The phrase “career-best payday” is utterly meaningless in the context of a newly-crowned world champion, because their new found status is supposed to warrant them earning much more than they would have when they were merely world-ranked title contenders.Loki wrote:I don't buy that; he'd get a career best payday (he got £5m) from first fight (I think) plus it was in Manchester. Doesn't make sense. Something was wrong with the first bout (apart from it being a snoozer until the last round). Klitschko was so bad, hardly threw a punch.Enlightened-One wrote:It could have been contractual, maybe as the challenger his team had agreed to terms that they subsequently regretted.Loki wrote: Any guess as to why he didn't want to fight Wlad?
I’m not sure if he ducked Klitschko out of fear though, but he did clearly admit that he may lose the rematch against Wladimir when interviewed by IFL TV, but perhaps he was trying to sell the fight by adding intrigue or teasing those fans that desperately wanted to see him lose.
It probably was due to the terms of the rematch.
It’s like the GGG-Billy Joe Saunders situation, the Brit could have technically earned a “career-best payday” (of $1.5m) for facing Golovkin, but then he could have commanded similar or even greater amounts engaging in rematches against the likes of Lee & Eubank Jr, as well as fights against Cotto and Canelo.
So it’s all about context and making the most out of your payday opportunities.
From what I’ve been reading, Klitschko (as the challenger) would have been paid double the amount that Fury was earning (as the champion) for their recently-cancelled rematch (and I think that this was based on the terms of a contract that was signed/agreed before their first fight took place).
Of course, I could be wrong, but my opinion is based on the information supplied by multiple sources. Anyway, I doubt we'll ever be provided with a genuine explanation for Team Fury's reluctance to face Klitschko again.