BoxRec

Posted: **12 Apr 2018, 03:29**

Which percent would you consider to be fair ? I think the rematch clause might be meaningless if the first match is one-sided.
Can you imagine anyone who would like to see Rigo-Loma 2 (or back to the past, Tyson-Spinks 2) ?

Posted: **12 Apr 2018, 03:34**

I voted for 25%.

Wilder is bringing peanuts to the table and that 25% could be more than hes done in whole career so far.

I see anywhere from 25% to 30% being reasonable.

If he thinks he can win he should jump at the fight at those prizes

Posted: **12 Apr 2018, 04:35**

There is no sporting or commercial justification for Deontay Wilder to receive more than 35%. In fact, the $12.5m offer that was proposed to him by Eddie Hearn seems fairly generous to me.

So AJ can continue earning $20m by engaging in bouts against other opponents, whilst Wilder continues to make a paltry $1.4m each time he steps foot inside the ring.

Who knows? Perhaps there’s enough commercial interest in American to allow Wilder to engage in a title unification bout against Erzen Rrustemi and attempt to add the WBF strap to his WBC belt, instead of facing Anthony Joshua?

Posted: **12 Apr 2018, 04:47**

It's logical to give Wilder 25%. There are 4 major belts, Joshua has 3 of them, so what's the question here? It can be increased to 30% or to 35%, as it has already been suggested here, but no more.

Posted: **12 Apr 2018, 08:05**

I voted 60/40, which I was surprised to find was the most Wilder-friendly vote that had yet been cast. But I also don't blame anyone who has it wider than that.

I may not be much of a Wilder cheerleader, but I try to avoid being a hypocrite. I had spent a long time arguing that Pacquiao should get close to a 50-50 split against Mayweather. I think that anytime a top draw like Joshua has an opportunity to earn a purse that is like more than triple his typical purse, and provided that only one opponent in the whole sport can enable such a paycheck multiplier, then you have to give the other guy his proper incentive. It might be that Joshua has 3-4 times the drawing power of Wilder. Using only that logic, it may be that Joshua deserves a 78-22 split. But if you price your opponent out of taking the fight, then you are a fool, and you miss out on the paycheck that could have been. Do you really want to price yourself out of making a $70 million paycheck and go back to making $20 million paychecks against Kownacki types? I think in these situations, there should always be some regression back to the mean; e.g. if you think the split should be 78-22, then you should even it out somewhat closer in the direction of 50-50.

Also, if the match-up suggests a clear favorite, then give the underdog some extra money. For instance, if the match-up is Alvarez - Cotto, and you know Cotto is probably going to lose, then give him more than his fair share to make-up for the loss he is about to take. Since you know that Alvarez will probably win, and will benefit from having that win on his record, pay him a little less, since he is also benefiting from the intangible compensation of getting the win. But, in the case of Joshua - Wilder, I don't think this applies.

Posted: **12 Apr 2018, 08:21**

Lackeos wrote: ↑12 Apr 2018, 08:05 I voted 60/40, which I was surprised to find was the most Wilder-friendly vote that had yet been cast. But I also don't blame anyone who has it wider than that.

I may not be much of a Wilder cheerleader, but I try to avoid being a hypocrite. I had spent a long time arguing that Pacquiao should get close to a 50-50 split against Mayweather. I think that anytime a top draw like Joshua has an opportunity to earn a purse that is like more than triple his typical purse, and provided that only one opponent in the whole sport can enable such a paycheck multiplier, then you have to give the other guy his proper incentive. It might be that Joshua has 3-4 times the drawing power of Wilder. Using only that logic, it may be that Joshua deserves a 78-22 split. But if you price your opponent out of taking the fight, then you are a fool, and you miss out on the paycheck that could have been. Do you really want to price yourself out of making a $70 million paycheck and go back to making $20 million paychecks against Kownacki types? I think in these situations, there should always be some regression back to the mean; e.g. if you think the split should be 78-22, then you should even it out somewhat closer in the direction of 50-50.

Also, if the match-up suggests a clear favorite, then give the underdog some extra money. For instance, if the match-up is Alvarez - Cotto, and you know Cotto is probably going to lose, then give him more than his fair share to make-up for the loss he is about to take. Since you know that Alvarez will probably win, and will benefit from having that win on his record, pay him a little less, since he is also benefiting from the intangible compensation of getting the win. But, in the case of Joshua - Wilder, I don't think this applies.

But if Wilder gets 22%, it means fighters purses should reach a mark of $55.5m. In this case Wilder's 22% = $12.5m, and AJ's 78% = $43m. In this case Wilder will get 6 times more comparing to his previous biggest purse for the fight and Joshua will get 2 times more comparing to his one.

However, $55.5m for the fighters means that total revenue of the fight should reach $90m. It seems pretty unlikely. I think the total revenue would be about $70m and if 60% of these money will go to the fighters it will be equal to $42m. If Wilder gets $12.5m of it, it will be equal to 29.8%, and AJ will get his 70.2% or $29.5m. It's not much bigger than what he got for Wlad and Parker. He needs to have a couple of fights against guys like Carlos Takam to earn the same money, while Wilder needs 6-10 fights to earn $12.5m. Remember, he was paid only $900K for Gerald Washingon fight?

Posted: **12 Apr 2018, 08:27**

I think if it is 60/40, then it is being generous to Wilder.

Now, I'm not Wilder fan, but I think a split like that is one which both fighters could agree too.

Posted: **12 Apr 2018, 10:23**

Crease wrote: ↑12 Apr 2018, 08:27 I think if it is 60/40, then it is being generous to Wilder.

Now, I'm not Wilder fan, but I think a split like that is one which both fighters could agree too.

Posted: **12 Apr 2018, 10:29**

Fair or not. The lowest team Wilder are going to accept is 35%.

Posted: **12 Apr 2018, 10:30**

tiny_acres wrote: ↑12 Apr 2018, 10:29 Fair or not. The lowest team Wilder are going to accept is 35%.

It's all bullsh$t...Hearn knows if he screws Wilder and Wilder wins, Wilder's team will seek retribution on a rematch, so it's not good business.

Posted: **12 Apr 2018, 10:32**

oogiebe wrote: ↑12 Apr 2018, 10:30
tiny_acres wrote: ↑12 Apr 2018, 10:29 Fair or not. The lowest team Wilder are going to accept is 35%.
It's all bullsh$t...Hearn knows if he screws Wilder and Wilder wins, Wilder's team will seek retribution on a rematch, so it's not good business.

In the world of finance there is a famous saying.
A GUARANTEED PROFIT
IS A GUARANTEED LOSS

Posted: **12 Apr 2018, 11:01**

Currently 35% if they fight soon. If this fight happens in a year with more build and exposure, wins for both men, I can easily see 40%.

With Parker getting 33 1/3%, I don't see how anyone could think Wilder should get less.

Posted: **12 Apr 2018, 13:28**

Because Parker is a bigger draw... More people like him.

I don't think there's any fair percentage... I think Wilder should get a flat fee of 12 to 15MM.

Posted: **12 Apr 2018, 21:02**

35% of 35million is better than 80 or 90% of £4million

Posted: **12 Apr 2018, 21:25**

It can't be lower than 25 percent because that is the rate a mandatory challenger is entitled to. Deontay would make more dropping the title and being a mandatory challenger for say the IBF.

I would say the Parker deal is fair.

Posted: **15 Apr 2018, 16:28**

I don't know what is fair and what is not..the way I look at it is pretty simple: Parker at the time when the deal was negotiated was considered to be a huge underdog, I actually thought he was a no-hoper..I might have been wrong but still at no point of the fight did I see Joshua in any danger of losing it...yep, Parker was game, throwing a lot shots and all that still looking like a puppy barking up the wrong tree...

What I'm trying to say I guess is there was no intrigue whatsoever imo ...now, Joshua vs Wilder is a different beast altogether..intrigue, uncertainly..there'll be a lot more people willing to pay for it..that's the reason I believe Wilder should be paid percentage wise more than Parker and 40/60 seems to be reasonable considering the American will have to leave his comfort zone and go to the lion's den and fight on Joshua's territory and we know what THAT might mean..

Posted: **15 Apr 2018, 21:48**

I think 95% of the boxers would fight AJ for less that 1 mil and AJ would make 10 mil with it. If Wilder keeps on refusing, that's his choice, that's just the way he is, refuse any risk and he became a milionair with it, so who am I to blame him? He knows he got retarded fans, so he doesn't need to stand up to get their money.

Posted: **15 Apr 2018, 23:41**

I think between 60/40 or 65/35 in favor of Joshua is more than fair for both parties.

I'm leaning more towards the latter, but in all honesty I could care less who makes what. I just want to see the fight.

Posted: **17 Apr 2018, 03:51**

I voted 65/35. If you were to pay both fighters the same multiple of their best purse to date it would be nowhere near as close as that.

Just out of curiousity, If Joshua were just the same fighter, held the same belts, but was a resident of Lagos or Abouja because his family had never moved to the UK, with no Sky interest, no UK fan-base and all that implies, how many posters on here thinks Wilder would still be interested in a unification match?

Genuine question.

Posted: **17 Apr 2018, 13:21**

I voted for 65/35. Wilder is the more entertaining champion, in and out of the ring. He is more loud and charismatic outside the ring than Joshua, and more exciting and entertaining inside the ring with his knockout results, than Joshua. But, if we are talking "draw", Joshua will be the bigger draw fan-wise, to a showdown in England. Therefore should get the majority of the purse. If Wilder finds it unfair, then "Bombs Squad" needs to bite his tongue, take less in this fight, if he thinks he can win. Then cash in big time on his next few fights, if he does win.

Posted: **18 Apr 2018, 03:23**

I agree with your conclusion. If you're confident Deontay, take the money. It's several times more than you've ever earned before. For Joshua it won't be a massive increase on what he earns every fight, whatever calibre the opponent. Then when you beat Joshua you are in a position to make even more in the rematch and still get a huge fee for the rematch even if you lose the first one.

Deontay is very exciting to watch but all this talk about legacy gets very wearisome. He's never been interested in unification before but now he senses there's a fortune to be made, it's suddenly all he's ever wanted. It's taken him how many years to get around to defending against a top ten opponent?.

I do find it sad that a gentleman like Joshua, who treats opponents with respect, is quietly confident and believes in walking the walk, is considered boring by so many who prefer the loudmouth braggart who never tires of telling us how great he is.

Cultural differences I guess

Posted: **18 Apr 2018, 04:20**

candyslim wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 03:23I do find it sad that a gentleman like Joshua, who treats opponents with respect, is quietly confident and believes in walking the walk, is considered boring by so many who prefer the loudmouth braggart who never tires of telling us how great he is.

Cultural differences I guess

You can’t please everyone all of the time.

The thing is… Deontay’s alleged “exciting” demeanour hasn’t translated in commercial success, popularity in his homeland or decent paydays.

His trash-talking simply isn’t working.

Posted: **18 Apr 2018, 04:27**

aj and wilder have each only failed to get knockout results in 1 fight, lol 1 decision (like wilder) and now ajs now not a knockout guy?

Posted: **18 Apr 2018, 07:30**

candyslim wrote: ↑17 Apr 2018, 03:51
Just out of curiousity, If Joshua were just the same fighter, held the same belts, but was a resident of Lagos or Abouja because his family had never moved to the UK, with no Sky interest, no UK fan-base and all that implies, how many posters on here thinks Wilder would still be interested in a unification match?

Genuine question.

Of course he wouldn't be interested, there wouldn't be any money in the pot. In that scenario if he can earn $2 million fighting lesser risks than Joshua he would.

Posted: **18 Apr 2018, 07:30**

One quick point on the argument that Parker got xx% therefore Wilder should get xx%

The whole point of overpaying Parker (and, lets be honest, he was overpaid) was to get his belt and strengthen the negotiating position with Wilder. He now has three belts to one rather than two to one. It's also not true that Wilder has been earning much more than Parker was prior to fighting Joshua ($2m for Wilder vs Ortiz, around $1.5m for Parker vs Fury).

Joshua has everything - the huge sold-out venues, three of the four belts, massive commercial deals, guaranteed PPV numbers in the UK. What is Wilder risking?

Edit: for the record, I voted 70/30. Give him 25% for 1/4 belts and an extra 5% for bringing in a share of the US audience.

BoxRec

Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?

Re: Joshua vs. Wilder, the fair percent (without the rematch clause) ?