Is Eddie Hearn's offer to Deontay Wilder too generous?

[Enlightened-One]

I’ve read all of the media furore surrounding the misinformation regarding Eddie Hearn’s $12.5m offer to Deontay Wilder, but I thought I’d actually analyse the figures to help those that are confused gain some perspective of what the figures being quoted actually means. So here goes…

According to Forbes, the Mayweather-Pacquiao super-fight generated a total income of ≈$600m, with Floyd receiving 38% of that sum (≈$230m) and Manny taking home 20% (≈$120m), with the remaining $250m going to the other parties involved in the staging of the event.

Simply put, the B-side of that event (who was himself a PPV star) only received a 20% split of the total revenue.

The RING magazine today claims that a Joshua-Wilder super-fight could generate as much as $50m in total revenue. Whilst various members of the British media are claiming that the bout could potentially generate anywhere between $43m and $85m.

So if we take an average of those three estimates, we’re looking at a ballpark total revenue figure of about $59m, which means that the size of the total purse pot would be in the region of $35.5m (after applying the same percentages used for for the Mayweather-Pacquiao super-fight).

This means that Eddie Hearn’s $12.5m offer to Deontay Wilder equates to the American actually receiving a ≈36.5% split of the $35.5m purse pot, which is entirely reasonable in my eyes. In fact, “The Bronze Bomber’s” share would be a greater percentage than what Manny Pacquiao commanded (≈34.5%) for his own super-fight against Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Eddie Hearn today confirmed on his Twitter account that his $12.5m offer to Deontay Wilder was greater than the $9m that Joseph Parker received to face AJ.

For the record, Deontay Wilder would have to compete in NINE fights (based on the size of his typical payday) in order to earn $12.5m, since his average income is less than $1.4m per bout.

Eddie Hearn also refutes the misinformation conveyed by The Telegraph article that has caused all of the recent media furore. He claims that he did not issue a 'take it or leave it 20% split offer' to Wilder's representatives and he also denounced the size of the $18.5m (£13m) fight purse that they claimed Joseph Parker earned for his bout against AJ.

People should remember that the total income generated from a boxing event isn’t split equally between the two fighters competing in the main event, so please stop comparing the $12.5m offer that has been made to Deontay Wilder to the various estimates of the total revenue generation figures for the entire event, because other people have to get paid also!

[boxing_rocks]

30-35% sounds about right to me.

[asdfjkl]

Especially if you keep in mind that the WBC is absolutely not an important belt any more and Wilder continually breaks all kind of WBC rules, or get special treatments from the WBC, you just know that AJ must be nuts to offer him a high payday.

As I said from the start, if Wilder doesn't accept this, it's even more obvious that Wilder doesn't want this fight.

Let's check the WBC rules:
"3.1 Timing of Defenses.
The WBC’s policy is to offer opportunities to boxers to compete for
its titles, and thus the WBC seeks to prevent titles from being frozen due to inactivity by
champions. Therefore, a WBC champion should strive to defend the title in mandatory or
voluntary defenses at least three (3) times a year, unless a written exception or extension is
granted by the WBC in its sole discretion. Therefore, a WBC champion should strive to
defend his title at least every one hundred twenty (120) days unless otherwise permitted by
the WBC in its sole discretion. Upon winning a title, a WBC champion must defend the
title within 90 to 120 days or as otherwise ordered by the WBC, unless otherwise ordered or
permitted by the WBC in its sole discretion"

Well, this doesn't seem to apply for Wilder, he got the belts for well over 3 years now and only had 7 fights, an average of barely 2 a year.


"Qualified Challengers:
Champions shall defend their titles, either in a voluntary or
mandatory defense, against a challenger (each, a “Qualified Challenger”) in one of the
following categories:
(a) any of the top ten (10) rated contenders; or
(b) with the approval of or ratification by a majority of the Board of Governors,
i. any boxer rated 11 to 15;
ii. a champion or a highly-rated boxer of another weight division;
iii. another WBC champion, such as a WBC Diamond or Silver Champion,
Champion Emeritus, or Champion in Recess;
iv. a former world champion or other elite challenger;
v. a champion of another boxing organization recognized by the WBC; or
(c) under special circumstances and with the approval of or ratification by two-third
(2/3rd) of the Board of Governors, a contender not otherwise listed in one or more of
the above categories."

How many top 10 contenders has Wilder fought? Only Stiverne right?

"3.5 Mandatory Defense Obligations.
All WBC champions shall make at least one (1)
mandatory defense per year, unless an exception is granted by the WBC in its sole
discretion. A champion may be required to make more than one mandatory defense per
year, if the WBC has designated more than one mandatory challenger for any reason. No
bout shall be considered a mandatory defense unless expressly approved as mandatory by
the WBC, and made exclusively against an official mandatory challenger designated by the
WBC. A challenger who wins the title inherits the mandatory defense obligations of the
champion he defeated, unless the WBC in its sole discretion otherwise directs."


Except for Stiverne, who absolutely didn't earn it (he would most likely have lost against everyone in the entire top 40 at the moment he became mandatory), who has Wilder had a mandatory fight against in the past 3 years?
Even right now, Stiverne probably only got a chance against Lenroy Thomas (who recently drawed against David Allen, the boxrec rank 12 of the UK).

Long story short, it's ridiculous that Wilder still has this price, and I really don't think that all this ruining of the sport should be rewarded by a 10M+ payday.

[fanman]

its not a bad offer at all, wilder may negotiate for a bit more. if the fights not made this year, it should be by next year. joshua's cleaning the division out anyway, and deontay has done his part with his last fight too.
it wont be a tragedy if they fight next year anyway.

[SenorPipino]

its not a bad offer at all, wilder may negotiate for a bit more. if the fights not made this year, it should be by next year. joshua's cleaning the division out anyway, and deontay has done his part with his last fight too.
it wont be a tragedy if they fight next year anyway.

The longer they postpone fighting each other, the bigger the pot will be for each.

Assuming one doesn't get beat before then.

Of course Pacquiao was beaten a few times during his 5 years of negotiations with Mayweather. He was even put to sleep once. That didn't hurt his payday one whit.

But Pacquiao was an international sports icon when he stepped into the ring with Mayweather. Neither Joshua or Wilder have risen to that status.

[oogiebe]

its not a bad offer at all, wilder may negotiate for a bit more. if the fights not made this year, it should be by next year. joshua's cleaning the division out anyway, and deontay has done his part with his last fight too.
it wont be a tragedy if they fight next year anyway.

The longer they postpone fighting each other, the bigger the pot will be for each.

Assuming one doesn't get beat before then.

Of course Pacquiao was beaten a few times during his 5 years of negotiations with Mayweather. He was even put to sleep once. That didn't hurt his payday one whit.

But Pacquiao was an international sports icon when he stepped into the ring with Mayweather. Neither Joshua or Wilder have risen to that status.

This is different, as you alluded to. Neither AJ nor Wilder are legends as of yet. One loses, and the fight is meaningless.

[Syntax Error]

It's not too generous.

Boxing is a hard sport, where one punch could end your career, so no offer is ever too generous, especially when you're talking about a fight of this magnitude.

This is THE fight at HW right now & if Hearn & Co are serious about making it, they should be making offers that are not derisory if they really want the fight.

[Enlightened-One]

This is THE fight at HW right now & if Hearn & Co are serious about making it, they should be making offers that are not derisory if they really want the fight.

Is Eddie Hearn's offer really "derisory" though? If we refrain from discussing vague percentages, what sort of cash value does Deontay Wilder deserve that you believe wouldn't be "derisory"?

[Syntax Error]

This is THE fight at HW right now & if Hearn & Co are serious about making it, they should be making offers that are not derisory if they really want the fight.

Is Eddie Hearn's offer really "derisory" though? If we refrain from discussing vague percentages, what sort of cash value does Deontay Wilder deserve that you believe wouldn't be "derisory"?

No, don't get me wrong, I think it's a good offer.

It's a lot more than Wilder has ever been offered for a fight before & I'm happy that Hearn is making what I consider to be a good offer, because I think Wilder deserves it, because without him, this potential fight would not be the most anticipated out there.

[Enlightened-One]

This is THE fight at HW right now & if Hearn & Co are serious about making it, they should be making offers that are not derisory if they really want the fight.

Is Eddie Hearn's offer really "derisory" though? If we refrain from discussing vague percentages, what sort of cash value does Deontay Wilder deserve that you believe wouldn't be "derisory"?

No, don't get me wrong, I think it's a good offer.

It's a lot more than Wilder has ever been offered for a fight before & I'm happy that Hearn is making what I consider to be a good offer, because I think Wilder deserves it, because without him, this potential fight would not be the most anticipated out there.

OK, understood.

[Deleted_Scenes]

It's not too generous.

Boxing is a hard sport, where one punch could end your career, so no offer is ever to generous, especially when you're talking about a fight of this magnitude.

This is THE fight at HW right now & if Hearn & Co are serious about making it, they should be making offers that are not derisory if they really want the fight.

The thing is, if Hearn offers Wilder MORE than $12.5m, that could leave Joshua needing to take a pay CUT, compared to what he's used to earning.

This is Joshua's biggest fight too. Surely he also deserves a career high payday? Let's be honest, hardcore fans really want this fight, but in the grand scheme of things it's really not that huge.

Neither fighter has any kind of following in America, and the 1.5 million UK PPV buys Joshua has done before is probably the maximum of what is possible over here.

I think the $50m the ring suggests, is about right. If $30 of that goes to the fighters, and Wilder takes $12.5 of that (5-6x his highest previous payday), that leaves only $17.5 for Joshua. Why should he be ok with that, when he can probably make more fighting Whyte or Povetkin?

I think Hearn should throw a real curve ball, and offer Wilder every penny the fight makes from the US market, with AJ taking 100% of the UK money, then worldwide income split according to the same ratio those make (i.e. if the fight makes $10m in US and $40m in UK, then ROW income split 80/20 in Joshua's favour).

The above model splits earnings in line with what each fighter ACTUALLY brings to the table, and I guarantee that leaves Wilder with considerably less than the $12.5 he's been offered.

[Enlightened-One]

"Anthony Joshua says Deontay Wilder fight has to happen for boxing"

Anthony Joshua says for $50m dollars he will fight Deontay Wilder "tomorrow", adding that the fight "has to happen" for boxing.

"If it is a $100m fight and they are happy with taking 60-40, I'll take 50-50 [instead]. Give me $50m dollars up front and I swear I'll take that fight tomorrow," Joshua told Sky Sports.

"They're not making offers like that, but they're talking about it, so it's not real. We offered them a lucrative deal and we are just waiting to hear if he's serious or not.

"They like to jump on social media, rather than emailing us back in a professional manner. I don't understand where they're coming from, nevertheless, there's many heavyweights out there that are serious."

For the record, multiple media outlets have stated their expectation of the Joshua-Wilder super-fight being capable of achieving a ballpark total revenue figure of $59m. So I think AJ’s comments are a little tongue-in-cheek, as he seems to be using Team Wilder’s outlandish claims against them.

[punchoutsb]

I I can't see any way this fight makes close to 80 million. 60 sounds about right. 12.5 is a really good offer unless the fight sells a lot more than 60...which again I don't see happening.

[Deleted_Scenes]

I I can't see any way this fight makes close to 80 million. 60 sounds about right. 12.5 is a really good offer unless the fight sells a lot more than 60...which again I don't see happening.

Really, if Wilder accepts a 35% split (an amount that isn't unrealistic) instead of the $12.5m flat fee being offered now, he could actually end up taking home LESS money after TV networks and promoters etc have taken their cut.

$12.5m is a very good offer for a guy who can't draw flies to shít.

[punchoutsb]

I I can't see any way this fight makes close to 80 million. 60 sounds about right. 12.5 is a really good offer unless the fight sells a lot more than 60...which again I don't see happening.

Really, if Wilder accepts a 35% split (an amount that isn't unrealistic) instead of the $12.5m flat fee being offered now, he could actually end up taking home LESS money after TV networks and promoters etc have taken their cut.

$12.5m is a very good offer for a guy who can't draw flies to shít.

That's a very good point.

[ewenhay]

I’ve read all of the media furore surrounding the misinformation regarding Eddie Hearn’s $12.5m offer to Deontay Wilder, but I thought I’d actually analyse the figures to help those that are confused gain some perspective of what the figures being quoted actually means. So here goes…

According to Forbes, the Mayweather-Pacquiao super-fight generated a total income of ≈$600m, with Floyd receiving 38% of that sum (≈$230m) and Manny taking home 20% (≈$120m), with the remaining $250m going to the other parties involved in the staging of the event.

Simply put, the B-side of that event (who was himself a PPV star) only received a 20% split of the total revenue.

The RING magazine today claims that a Joshua-Wilder super-fight could generate as much as $50m in total revenue. Whilst various members of the British media are claiming that the bout could potentially generate anywhere between $43m and $85m.

So if we take an average of those three estimates, we’re looking at a ballpark total revenue figure of about $59m, which means that the size of the total purse pot would be in the region of $35.5m (after applying the same percentages used for for the Mayweather-Pacquiao super-fight).

This means that Eddie Hearn’s $12.5m offer to Deontay Wilder equates to the American actually receiving a ≈36.5% split of the $35.5m purse pot, which is entirely reasonable in my eyes. In fact, “The Bronze Bomber’s” share would be a greater percentage than what Manny Pacquiao commanded (≈34.5%) for his own super-fight against Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Eddie Hearn today confirmed on his Twitter account that his $12.5m offer to Deontay Wilder was greater than the $9m that Joseph Parker received to face AJ.

For the record, Deontay Wilder would have to compete in NINE fights (based on the size of his typical payday) in order to earn $12.5m, since his average income is less than $1.4m per bout.

Eddie Hearn also refutes the misinformation conveyed by The Telegraph article that has caused all of the recent media furore. He claims that he did not issue a 'take it or leave it 20% split offer' to Wilder's representatives and he also denounced the size of the $18.5m (£13m) fight purse that they claimed Joseph Parker earned for his bout against AJ.

People should remember that the total income generated from a boxing event isn’t split equally between the two fighters competing in the main event, so please stop comparing the $12.5m offer that has been made to Deontay Wilder to the various estimates of the total revenue generation figures for the entire event, because other people have to get paid also!

This debate is a repeat of the Parker debate on the same theme. It doesn’t matter how much Wilder has earned in previous bouts, each bout is valued on its own merits.

[punchoutsb]

I’ve read all of the media furore surrounding the misinformation regarding Eddie Hearn’s $12.5m offer to Deontay Wilder, but I thought I’d actually analyse the figures to help those that are confused gain some perspective of what the figures being quoted actually means. So here goes…

According to Forbes, the Mayweather-Pacquiao super-fight generated a total income of ≈$600m, with Floyd receiving 38% of that sum (≈$230m) and Manny taking home 20% (≈$120m), with the remaining $250m going to the other parties involved in the staging of the event.

Simply put, the B-side of that event (who was himself a PPV star) only received a 20% split of the total revenue.

The RING magazine today claims that a Joshua-Wilder super-fight could generate as much as $50m in total revenue. Whilst various members of the British media are claiming that the bout could potentially generate anywhere between $43m and $85m.

So if we take an average of those three estimates, we’re looking at a ballpark total revenue figure of about $59m, which means that the size of the total purse pot would be in the region of $35.5m (after applying the same percentages used for for the Mayweather-Pacquiao super-fight).

This means that Eddie Hearn’s $12.5m offer to Deontay Wilder equates to the American actually receiving a ≈36.5% split of the $35.5m purse pot, which is entirely reasonable in my eyes. In fact, “The Bronze Bomber’s” share would be a greater percentage than what Manny Pacquiao commanded (≈34.5%) for his own super-fight against Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Eddie Hearn today confirmed on his Twitter account that his $12.5m offer to Deontay Wilder was greater than the $9m that Joseph Parker received to face AJ.

For the record, Deontay Wilder would have to compete in NINE fights (based on the size of his typical payday) in order to earn $12.5m, since his average income is less than $1.4m per bout.

Eddie Hearn also refutes the misinformation conveyed by The Telegraph article that has caused all of the recent media furore. He claims that he did not issue a 'take it or leave it 20% split offer' to Wilder's representatives and he also denounced the size of the $18.5m (£13m) fight purse that they claimed Joseph Parker earned for his bout against AJ.

People should remember that the total income generated from a boxing event isn’t split equally between the two fighters competing in the main event, so please stop comparing the $12.5m offer that has been made to Deontay Wilder to the various estimates of the total revenue generation figures for the entire event, because other people have to get paid also!

This debate is a repeat of the Parker debate on the same theme. It doesn’t matter how much Wilder has earned in previous bouts, each bout is valued on its own merits.

Each bout is valued on its participants ability to sell. Previous earnings give the best insight into that.

[tiny_acres]

I’ve read all of the media furore surrounding the misinformation regarding Eddie Hearn’s $12.5m offer to Deontay Wilder, but I thought I’d actually analyse the figures to help those that are confused gain some perspective of what the figures being quoted actually means. So here goes…

According to Forbes, the Mayweather-Pacquiao super-fight generated a total income of ≈$600m, with Floyd receiving 38% of that sum (≈$230m) and Manny taking home 20% (≈$120m), with the remaining $250m going to the other parties involved in the staging of the event.

Simply put, the B-side of that event (who was himself a PPV star) only received a 20% split of the total revenue.

The RING magazine today claims that a Joshua-Wilder super-fight could generate as much as $50m in total revenue. Whilst various members of the British media are claiming that the bout could potentially generate anywhere between $43m and $85m.

So if we take an average of those three estimates, we’re looking at a ballpark total revenue figure of about $59m, which means that the size of the total purse pot would be in the region of $35.5m (after applying the same percentages used for for the Mayweather-Pacquiao super-fight).

This means that Eddie Hearn’s $12.5m offer to Deontay Wilder equates to the American actually receiving a ≈36.5% split of the $35.5m purse pot, which is entirely reasonable in my eyes. In fact, “The Bronze Bomber’s” share would be a greater percentage than what Manny Pacquiao commanded (≈34.5%) for his own super-fight against Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Eddie Hearn today confirmed on his Twitter account that his $12.5m offer to Deontay Wilder was greater than the $9m that Joseph Parker received to face AJ.

For the record, Deontay Wilder would have to compete in NINE fights (based on the size of his typical payday) in order to earn $12.5m, since his average income is less than $1.4m per bout.

Eddie Hearn also refutes the misinformation conveyed by The Telegraph article that has caused all of the recent media furore. He claims that he did not issue a 'take it or leave it 20% split offer' to Wilder's representatives and he also denounced the size of the $18.5m (£13m) fight purse that they claimed Joseph Parker earned for his bout against AJ.

People should remember that the total income generated from a boxing event isn’t split equally between the two fighters competing in the main event, so please stop comparing the $12.5m offer that has been made to Deontay Wilder to the various estimates of the total revenue generation figures for the entire event, because other people have to get paid also!

This debate is a repeat of the Parker debate on the same theme. It doesn’t matter how much Wilder has earned in previous bouts, each bout is valued on its own merits.

Very well put

[ewenhay]

I’ve read all of the media furore surrounding the misinformation regarding Eddie Hearn’s $12.5m offer to Deontay Wilder, but I thought I’d actually analyse the figures to help those that are confused gain some perspective of what the figures being quoted actually means. So here goes…

According to Forbes, the Mayweather-Pacquiao super-fight generated a total income of ≈$600m, with Floyd receiving 38% of that sum (≈$230m) and Manny taking home 20% (≈$120m), with the remaining $250m going to the other parties involved in the staging of the event.

Simply put, the B-side of that event (who was himself a PPV star) only received a 20% split of the total revenue.

The RING magazine today claims that a Joshua-Wilder super-fight could generate as much as $50m in total revenue. Whilst various members of the British media are claiming that the bout could potentially generate anywhere between $43m and $85m.

So if we take an average of those three estimates, we’re looking at a ballpark total revenue figure of about $59m, which means that the size of the total purse pot would be in the region of $35.5m (after applying the same percentages used for for the Mayweather-Pacquiao super-fight).

This means that Eddie Hearn’s $12.5m offer to Deontay Wilder equates to the American actually receiving a ≈36.5% split of the $35.5m purse pot, which is entirely reasonable in my eyes. In fact, “The Bronze Bomber’s” share would be a greater percentage than what Manny Pacquiao commanded (≈34.5%) for his own super-fight against Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Eddie Hearn today confirmed on his Twitter account that his $12.5m offer to Deontay Wilder was greater than the $9m that Joseph Parker received to face AJ.

For the record, Deontay Wilder would have to compete in NINE fights (based on the size of his typical payday) in order to earn $12.5m, since his average income is less than $1.4m per bout.

Eddie Hearn also refutes the misinformation conveyed by The Telegraph article that has caused all of the recent media furore. He claims that he did not issue a 'take it or leave it 20% split offer' to Wilder's representatives and he also denounced the size of the $18.5m (£13m) fight purse that they claimed Joseph Parker earned for his bout against AJ.

People should remember that the total income generated from a boxing event isn’t split equally between the two fighters competing in the main event, so please stop comparing the $12.5m offer that has been made to Deontay Wilder to the various estimates of the total revenue generation figures for the entire event, because other people have to get paid also!

This debate is a repeat of the Parker debate on the same theme. It doesn’t matter how much Wilder has earned in previous bouts, each bout is valued on its own merits.

Each bout is valued on its participants ability to sell. Previous earnings give the best insight into that.

Each fight is different though and this is Wilder's biggest fight by some distance. Interest in the US in a unification fight involving an American heavyweight sells far more than Wilder v stiverne 2 for one of the belts.

[punchoutsb]

This debate is a repeat of the Parker debate on the same theme. It doesn’t matter how much Wilder has earned in previous bouts, each bout is valued on its own merits.

Each bout is valued on its participants ability to sell. Previous earnings give the best insight into that.

Each fight is different though and this is Wilder's biggest fight by some distance. Interest in the US in a unification fight involving an American heavyweight sells far more than Wilder v stiverne 2 for one of the belts.

Correct, but the only way to attempt to gauge interest is by looking at previous numbers. AJ seems to sell better against mediocre opponents than Wilder does. It's all a guessing game but the only way to have a shot in the dark is to look at previous earnings. If the only fight people will pay en mass to see fighter A in is against fighter B then that says all you need to know about fighter A's ability to draw.

Who else does Wilder earn 12.5 million against?

[ewenhay]

Each bout is valued on its participants ability to sell. Previous earnings give the best insight into that.

Each fight is different though and this is Wilder's biggest fight by some distance. Interest in the US in a unification fight involving an American heavyweight sells far more than Wilder v stiverne 2 for one of the belts.

Correct, but the only way to attempt to gauge interest is by looking at previous numbers. AJ seems to sell better against mediocre opponents than Wilder does. It's all a guessing game but the only way to have a shot in the dark is to look at previous earnings. If the only fight people will pay en mass to see fighter A in is against fighter B then that says all you need to know about fighter A's ability to draw.

Who else does Wilder earn 12.5 million against?

He probably doesn't earn that kind of money against any other active heavyweight. But that doesn't mean it is a fair offer for this fight. It's a proper unification fight between an American heavyweight and a British heavyweight. It's a huge fight. Using previous earnings alone to calculate a fighter's purse for a unique event such as this is a flawed formula.

[Deleted_Scenes]

Who else does Wilder earn 12.5 million against?

6 rematches with Ortiz?
A Dillian Whyte trilogy?

[punchoutsb]

Each fight is different though and this is Wilder's biggest fight by some distance. Interest in the US in a unification fight involving an American heavyweight sells far more than Wilder v stiverne 2 for one of the belts.

Correct, but the only way to attempt to gauge interest is by looking at previous numbers. AJ seems to sell better against mediocre opponents than Wilder does. It's all a guessing game but the only way to have a shot in the dark is to look at previous earnings. If the only fight people will pay en mass to see fighter A in is against fighter B then that says all you need to know about fighter A's ability to draw.

Who else does Wilder earn 12.5 million against?

He probably doesn't earn that kind of money against any other active heavyweight. But that doesn't mean it is a fair offer for this fight. It's a proper unification fight between an American heavyweight and a British heavyweight. It's a huge fight. Using previous earnings alone to calculate a fighter's purse for a unique event such as this is a flawed formula.

You don't earn based on importance, you earn based on your ability to sell. There's nothing flawed about approaching a business deal like a business deal.

[ewenhay]

Correct, but the only way to attempt to gauge interest is by looking at previous numbers. AJ seems to sell better against mediocre opponents than Wilder does. It's all a guessing game but the only way to have a shot in the dark is to look at previous earnings. If the only fight people will pay en mass to see fighter A in is against fighter B then that says all you need to know about fighter A's ability to draw.

Who else does Wilder earn 12.5 million against?

He probably doesn't earn that kind of money against any other active heavyweight. But that doesn't mean it is a fair offer for this fight. It's a proper unification fight between an American heavyweight and a British heavyweight. It's a huge fight. Using previous earnings alone to calculate a fighter's purse for a unique event such as this is a flawed formula.

You don't earn based on importance, you earn based on your ability to sell. There's nothing flawed about approaching a business deal like a business deal.

It's more complex than you think it is. There are more factors to consider than a + b = c

[punchoutsb]

He probably doesn't earn that kind of money against any other active heavyweight. But that doesn't mean it is a fair offer for this fight. It's a proper unification fight between an American heavyweight and a British heavyweight. It's a huge fight. Using previous earnings alone to calculate a fighter's purse for a unique event such as this is a flawed formula.

You don't earn based on importance, you earn based on your ability to sell. There's nothing flawed about approaching a business deal like a business deal.

It's more complex than you think it is. There are more factors to consider than a + b = c

No I'm afraid it's much more simple than you think. Successful business ventures are not built they way you seem to think they are. The fight in much more important than Mayweather vs McGregor was so why not pay both guys hundreds of millions? Because that wouldn't be smart business.