Enlightened-One wrote:Crawford and Indongo are both paying more than $100K apiece in sanctioning fees to the WBA, WBC, IBF & WBO, but neither man will be on the receiving end of a big purse (possibly around the $1.5m mark).
That's the reason why the likes of big earners, such as Mayweather, Canelo & Pacquiao, haven't attempted to unify their respective weight divisions, because it costs them too much money and keeping hold of all the belts is near damn impossible... just ask Anthony Joshua or Tyson Fury.
Whilst it would be ideal for boxing to have one true undisputed champion per weight division, the sports governing bodies are profit-making organisations who actively do their upmost to render this scenario an impossibility.
When boxers are fighting for a big purse and they are already big names, I think they are less willing to give a percentage to more than one sanctioning body. What if a sanctioning body or bodies was involved with Mayweather vs. McGregor? They would both have to pay a lot of money and it is pointless because the public does not care that belts are not at stake for that fight. Crawford and Indongo are still trying to make a name for themselves, but maybe in the future, Crawford (if he wins) will not care about being undisputed champion if his purses go up a lot. Cecilia Braekhus holds all 5 belts (WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, and IBO) at welterweight for women. She obviously wants all 5 titles and her purses are not as large as men's undisputed champs. I don't know what she is making per fight, but the female champs in Mexico could make the equivalent of $100,000 American dollars each fight. If the women made as much money as the men, would they want to be undisputed champs? I don't think so. For that reason, the men usually do not want to either if their purses are very large. 3% of 1 million dollars is $30,000. 3% of $100,000 is $3,000. I agree that for the men, the costs are too much to be able to have 4 belts at the same time. I don't consider the IBO to be a major sanctioning body. When Mike Tyson was the undisputed heavyweight champion, there were only 3 major belts (WBC, WBA, and IBF). Tyson cared about having all the major belts even though he was a big name, so he was paying a lot of money to them and to other people such as his promoter. Tyson was and is still interested in boxing history, so I think Tyson cared about his place in history, so he wanted all 3 belts.
Now, I think boxers care more about the money and the sanctioning bodies have something to do with this. There are so many belts that are offered by the sanctioning bodies such as regional and Intercontinental that it has devalued the prestige of the world titles. Also, because boxing is not as popular as it was when Tyson was in his prime, the public for the most part just wants to see good matchups. The belts do not matter as much anymore. With BoxRec's computerized rating system, anyone can know who the best boxers are and what the best matchups would be. Ring Magazine also has their ratings. I don't always agree with either one of their ratings, but the fact that it is separate from the sanctioning bodies is a good thing because the public does not have to rely on the sanctioning bodies' often biased and subpar ratings to make a decision as to whether to watch and/or pay for the fight. People want to see Joshua fight and if one less sanctioning body is involved, I don't think it will affect the money to be made because people know that Joshua is the best and the amount of belts that he has does not determine that. Vitali Klitschko was only the WBC heavyweight champ. His brother Wladimir had more belts, but people still debate who was the better of the two. Golovkin said he wants all the belts, but he may not have the opportunity to get the WBO belt. I don't think it affects his legacy that much if he does not eventually get all the major belts.
