lazboy wrote: ↑17 Nov 2020, 00:32
Anyone know what pbc had offered him previously compared to TR? Did that make news? I can’t find anything.
Fighters aligned with the PBC operate using a business model that differs greatly from the traditional practice of boxers using promoters (as per those working with Top Rank, GBP, Matchroom etc.). It wouldn't have been a simple case of whoever submitted the highest bid to Terence Crawford. Their packages would have been completely different.
Most of the big-name PBC fighters are self-promoted, which means their purses are supplemented with revenue that promoters usually receive. However, they also have to fund/stage the events themselves (as per the typical business practice of promoters).
For instance, a fighter like Danny Garcia usually receives a $2m to $3m minimum purse guarantee to face his big-name fellow PBC peers, but that would be supplemented with PPV commission, coupled with profits he would have generated from being one of the co-promoters of the event.
So his take-home pay could potentially be far more than double the minimum purse guarantee figure, but he has to promote his own events. He has more work to do, because being a boxer isn't his only job.
Keith Thurman received a $2.5m guarantee to face Manny Pacquiao, but after the PPV commission, his purse allegedly grew to $10m. The Filipino legend apparently received $20m. However, both fighters would have also earned extra money via their profits from co-promoting the event.
Coincidentally, Bob Arum was unwilling to pay Thurman $10m or Pacquiao $20m to face Terence Crawford. This isn’t hearsay, he actually told the media their purse demands were too high and also quoted those precise figures.
Obviously, the PBC guys earn much smaller paydays when they face anonymous opposition. And if no one watches their events or the TV networks aren't interested in covering them, then they may make very little. They have more risk, investment and more work to do when staging their own bouts.
The obvious upside is that PBC fighters do have greater control over their own careers. And if you're a welterweight, you have lots of opportunities to engage in fights against big-name opponents.
In stark contrast, Terence Crawford's minimum purse guarantee with Top Rank is allegedly $3m to $4m per bout, regardless as to whomever he fights. And Top Rank performs all the promotional activities (i.e. funding/staging the events, working with the networks and media etc.).
The apparent downside of Bud's deal with Top Rank is that the quality of his opposition he's facing at welterweight is alarmingly bad (in the context of ESPN regarding him as the best pound-for-pound fighter on the planet).
This may be partially due to Top Rank having to pay his minimum purse guarantee, despite his ESPN audience viewing figures being so low (not enough income being generated to justify funding a big-name opponent). And the other obvious reason Crawford's opposition is poor, is due to the lack of world-class welterweights within the Top Rank stable.
So Crawford’s purses don’t vary much on a fight-by-fight basis, because he can’t engage in marquee bouts. He's unable to earn much more than his $3m to $4m minimum purse guarantee, due to the calibre of his opposition being so poor, which results in his audience figures being relatively low.
In reality, based on viewing figures and PPV buy-rates alone, Terence Crawford is overpaid, because his $3m to $4m purse guarantee is too high. And Bob Arum confirmed he had lost money staging Bud’s last three bouts. The Top Rank boss also claimed the Postol event resulted in a $100K loss, because it only achieved 50K PPV buys. Hence the reason why he questions whether Top Rank should even bother to extend their contract with Bud.
