BoxRec

columbo wrote:Say a fighter makes 150k like Purdy supposedly did. How much of that would they actually likely see after taxes, etc?

That's roughly £90,000, but he lost 10% so that's £81,000, 25% to manager and 10% to trainer knocks off £20,250 and £8,100, leaving him with £52,650, knock off training expenses, they're tax deductible anyway and you're probably looking at £45,000-£50,000 in his pocket before tax, if my guess at training expenses is correct, then he would have to pay tax on that. The tax year starts in April, so he would be taxed on the Alexander and Bundu fights, but he's already into the 40% tax bracket so I can ignore the Bundu fight, he wouldn't pay any tax on the first £9,500, then he'd pay 20% on the next £22,000, so that's another £4,400 gone, then above that it's 40%, so that's £5,400-£7,400 gone depending on how much he came out with after training expenses. Then there's national insurance to be paid, at that sort of pay it's around 8%, so he loses £3,600-£4,000.

That leaves him with, by my estimate, anywhere between £31,600-£34,200.

expe wrote:

columbo wrote:Say a fighter makes 150k like Purdy supposedly did. How much of that would they actually likely see after taxes, etc?

That's roughly £90,000, but he lost 10% so that's £81,000, 25% to manager and 10% to trainer knocks off £20,250 and £8,100, leaving him with £52,650, knock off training expenses, they're tax deductible anyway and you're probably looking at £45,000-£50,000 in his pocket before tax, if my guess at training expenses is correct, then he would have to pay tax on that. The tax year starts in April, so he would be taxed on the Alexander and Bundu fights, but he's already into the 40% tax bracket so I can ignore the Bundu fight, he wouldn't pay any tax on the first £9,500, then he'd pay 20% on the next £22,000, so that's another £4,400 gone, then above that it's 40%, so that's £5,400-£7,400 gone depending on how much he came out with after training expenses. Then there's national insurance to be paid, at that sort of pay it's around 8%, so he loses £3,600-£4,000.

That leaves him with, by my estimate, anywhere between £31,600-£34,200.

Thanks mate. You've really broken it down there! .... when you think about it. That's not much at all in the grand scheme of things when that's probably the biggest payday a lot of these guys are ever gonna make. It certainly not gonna last ya long lol

columbo wrote:

expe wrote:

columbo wrote:Say a fighter makes 150k like Purdy supposedly did. How much of that would they actually likely see after taxes, etc?

That's roughly £90,000, but he lost 10% so that's £81,000, 25% to manager and 10% to trainer knocks off £20,250 and £8,100, leaving him with £52,650, knock off training expenses, they're tax deductible anyway and you're probably looking at £45,000-£50,000 in his pocket before tax, if my guess at training expenses is correct, then he would have to pay tax on that. The tax year starts in April, so he would be taxed on the Alexander and Bundu fights, but he's already into the 40% tax bracket so I can ignore the Bundu fight, he wouldn't pay any tax on the first £9,500, then he'd pay 20% on the next £22,000, so that's another £4,400 gone, then above that it's 40%, so that's £5,400-£7,400 gone depending on how much he came out with after training expenses. Then there's national insurance to be paid, at that sort of pay it's around 8%, so he loses £3,600-£4,000.

That leaves him with, by my estimate, anywhere between £31,600-£34,200.

Thanks mate. You've really broken it down there! .... when you think about it. That's not much at all in the grand scheme of things when that's probably the biggest payday a lot of these guys are ever gonna make. It certainly not gonna last ya long lol

Maybe now we know why Purdy turned to crime.............. supposedly

Expe
The fight wasn't in the UK so what has UK tax got to do with it ?
If he had his head screwed on he'd be employed by Lee Purdy Ltd.

Yeah it's not like he's paying PAYE and NI contributions.

He won't be paying 40% for a start.

Parson Cross wrote:Expe
The fight wasn't in the UK so what has UK tax got to do with it ?
If he had his head screwed on he'd be employed by Lee Purdy Ltd.

He lives in the uk and his profession will be pro boxer and what he makes as a boxer will be taxed into the uk tax system regardless of where the fight is. It's not like Floyd Mayweather would have to pay his tax to the uk government if he fought over here. When Joe Hachem won the Workd series of poker he had to pay tax into the Aussie government not the US one.

I haven't actually given any figures on who I think earns what. McDonnell and Quigg certainly won't have ever earned 200k in their careers thus far, in fact I'd be gobsmacked if either have earned 75k for a single fight.[/quote]
I remember someone claiming McDonnell got £150k for the Ceja fight, I highly doubt that but it wouldn't surprise me if he's come close to £75k, he has had a couple of world title fights. Quigg might have got a purse of around that number now he has a 'world title', but again I could be overestimating as well.[/quote]i think if he got 150k u can add another 100k for hone advantage, would hearne invest that much to gain home advantage.Dennis Hobson could have git double that if it went to Mexico but its a fact the world title would have stayed in mexico.The crowd in doncaster was no more than 2500.would have been better off at donni dome.Why do managers and promoters Pay the board money? a boxer can walk away anytime with no punishment or anything.Very inconsistent by the board but it exposes them and its like giving the go ahead to nick other manager/promoters fighters.

Expe is not far off the mark with his figures gents

25% cut for the manager is an absolutely ridiculous figure. So much higher than any other sport, where an agent would earn maybe 5-10%. They may take more for endorsements etc but 25% of a salary is ludicrous!

You can see why Groves has got a manager's licence. These boxers should set up a proper union and lobby for this sort of stuff so they get a fair deal. It's daylight robbery at present.

Jack B wrote:25% cut for the manager is an absolutely ridiculous figure. So much higher than any other sport, where an agent would earn maybe 5-10%. They may take more for endorsements etc but 25% of a salary is ludicrous!

You can see why Groves has got a manager's licence. These boxers should set up a proper union and lobby for this sort of stuff so they get a fair deal. It's daylight robbery at present.

DEFO at the top end of the sport but many of the smaller, hardworking managers deserve their 25 per cent. A lot of these guys train the fighters also but don't take the 10 per cent. Being a boxing manager at grassroots level is a f@@kin nightmare! You've got to be a nutritionist,conditioner,train the guy,marriage guidance councillor. If your guy is delusional that's even worse, he thinks he can be world champ, don't sell tickets and is shite and wants to keep winning! I side with the fighter 99 per cent of the time cos they only have one career but I know plenty of managers who been shit on also. But yeh your right at the top end, when a fighter has a full team behind him then a managers job is quite often answering the phone and sayin yes or no.

James,
You need to sit a course on sports taxation.

Erm - yes Mr Mayweather would have to pay UK tax.

Parson Cross wrote:Erm - yes Mr Mayweather would have to pay UK tax.

you mean like Usain Bolt does?

Parson Cross wrote:Erm - yes Mr Mayweather would have to pay UK tax.

would he?

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, remuneration derived by a resident of a Contracting State in respect of an employment exercised in the other Contracting State shall be taxable only in the first-mentioned State if:
a) the recipient is present in the other State for a period or periods not exceeding in the aggregate 183 days in any twelve-month period commencing or ending in the taxable year or year of assessment concerned;
b) the remuneration is paid by, or on behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State; and
c) the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment which the employer has in the other State.

That's from the UK-US double taxation agreement.

ttornado wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:Erm - yes Mr Mayweather would have to pay UK tax.

would he?

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, remuneration derived by a resident of a Contracting State in respect of an employment exercised in the other Contracting State shall be taxable only in the first-mentioned State if:
a) the recipient is present in the other State for a period or periods not exceeding in the aggregate 183 days in any twelve-month period commencing or ending in the taxable year or year of assessment concerned;
b) the remuneration is paid by, or on behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of the other State; and
c) the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment which the employer has in the other State.

That's from the UK-US double taxation agreement.

Dont b and c mean that if a Brit goes over to America and fights on an American promoters card he is liable to pay US tax?

DMA1987 wrote: Dont b and c mean that if a Brit goes over to America and fights on an American promoters card he is liable to pay US tax?

As a layman my reading of that is the opposite to what have stated.

I am sure this is the main reason why Mayweather has not fought out of the US.

If he fought in the UK his purse would be taxable the PPV figures and money he would get on return to the US so that would adhere to the tax laws in the US.

I heard McDonnell got far less for the Ceja fight under £40k - Dennis will have 100% lost money putting on the show but getting the title and then looking for future fights for McDonnell to recoup the money lost.

Most boxers would have a Ltd company and pay themself a wage otherwise they would be silly and be highly taxed.

Again, trust Parsons on this one, he knows his stuff.

I know absolutely nothing about this jazz, but I did think I understood the way that boxers were taxed, clearly I was incorrect on this also.

One thing that's getting to me slightly, some are saying that expe is correct as if they have some kind of 'in the know' knowledge and authority on the issue, and then a few posts down someone else who appears to have 'in the know' knowledge and authority on the subject says expe isn't correct. Can we stop piss arsing around talking in fucki ng riddles and tapping our noses here as if someone's gonna sue us all for talking about this. Is expe more or less right with his run down? Yes or no. And if you're gonna answer tell us how it is you know intimately about boxers purses and how they are dissected up between the managers/trainers etc.

As I said, Parsons IS in the know, expe is a kid who has got his knowledge from google.

jameswilson wrote:I know absolutely nothing about this jazz, but I did think I understood the way that boxers were taxed, clearly I was incorrect on this also.

One thing that's getting to me slightly, some are saying that expe is correct as if they have some kind of 'in the know' knowledge and authority on the issue, and then a few posts down someone else who appears to have 'in the know' knowledge and authority on the subject says expe isn't correct. Can we stop piss arsing around talking in fucki ng riddles and tapping our noses here as if someone's gonna sue us all for talking about this. Is expe more or less right with his run down? Yes or no. And if you're gonna answer tell us how it is you know intimately about boxers purses and how they are dissected up between the managers/trainers etc.

i see that there is a load of folk who like to give the impression there in the know, a big player hiding behind an id. Then you have the brown nosers who say "That poster is in the know"

jameswilson wrote:I know absolutely nothing about this jazz, but I did think I understood the way that boxers were taxed, clearly I was incorrect on this also.

One thing that's getting to me slightly, some are saying that expe is correct as if they have some kind of 'in the know' knowledge and authority on the issue, and then a few posts down someone else who appears to have 'in the know' knowledge and authority on the subject says expe isn't correct. Can we stop piss arsing around talking in fucki ng riddles and tapping our noses here as if someone's gonna sue us all for talking about this. Is expe more or less right with his run down? Yes or no. And if you're gonna answer tell us how it is you know intimately about boxers purses and how they are dissected up between the managers/trainers etc.

i see that there is a load of folk who like to give the impression there in the know, a big player hiding behind an id. Then you have the brown nosers who say "That poster is in the know"

I know a few low level boxers and a couple of ex decent ones so am certainly in the know, albeit rarely, on a few subjects now and again. I also know a couple of posters are seriously in the know but would never dream of putting what they actually know on here. The rest, I agree with you.

bigB wrote: If he fought in the UK his purse would be taxable the PPV figures and money he would get on return to the US so that would adhere to the tax laws in the US.

I thought that would be true except when two countries have a double taxation agreement.

Viktor Vaughn wrote:Parson is 100% right RE Limited Company and taxes. He’s speaking from an informed POV.

As I keep saying #teamparsons!