Why didn't Usyk agree to the no rematch clause terms?

I know this is late but I had a good back and forth yesterday regarding this topic of the Usyk-Fury breakdown. Despite general consensus being Fury is the sole reason for the breakdown of this fight I'm of the opinion that Usyk is as much to blame, in the sense I don't believe either were keen on doing this fight in the UK and were more so posturing in the media when they both knew Saudi was is on the cards for a lot more money down the line. For me, as soon as Usyk went from not accepting 60-40 to then saying he will accept 70-30 as long as Fury donates £1 Million to Ukraine it seemed obvious to me that they're not actually interested in fighting this summer and are trying to one up each other in the media. The fight eventually broke down due to disagreements with the rematch clause, a clause that was originally put in by team Fury. To my understanding the split was 70-30, with the rematch clause being 50-50 if Fury were to lose. Another poster noted that if Fury were to win the rematch clause request would be 80-20 in Fury's favour which I wasn't aware of. Which team Usyk turned down. Team Fury then responded by saying let's just scrap the rematch clause altogether to which from that moment Team Usyk decided to "walk away" and the fight was off. My question is; Why not agree to the no rematch clause term? Thoughts?

Comments (20)

IronDanHamza

Why should he have? He already agreed to 30%... fcuk the con man Fury …..To make the fight?

2y ago

El_Mero

Why should he have? He already agreed to 30%... fcuk the con man Fury

2y ago

Smash

Well if that’s the case, which I think you’re probably right about in all honesty, how is Fury at any more fault than Usyk? he messed up saudi by the looks of things, all evidence points to that, then he made the unreasonable demand of 70% for the uk gig leading usyk to make that calculation, i can do much better than this next yr in saudi so he walked away, fury i think even said he didnt expect usyk to take the 30% and hes an idiot for doing it, then usky slapped his 70% winner thing on, there is a pair of them at it i think

2y ago

IronDanHamza

He accepted it but then he slapped a 70% for the winner in a rematch demand which he knew would not be accepted by fury since fury was getting 80% apparently if he won anyway lol that means to me he did not really accept the 30% possibly and made the calculation i can do much better than this in saudi next year hopefully he says & probably a lot better, it was 50 50 says frank warren for saudi, thats a huge huge bump in pay for usky if greedy belly will agree with them that is Well if that’s the case, which I think you’re probably right about in all honesty, how is Fury at any more fault than Usyk?

2y ago

Smash

I don’t think 70-30 is a fair offer but Uysk accepted it so its irrelevant whether it is or not. He accepted it but then he slapped a 70% for the winner in a rematch demand which he knew would not be accepted by fury since fury was getting 80% apparently if he won anyway lol that means to me he did not really accept the 30% possibly and made the calculation i can do much better than this in saudi next year hopefully he says & probably a lot better, it was 50 50 says frank warren for saudi, thats a huge huge bump in pay for usky if greedy belly will agree with them that is

2y ago

IronDanHamza

Yes but you're still failing to understand that a one fight deal has a different percentage for the first fight than a two fight deal does. It's basic business. And he was a mandatory against AJ. It's completely different. How does that make sense when Usyk’s team whole argument was it was Fury who asked for the rematch clause and not them? If Usyk’s wins the fight without a rematch clause he gets a bigger % in the rematch than any rematch clause they would ever realistically agree to.

2y ago

IronDanHamza

Fury didn't negotiate in good faith. The gap in popularity between Floyd and whoever he fought was much larger than Fury and Usyk. Furthermore, Usyk has most of the belts. Fury still is lineal and a bit more accomplished, but even resume wise they are not that far apart. But tying back to Floyd, Floyd was much more accomplished and much more popular than whoever he fought, but his demands were far more reasonable than Fury. I don’t disagree but the point is the belts don’t mean anything here. What matters is who is the bigger draw which is obviously Fury. I don’t think 70-30 is a fair offer but Uysk accepted it so its irrelevant whether it is or not. Maybe it wasn’t in good faith maybe it was but we’ll never know will we because Usyk walked away from the table. He should have accepted it as far as I’m concerned.

2y ago

Toffee

The point is he had both options...he can choose the 1-fight deal or 2-fight deal. He's the the same (or slightly better) terms than he got against AJ if he chooses the 2-fight deal. Yes but you're still failing to understand that a one fight deal has a different percentage for the first fight than a two fight deal does. It's basic business. And he was a mandatory against AJ. It's completely different.

2y ago

LeOoze

2y ago

IronDanHamza

You must be trolling now. The reason getting rid of the rematch isn't the best option is because Usyk accepted 30% of the original split. You don't take 30% as a unified champion unless there's a greater percentage in the rematch. You acknowledge 30% was low. Fury mocked Usyk for accepting such a low percentage. It was clearly a low ball offer. When it was accepted, Fury moved to further low ball options of no rematch, or an unacceptable split in the rematch (Usyk on 50% as an undisputed champion). I don't get what you don't understand. Usyk doesn't have to keep accepting low ball offers to make the fight when he's holding belts. Fury needed to come to the party and he didn't. Yes you do when you’re the clear B side which obviously he is. We’re talking about belts like they mean anything when they don’t. Mayweather got 90% of the purse fighting for Maidana’s belt, it’s irrelevant. 50% is more than fair for the rematch. But again, no rematch clause would be the best option since they can’t agree terms. It’s that or no fight.

2y ago

Zelda

Basic maths and zero commercial acumen. The whole point is that Usyk didn't accept 30% for a single fight. He accepted it in conjunction with a rematch where he would compensated better IF he won. But that's not what my analogy was showing. l wasn't attempting to achieve actual boxing splits. It was showing that you might take an initial reduction in revenue for later improvement in revenue. Often referred to in business as a loss leader. If there's no future improvement in revenue then you don't do a loss leader. Because you'd just be reducing the value of your product or service. It's the difference between high school maths and adults doing business. The point is he had both options...he can choose the 1-fight deal or 2-fight deal. He's the the same (or slightly better) terms than he got against AJ if he chooses the 2-fight deal.

2y ago

Smash

If the option is rematch clause or no fight, you think the better idea is walk away from it? Why? Amer Abdallah, director of boxing of Prince Khalid bin Abdulaziz’s Skill Challenge Entertainment "The most important thing for Usyk right now is that he’s got to defend the WBA title in Poland against Daniel DuBois. And then, God willing, he is victorious and we can bring Tyson Fury to the Kingdom. I think Tyson would love the fight and I think he wants to do the undisputed fight." there is walking away then there is walking away

2y ago

Toffee

That’s the risk you take. If the option is rematch clause or no fight, you think the better idea is walk away from it? Why? He agreed to 30%, that’s his decision to accept, he didn’t have to accept it and I wouldn’t have blamed him. If they can’t agree on rematch clause terms, how is saying get rid of it not the best option? You’ve just criticised rematch clauses. Yet you’re suggesting that Usyk should die on the hill for it. You must be trolling now. The reason getting rid of the rematch isn't the best option is because Usyk accepted 30% of the original split. You don't take 30% as a unified champion unless there's a greater percentage in the rematch. You acknowledge 30% was low. Fury mocked Usyk for accepting such a low percentage. It was clearly a low ball offer. When it was accepted, Fury moved to further low ball options of no rematch, or an unacceptable split in the rematch (Usyk on 50% as an undisputed champion). I don't get what you don't understand. Usyk doesn't have to keep accepting low ball offers to make the fight when he's holding belts. Fury needed to come to the party and he didn't.

2y ago

IronDanHamza

Because what happens if you lose? Is it worth it to not have a rematch clause then? Just to get 30% of a purse? That’s the risk you take. If the option is rematch clause or no fight, you think the better idea is walk away from it? Why? He agreed to 30%, that’s his decision to accept, he didn’t have to accept it and I wouldn’t have blamed him. If they can’t agree on rematch clause terms, how is saying get rid of it not the best option? You’ve just criticised rematch clauses. Yet you’re suggesting that Usyk should die on the hill for it.

2y ago

ShoulderRoll

But why would you not accept it to get the fight done to have the opportunity to win the all the belts and hold all the cards? Because what happens if you lose? Is it worth it to not have a rematch clause then? Just to get 30% of a purse?

2y ago

Smash

It’s a mess really isn’t it? Hopefully this all becomes redundant and they fight down the line. Exactly, its quite possible that once the saudi deal fell through neither guy was too keen on the uk, it could have gone like this, Saudi falls through, Fury says ok im the boss ill offer the dosser 30% thats what he deserves, he didnt expect the dosser to take it BUT, usky took it knowing his demand of 70% to the winner in a rematch would not be accepted either, so it was a double bluff possibly with both guys making offers that the other didnt like & both can say they did there best and its the others fault blah blah, yeah on to saudi next year hoho or something like that

2y ago

IronDanHamza

in the interview he seems to be saying only saudi or wembley will generate enough revenue to satisfy the guys but he wants saudi for the cash so yeah it could relate to saudi only It’s a mess really isn’t it? Hopefully this all becomes redundant and they fight down the line.

2y ago

Smash

Is that not implying that that’s concerning a Saudi fight? The date of that video is August 2022 meaning I assume that’s regarding the terms for initial Saudi date (Dec 22-Feb 23) That would all change for a UK fight, which would be a lot less revenue and not massive guarantees. in the interview he seems to be saying only saudi or wembley will generate enough revenue to satisfy the guys but he wants saudi for the cash so yeah it could relate to saudi only

2y ago

IronDanHamza

Click on the link and read the first words you see. They say: Frank Warren: “Tyson Fury vs Oleksandr Usyk Will Be a 50/50 Split” Ok, but you’ve read the article right? Where is Frank Warren quoted saying that in the article? I can’t see it.

2y ago

IronDanHamza

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQZRMYaKO-o 2:30 Is that not implying that that’s concerning a Saudi fight? The date of that video is August 2022 meaning I assume that’s regarding the terms for initial Saudi date (Dec 22-Feb 23) That would all change for a UK fight, which would be a lot less revenue and not massive guarantees.

2y ago