The definitive article on filed purses being bogus.

Charlo's purses are bogus. They're not real leather. He bought them at a swap meet.

The problem is, you seem to think only PBC fighters are getting these "secret checks" You're lying. https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showpost.php?p=20353254&postcount=10 Filed purses are bogus for everyone. Not just PBC. Top Rank, Golden Boy, Main Events, they all do it. It's been standard operating procedure for decades.

The problem is, you seem to think only PBC fighters are getting these "secret checks", and from non-PPV fights no less.

Cool. So, boxing is crooked and no-one knows what anyone's getting paid or indeed offered (by the same token, since any public offer will not be the true amount) for fights rendering any discussion of purses or any discussion of who's avoiding whom utterly pointless regardless of which promotion they're with. Yes. Correct.

So Eddie Hearn was not aware that filed purses are not equal to actual purses? I don't know what he was aware of, but I know what he told DAZN. The figures shown to DAZN of what fighters make were the filed purses and DAZN was led to believe that offers 2-3x those filed purses would cause every major PBC star to quickly jump to DAZN. Clearly that's not what happened. Was Eddie too stupid to know filed purses are bogus or did Eddie purposely mislead DAZN? I don't know.

for non-ppv fights filed purses are usually right because revenues for the event are almost predetermined. You're wrong. Filed purses for non-PPV fights are still bogus because the fighter wants to save on sanctioning fees, trainer fees, management fees, local taxes, anything based on the "purse." He's better off also being paid on the side for publicity rights or other such nonsense that fewer people are able to get their fingers in the pie. Every time Crawford fights, even non-PPV, his filed purse is way less than his actual guarantee.

https://www.nysun.com/sports/ignoring-the-truth-in-nevada/11026/ Boxing is systemically corrupt. When something in the sweet science doesn't look right, most likely it isn't. Right now, something doesn't look right in Nevada. On September 18, 2004, Oscar De La Hoya and Bernard Hopkins fought in Las Vegas for the undisputed middleweight championship, a bout promoted by Bob Arum's company, Top Rank. Hopkins and his attorney have testified under oath that Bernard's purse for the De La Hoya fight was $8 million plus $7 for each pay-per-view buy above 800,000. De La Hoya-Hopkins engendered one million pay-preview buys. Here's the rub. Last September, Top Rank filed an official bout agreement between themselves and Hopkins with the Nevada State Athletic Commission. The Hopkins bout agreement was signed by a representative of Top Rank and Hopkins himself and stated that Hopkins would receive $4 million as full compensation for his services and performance in the fight. The De La Hoya contract submitted to the commission was similarly flawed. It stated that De La Hoya's purse was $8 million, which was less than half of Oscar's actual minimum guarantee. It's possible that Top Rank filed phony contracts with the Nevada Commission to help Hopkins and De La Hoya avoid paying the full fees that would otherwise have been due to the world sanctioning organizations that sanctioned the bout. Sanctioning fees are based on a percentage of each fighter's purse. This theory with regard to the false filing is lent credence by a September 8, 2004, letter from Todd duBoef (Arum's son-in-law and a Top Rank vice president) to the World Boxing Association and International Boxing Federation. That letter states, "Top Rank has been directed by the representatives of the above referenced fighters that the purses filed with the Nevada State Athletic Commission for their September 18, 2004, bout will be the following: Oscar De La Hoya $8,000,000; Bernard Hopkins $4,000,000." The IBF is now suing both Hopkins and De La Hoya in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, claiming breach of contract and fraud with intent to underpay the sanctioning fees. The WBA and World Boxing Council may soon follow suit. One can construct a strong legal and ethical argument for minimizing the fees that are paid to world sanctioning organizations in conjunction with championship bouts. It's not uncommon for skilled fighters to be denied championship opportunities, while less-talented but better-connected boxers fight for belts. Also, the "alphabet-soup" organizations have been known to engage in the bogus rating of fighters. Under federal law, one penalty for this misconduct is a court order that precludes the culpable sanctioning body from collecting sanctioning fees for any fight. However, filing false documents with a government agency is an improper remedy, one punishable in Nevada by a minimum of one year and a maximum of five years in prison. To date, the response of the authorities in Nevada has been disheartening. Chief Deputy Attorney General Keith Kizer (who represents the NSAC) said last week, "Sometimes, particularly with foreign fighters, deals are structured so that a fighter is paid a certain amount for his participation in a fight and then he's paid a separate amount for the use of his name and likeness in promoting the bout or for publicity services in his native land." Kizer further suggested that perhaps Hopkins was paid $4,000,000 for the fight and $4,000,000 more for the use of his image in advertising. But Bernard isn't that good looking; his likeness is not worth $4 million. And in some instances, phony filings go beyond the downsizing of sanctioning fees and instead pave the way for tax fraud. For example, when a foreign citizen fights in the United States, 30% of his TOTAL purse is supposed to be withheld for the Internal Revenue Service. And let's not forget, on January 6, 2004, a dozen FBI agents raided the offices of Top Rank as part of an ongoing investigation that is believed to center on fixed fights, the submission of phony medical documents, and tax fraud with regard to purses paid to foreign nationals for fights that took place in Nevada. For a long time, the Nevada State Athletic Commission was viewed as a role model for what a boxing regulatory commission should be. To be fair, it still has many good things going for it. Raymond "Skip" Avansino, who assumed the chairmanship earlier this year, has a reputation for being capable and honest. The staff is knowledgeable. But if the NSAC looks the other way when phony bout agreements are submitted, where on the slippery slope does other misconduct lie? Will the Commission look the other way when a fighter gets less than his officially reported purse rather than more? Will it condone the submission of false medical documents that endanger fighters' lives? In boxing, as with other government-regulated activity, the integrity of public records should be preserved. That isn't being done right now in Nevada. Cool. So, boxing is crooked and no-one knows what anyone's getting paid or indeed offered (by the same token, since any public offer will not be the true amount) for fights rendering any discussion of purses or any discussion of who's avoiding whom utterly pointless regardless of which promotion they're with. Thank fuck that's cleared up. I expect the forum to be a far more civilised place in the light of this revelatory information. Maybe we can get back to enjoying the fights now.:rofl:

Way too much focus on Boxers Money Need to put something in place in which fighters purses are not disclosed because fans are talking about $$$ more than the actually fights and that is bad

this is about DAZN's entire plan failing because Hearn promised them he could get all of PBC's stars to sign and he failed spectacularly. He failed spectacularly because he sold DAZN on the idea that they could pay way more than the fighters were making and it was a lie. They couldn't pay way more. So Eddie Hearn was not aware that filed purses are not equal to actual purses?

for non-ppv fights filed purses are usually right because revenues for the event are almost predetermined.

That was one incident, 12 years ago So what about Crawford filing his purse every fight for way less than his actual guarantee? Was that once incident 12 years ago? Because he does it every fight.

I get it. You want to say "Wilder makes loads more money homie!!!" No, I want to say EVERYONE does. When Hearn claims to have offered Broner, the Charlos, etc "2-3x more than they've ever made!" and the fighters laugh at Hearn and say they're already making more than he's offering, this is why. Because filed purses are bogus. You can try to make it about Wilder if you want, but this is about DAZN's entire plan failing because Hearn promised them he could get all of PBC's stars to sign and he failed spectacularly. He failed spectacularly because he sold DAZN on the idea that they could pay way more than the fighters were making and it was a lie. They couldn't pay way more.

https://www.nysun.com/sports/ignoring-the-truth-in-nevada/11026/ Boxing is systemically corrupt. When something in the sweet science doesn't look right, most likely it isn't. Right now, something doesn't look right in Nevada. On September 18, 2004, Oscar De La Hoya and Bernard Hopkins fought in Las Vegas for the undisputed middleweight championship, a bout promoted by Bob Arum's company, Top Rank. Hopkins and his attorney have testified under oath that Bernard's purse for the De La Hoya fight was $8 million plus $7 for each pay-per-view buy above 800,000. De La Hoya-Hopkins engendered one million pay-preview buys. Here's the rub. Last September, Top Rank filed an official bout agreement between themselves and Hopkins with the Nevada State Athletic Commission. The Hopkins bout agreement was signed by a representative of Top Rank and Hopkins himself and stated that Hopkins would receive $4 million as full compensation for his services and performance in the fight. The De La Hoya contract submitted to the commission was similarly flawed. It stated that De La Hoya's purse was $8 million, which was less than half of Oscar's actual minimum guarantee. It's possible that Top Rank filed phony contracts with the Nevada Commission to help Hopkins and De La Hoya avoid paying the full fees that would otherwise have been due to the world sanctioning organizations that sanctioned the bout. Sanctioning fees are based on a percentage of each fighter's purse. This theory with regard to the false filing is lent credence by a September 8, 2004, letter from Todd duBoef (Arum's son-in-law and a Top Rank vice president) to the World Boxing Association and International Boxing Federation. That letter states, "Top Rank has been directed by the representatives of the above referenced fighters that the purses filed with the Nevada State Athletic Commission for their September 18, 2004, bout will be the following: Oscar De La Hoya $8,000,000; Bernard Hopkins $4,000,000." The IBF is now suing both Hopkins and De La Hoya in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, claiming breach of contract and fraud with intent to underpay the sanctioning fees. The WBA and World Boxing Council may soon follow suit. One can construct a strong legal and ethical argument for minimizing the fees that are paid to world sanctioning organizations in conjunction with championship bouts. It's not uncommon for skilled fighters to be denied championship opportunities, while less-talented but better-connected boxers fight for belts. Also, the "alphabet-soup" organizations have been known to engage in the bogus rating of fighters. Under federal law, one penalty for this misconduct is a court order that precludes the culpable sanctioning body from collecting sanctioning fees for any fight. However, filing false documents with a government agency is an improper remedy, one punishable in Nevada by a minimum of one year and a maximum of five years in prison. To date, the response of the authorities in Nevada has been disheartening. Chief Deputy Attorney General Keith Kizer (who represents the NSAC) said last week, "Sometimes, particularly with foreign fighters, deals are structured so that a fighter is paid a certain amount for his participation in a fight and then he's paid a separate amount for the use of his name and likeness in promoting the bout or for publicity services in his native land." Kizer further suggested that perhaps Hopkins was paid $4,000,000 for the fight and $4,000,000 more for the use of his image in advertising. But Bernard isn't that good looking; his likeness is not worth $4 million. And in some instances, phony filings go beyond the downsizing of sanctioning fees and instead pave the way for tax fraud. For example, when a foreign citizen fights in the United States, 30% of his TOTAL purse is supposed to be withheld for the Internal Revenue Service. And let's not forget, on January 6, 2004, a dozen FBI agents raided the offices of Top Rank as part of an ongoing investigation that is believed to center on fixed fights, the submission of phony medical documents, and tax fraud with regard to purses paid to foreign nationals for fights that took place in Nevada. For a long time, the Nevada State Athletic Commission was viewed as a role model for what a boxing regulatory commission should be. To be fair, it still has many good things going for it. Raymond "Skip" Avansino, who assumed the chairmanship earlier this year, has a reputation for being capable and honest. The staff is knowledgeable. But if the NSAC looks the other way when phony bout agreements are submitted, where on the slippery slope does other misconduct lie? Will the Commission look the other way when a fighter gets less than his officially reported purse rather than more? Will it condone the submission of false medical documents that endanger fighters' lives? In boxing, as with other government-regulated activity, the integrity of public records should be preserved. That isn't being done right now in Nevada. I get it. You want to say "Wilder makes loads more money homie!!!" Well yes, the purses may be fudged one way or another, who cares? It still doesn't mean Wilder comes close to 20 mill :dance::dance::dance::dance:

No, it doesn't depend on that. Hopkins was guaranteed 8 million, plus a percentage of the PPV and he filed his purse at 4 million. Even though, separate from the percentage of the PPV, he was guaranteed 8 million. That was one incident, 12 years ago, and the report further states that legal action was taken by the sanctioning orgs because of the discrepancy.

That depends on whether the fighter is entitled to a percentage of the income generated by the fight, on top of his guaranteed purse, as in the example you are using here. No, it doesn't depend on that. Hopkins was guaranteed 8 million, plus a percentage of the PPV and he filed his purse at 4 million. Even though, separate from the percentage of the PPV, he was guaranteed 8 million.

Not accepted by the UK trolls. Day in and day out they insist filed purses are a true reflection of what the fighter was paid, no matter how much evidence shows otherwise. That depends on whether the fighter is entitled to a percentage of the income generated by the fight, on top of his guaranteed purse, as in the example you are using here.

Not accepted by the UK trolls. Day in and day out they insist filed purses are a true reflection of what the fighter was paid, no matter how much evidence shows otherwise. Well spending time convincing the mind of a troll is like pushing water up a hill :D No amount of evidence is going to stall them, they'll just come at you from a different angle. I don't work for PBC and never have. Filed purses are bogus for everyone. Not just PBC. Top Rank, Golden Boy, Main Events, they all do it. It's been standard operating procedure for decades. Fair enough, though you might want to consider why a guy like me is drawing that conclusion, or not, that's your prerogative :dance: It minimizes sanctioning fees and athletic commission taxes. It's not about hiding money from the feds. It's about structuring the deals in whatever way will minimize liability. I'm not going to explain every aspect of it on a public forum. But there's no tax evasion going on in the eyes of the law. You're just being creative with who is being paid for what. Well if this is the only reason, then I don't blame the promoters /boxers for doing so!

I think it's accepted that filed purses aren't necessarily the final figure a fighter receives Not accepted by the UK trolls. Day in and day out they insist filed purses are a true reflection of what the fighter was paid, no matter how much evidence shows otherwise. what I don't really understand is why somebody who is on the PBC payroll would go out of their way to show a boxing forum that they're potentially operating in direct violation with pretty standard business ethics I don't work for PBC and never have. Filed purses are bogus for everyone. Not just PBC. Top Rank, Golden Boy, Main Events, they all do it. It's been standard operating procedure for decades. Curiously, I cannot understand how tax avoidance comes into play where fighters are concerned, or rather, why they would still try. It minimizes sanctioning fees and athletic commission taxes. It's not about hiding money from the feds. It's about structuring the deals in whatever way will minimize liability. I'm not going to explain every aspect of it on a public forum. But there's no tax evasion going on in the eyes of the law. You're just being creative with who is being paid for what.

Admittedly, I haven't read much of the article as I just don't have that kind of time available. However from skim reading it seems to be an example of filed purses not being inline with actual purses, then a case citing 2014 and top rank in regards to match fixing. I think it's accepted that filed purses aren't necessarily the final figure a fighter receives, what I don't really understand is why somebody who is on the PBC payroll would go out of their way to show a boxing forum that they're potentially operating in direct violation with pretty standard business ethics, both legally and morally. (regardless of how common the occurrence is) Curiously, I cannot understand how tax avoidance comes into play where fighters are concerned, or rather, why they would still try. The amount of money spent on IRS software for both the US and UK is frightening. Any money ultimately finding it's way into an account in any way related to a fighter, needs to be accounted for. Just ask Mayweather and Pacquiao, who's alleged tax avoidance is probably a large contributing factor as to why they're still fighting. (29-32+ million and 75+ million respectively)

No you are correct iam an idiot it was the mayorga fight that was straight golden boy, I believe oscar had one fight left in the hopkins fight . My bad . Most purse reports are bogus either way, even worse these days Trolls like Robbie Barrett think filed purses are only bogus for PPV, but that doesn't make any sense. Regardless of any PPV upside, a top fighter's guarantee for a big fight, PPV or otherwise, is always was bigger than what's actually filed with the commission. This has been going on for decades.