Exactly. I was perplexed why so many said it was such a disaster just as I don't see why so many seem to think AJ losing means it's the end of the road. The money man of the division will always be a fighter others want to fight. Not forgetting the UK has always shown it gets behind a fighter trying to come back. They could make AJ v Whyte and even though both would be coming off losses it would still be a big fight. Its crazy to me that anyone would think AJ losing to Usuyk would suddenly mean his fighting in the copper box and nobody would be watching on TV. Unless AJ gets knocked out cold inside 3 rounds his drawing power will be fine. A decrease maybe but still drawing numbers other fighters would kill for.
If it went to purse bids yes but why go though that when you can negotiate a deal. A rematch clause was great for Usuyk as if you believe you will win not only does he make very good money in the first fight but he then makes much more in the rematch against a fighter his already beaten. It even worked out better in the sense that the opportunity arose for usuyk to fight Fury for all the belts before a Joshua rematch. Unfortunately Fury declined but the whole scenario has been great for Usuyk.
Sky have paid 24m according to Gareth A Davies. Between 900k and a million buys at 25 quid and it’s pretty much job done. If it does a bit under or whatever I doubt Sky will collapse.
Sky will know the risks involved and like you say will be fine if doesn't meet expectations. Broadcasters take risks all the time whether that's commission of new TV series or buying sports rights in general. Same for movie studios. Look how many TV series Netflix cancel after one season. Sometimes you lose, sometimes you win.. Impossible to win on every decision. Another example is boxing promoters when putting on shows. They all get it wrong now and again and have to take the hit on negative profits.
This sounds to me like reading between the lines Eddie advised Dazn it would win the rights with a certain bid and they went with his number and lost out because he underestimated Sky's bid/interest. So he's left with egg on his face with his biggest backer and is trying to deflect.
Its not all Gareth A Davies says and writes one should trust but in this case I think we can trust him. I've heard the same numbers. Sky knows exactly what they are doing and they are not going to throw money out the window. A source at Sky told me that they are ready to continue to invest massively in boxing for the next 3 - 4 years. I predict difficult times ahead for Eddie Hearn and Matchroom.
Hearn is stuck between trying to downplay Sky’s pulling power without dismissing AJ’s and is finding it quite difficult. Says it will only do X amount (to have a dig at Sky) then realises that reflects bad on AJ so bumps the figure up a bit.
No, that doesn't line up with interviews and reports: Everything points to Joshua low balling Whyte with an unfavourable rematch split. Whyte was negotiating the initial purse. He wanted more than the 4~5m on the table. He finally agreed to the purse and then Joshua inserted a one way rematch clause where Joshua would get the larger %. Whyte gave up on negotiations at that point. If you really are dead set against what happened, you can call it a duck if you like, but I think recent history shows it to be what is was: Joshua didn't want to fight Whyte @Wembley. He was lowballing Whyte as a face saving exercise because fans had already bought hotels and flights for the April date. Let's look at some details surrounding the offer: 1. After Wilder and Fury refused to fight Joshua @Wembley, Whyte was the obvious choice to fill the April date. 2. Joshua was at the height of his commercial success. 3. Whyte was at his reputational high point. He was WBC#1, WBO#1 and Ring#4 4. Joshua offered him 4-5m and a one-way rematch clause where Whyte would take a lower % 5. Joshua would instead pay Big Baby Miller 7-8m to fight @MSG. i.e. Joshua and Hearn wanted to pursue their American dream. 6. Years later, with Whyte at a reputational low point (following Povetkin fights), under an unfavourable split, he received a guaranteed minimum of £5.5m for the Tyson Fury fight @Wembley So putting aside any dislike for Whyte, it's painfully obvious that Joshua low-balled Whyte
That doesn't quite add up: If he has gone to purse bids I recall that he would have gotten a higher guaranteed split for the initial fight from the WBO. It also opens up a bidding war for a Joshua fight. Also, without that rematch clause he dictates terms to Joshua as winner and new champion. It was needing to pay Joshua a substantial step aside that scuppered Fury v Usyk Of course 50-50 looks good now given the Saudi bid, but that's with hindsight. It could have potentially been even better for Usyk. So, it was still a very strange thing to agree to pre-fight as the WBO mandatory. Maybe he was signing up for fair judges
He was never dropping the belt. For years the goal was undisputed. So they were going to drop the belt instead of going to purse bids? a hollow threat
You might not believe Hearn but I remember Usyuk's manager saying the deal was done with AJ and Fury could have fought Usuyk.
The only thing I would be genuinely annoyed by if I was Eddie Hearn is that Sky only started putting real money into Boxing after he left them.
No I believe you, I also remember hearing that Usyk's side was happy to pay Joshua the step aside. The problem being that Fury was not