Ok, let's get real here. Let's say a guy called Flint Mayflower Jr, holds 2 belts and is the consensus #1 in his division. He makes on average $36M a fight on his name alone, no matter who he fights and usually gives them a 10% cut from the total available $40M = $4M (Flint 90% = $36M, opponent 10% = $4M). Now he's going to fight another beltholder from his division say his name is Manny Marcia, who makes $1.8M for his biggest fights. The total purse for the fight, because he's a bigger name as Flint fought before and holds a belt skyrockets to $56M for this one, 1.4x the usual amount. Now is it suddenly fair for Marcia to get a 35% cut of that amount, making him $19,6M (over 10 times his biggest payday) thus leaving Flint with $36,4M (so only a single % more as he usually nets). This is what it's actually about. The differences in what Marcia puts to the table against Mayflower are just too damn big for this type of cut.
No other fight out there pays anyway near this. To refuse this offer is a massive gamble that he and AJ both keep winning. Duco are obviously gambling people.
Yes, it is fair. When Mike Tyson was coming up unifying the belts in the 1980s, that's exactly the kind or purse ratios we saw when he faced other champions. And Tyson's managers were no mugs. Tyson-Smith : $1.5million to $1 million Tyson-Tucker : $2.5 million to $1.9 million. It was obvious at the time that Tyson the big draw but the unification of the heavyweight titles was respected, and even nobodies with zero defences such as Smith and Tucker were allotted proper proportional share of the revenue. In 2008, Wladimir Klitschko took a proper "pay cut" when he agreed to a 50-50 split with Sultan Ibragimov, despite being a much bigger draw. He reasoned it was worth it because he wanted to unify impressively and look good doing so on American soil. It backfired when the fight turned out to be one of the worst ever but Wladimir won the belt and was regarded as the most legitimate heavyweight champion out ther. In the long run, Wladimir gained by owning the WBO belt alongside the IBF, and added the WBA later. It made him the king and gave him the leverage. He valued the titles. And no one's ever accused Wladimir Klitschko of being a bad businessman. There's some sort of belief on this forum that Anthony Joshua has somehow surpassed the leverage Wladimir established, or surpassed prime Mike Tyson's relative worth, or reached a level Floyd Mayweather took almost two decades to cultivate. In that case, let's just match AJ with cab drivers for the rest of eternity. Give Mr.Cab Driver his 5%, AJ gets 95%. Admit the belts don't matter, admit dominating the division as a proper champion and building a sporting legacy doesn't matter now, maybe fight a MMA or WWE fighter every 5 years to break PPV records. That's basically where this is heading.
they should do a 30-30 split and the winner gets the other 40%, should be same for the wilder fight as well.
That was a tournament setup, like the Super Series now. And beating the guy that beat Holyfield. Also the money earning difference wasn't as big as it is between these guys. Joshua can already fight his mother in law and still get paid millions for it, Floyd style. Although I must admit you have a little point here. It is, but it's not just Joshua's and Hearn's fault. If there are enough simpleminds that pay for him fighting the Hammer's, Stiverne's, Molina's, Arreola's and martin's of this world, they would be crazy to take risks for the exact same or only slightly higher payday. The Floyd/Haymon school of doing business in boxing. But if the bigger names can't be happy taking 8 to 10 Million, and want 12 to 15 or even more, there will be a roadblock that will be hard to overcome here.
why the rematch clause??? I think we all know AJ would comfortably stop parker no problem if I was AJ I'd look to fight wilder or charr and let parker and povetkin slug it out I think parker vs povetkin is a classic!
Yet when Tyson fought Bruno for the title, Tyson got $30 mil while Bruno received $8 mil. Bruno was the champion.
Yes, that wasn't a good deal. As Tyson's challenger in 1989 Bruno had received a better deal. Frank Warren had got Bruno a shot at McCall quite easily in 1995 and it seems he was tied to Don King for the Tyson fight next. After Tyson beat Bruno in 1996, Bruce Seldon received $5 million to face Tyson, while Tyson received $15 million. The maths suggests Bruno was paid too short for the Tyson fight in 1996.
I think Parker etc are playing it quite well. That video he whacked on Twitter today (a clip of AJ saying he doesn't do boxing for the money) with a little comment about 65-35 being fair was top work.
Its not its complete bull**** and used by promoters as an excuse not to make fights. Fan that debate and go along with it need their head checking
A hungry enough challenger wouldn’t be all that concerned about wealth, as long as he’s earning decent money and he has an unshakable self belief he would take any deal, knowing once (if)he knocks out AJ he has the keys to the car, so to speak, then he as an undisputed champ calls the shots, you gotta have that belief , Parker is showing the opposite to this .
Parker is officially a champion with 2 successful defences. In terms of professional accomplishment he believes he's about on Joshua's level. You could equally say Joshua doesn't have the self belief. You could argue if Joshua seriously believes he can become a dominant undisputed champion for the coming era - a legitimate champion and legend - he would concede that extra 5% to get those belts as quickly as possible. Actually I think this whole trouble results from Team Parker's PRIDE (with a touch of greed) coming up against Team Joshua's GREED (with a touch of pride). Pride and Greed are two of the deadly sins.
Bottom line: Eddie is going to have to get his wallet out if Joshua is going to unify. You can argue what they do and don’t deserve till you’re blue in the face, but at some point he’s going to have to pay these guys or forget about AJ becoming undisputed.
