that.

 

I'd LOVE that! That would be incredible.

 

^This

There is plenty of other boxing to watch !

 

It's completely unfair to discount the Hoya fight. That was a big fight, and Mayweather had a lot to do with how well the fight did. Pacquaio also fought De La Hoya around the same time, so they both had that opportunity. Both fighter's rise in terms of being a huge PPV draw began with their fights against De La Hoya. Counting their PPVs from that point on is fair. Counting only the last 3 years is a seemingly arbitrary number.

 

wait till jinky tries to take him to the cleaners...hell be writing love songs/serenades to her....begging her....so he doesnt end up being manny mosley/shane pacquiao......hell be begging floyd for a fight soon

 

Assigning %ages is simple.
Just use past performances either against common opponents
Use past 5 opponents
Use gross figures to date just to see who has a bigger market share and that's how you split the spoils.
Anyone with any business knowledge will tell you Pacquiao does not deserve 50-50.His brand in boxing is not as strong as Mayweather's despite what Arum might want to say.People do not buy Pacquiao's fight as much as they buy Mayweather's fights. Those who do buy those fights need an incentive like a discount to watch him fight.See how much Pacquiao grosses on live gates and compare that to Mayweather's.People pay a premium to watch Mayweather fighting.This is the reason why when Mayweather fought Hatton the revenue at the venue was higher than when Hatton fought Pacquiao.

 

Are you disagreeing that more current numbers are a more accurate depiction of current drawing power? Arbitrary? Surely....you can't be serious?

 

Surely you can't be serious that Mayweather's PPV numbers from 2007 are irrelevant today. It was at that point that he started working with GBP, and it was at that point that that they started doing the 24/7's. It was at that point that he started doing 7 figure PPV buys. What has changed since then that makes those numbers irrelevant?

 

Coz it's not an accurate depiction as it relates today. We want accuracy when it comes to discussing fairness. The last 3 years is when they've been trying to make this fight, the last 3 years was also when both were unequivocally the cashcows of boxing. So it makes more sense and it's more fair to include numbers in which extenuating circumstances are fairly equal...not in 2007 when Pac, although a big draw by then in his own right, was fighting in the smaller weights and where Floyd fought the reigning PPV king in Hoya. Why is this hard to understand?


Yes, seriously.....I find it odd, that "the last 3 years" are arbitrary to you.

 

if your 3 year figure is not arbitrary, then why is 3 years ago an accurate depiction of today and not 5 years ago? Why not 2 years or 1 year, or 7 years? And to say 2009 is a good time period to go by because that's when they first tried to make the fight is ridiculous. By that logic, in 2009, they should've negotiated the purse split based only on revenue figures from 2009 only. And again, I never said that you should use both of their fight figures from 2007. I said you should use that time frame for Mayweather and Pacquiao's numbers from his fight with Hoya on for Pacquiao. Why is that hard for you to understand?

 

Why would you use Manny's numbers from Hoya when those numbers doesn't represent the level of popularity Pac is at now? If Pac held the same popularity(drawing power) when he fought Hoya he would've done more than the 1.4 buys that he did. See how using those numbers would be unfair and inaccurate? And yes 3 years ago from this date wouldn't be an accurate depiction and would be "arbitrary"...but the past 3 years up to this date wouldn't be....you getting the logic here? Now if you include the past 5 years...as I've mentioned there's extenuating circumstances that would skew accuracy. The numbers Manny and Floyd did 4/5 years ago was when they weren't at the heights of their popularity. When assessing or evaluating any numbers or performance...you want to use the most recent data available. Simple as that...older numbers aren't irrelevant, but they're not as important. I said they should be "considered" but not held in higher regard. It's the sentiment involved when people say "all things being equal...."well if you include numbers from 4/5 years ago, all things aren't equal.