Vargas turned down $1.61 Mil to fight Brook

[Boxfan83]

Look lets face it only a desperate boxer with nothing to lose will come over here, unless Eddie Hearn makes it worth their while

Eddie gave Charles Martian $2.5 million

Vargas probably wants the same amount

If Martin got that thatn Vargas def deserves that. I honestly thought when hearn said generous it was going to be in that ballpark because I figured after tax and everything Jessie would be a millionaire still. 1.6 still keeps him About Thousands...

[FrankieBruno]

If Martin got that thatn Vargas def deserves that. I honestly thought when hearn said generous it was going to be in that ballpark because I figured after tax and everything Jessie would be a millionaire still. 1.6 still keeps him About Thousands...

The reason why he gave Martin that is because Hearn puts more long term value in Jousha than he does in Brook

But yes Vargas should get the same amount as Martin, especially if it means Brook gets to hold another title

1.6 mil, will not make him a millionaire, after tax, 20% (standard) management fee and promoters fee

He'd be lucky to walk away with 500k

[Motorcity Cobra]

Stop talking **** mate

Usain Bolt:

"Bolt's objection is to a law that allows the government to take a cut of his sponsorship and endorsement earnings as well as his appearance fee, which is currently taxed at the appropriate rate of 50%. For instance, were he to take part in 10 meetings worldwide, with one in Britain, the Inland Revenue would tax him on 10% of his worldwide sponsorship earnings. None of which is objectionable". - See more at: http://economia.icaew.com/opinion/au....9RyVqPGv.dpuf

Bolt refused to run in the UK, we had to give him a tax exemption, thats the only reason he came over here

Vargas will not be given a Tax exemption

2015

In 2010, the famous Jamaican sprinter and Olympic champion Usain Bolt refused to participate in the Diamond League competition because of the UK tax framework, under which tax would be payable both on his winnings and on part of his global earnings from sponsorship. Taking into account the tax breaks for selected sporting events, the reaction of the Jamaican sports celebrity is not surprising. It is natural that in such a situation, there occurs the feeling of opposition against the unequal treatment and the belief that it is not worth it to take part in competitions burdened with tax at source, especially since participation in other championships in the same country may bring a tax-free prize. The decision of the Jamaican runner sparked a debate in the media and has launched an open and heated discussion about the tax treatment of sporting events. It also encouraged other athletes to refuse to participate in competitions not covered by a tax immunity. For example, in September 2010, American golfers announced that they would not participate in the 2010 Ryder Cup in Wales because of high withholding tax.

When it became clear that the United Kingdom began to be overlooked in the race for hosting major sporting events, the country departed from its general rules on several occasions and offered tax-free treatment to athletes. Other host countries have satisfied the tax immunity requests of sports governing bodies, and the UK had to comply with the emerging practice to remain a competitive bidder. For example, a tax break for players was introduced by Germany for the 2012 Champions League final in Munich, where the tax rules are similar to the UK. As a result of such tax competition, although the general UK approach to the taxation of athletes is consistent with article 17 of the OECD Model Tax Convention, the demands of sports organizations regarding the implementation of special tax regimes for championships have resulted in inconsistent behavior by the British tax authorities. The Wembley Stadium was chosen to host the 2011 and 2013 Champions League finals after the UK traded its tax on foreign athletes for hosting the Champions League. Since tax was the reason given why London missed its chance to host the prestigious game in 2010, the government announced legislation to exempt continental footballers’ prize money from UK taxation. Similar tax measures were enacted for the 2012 London Olympic Games to exempt the International Olympic Committee and participating non-resident athletes and officials involved in the Games from any tax liabilities. Worried about the prestige of the 2013 Diamond League event which has been damaged by the absence of runners such as Usain Bolt, the UK Finance Minister announced that a tax exemption would be provided for the Diamond League athletics. In 2015, Usain Bolt returned to London Olympic Stadium for Anniversary Games but only after the Government confirmed tax breaks for athletes. Although foreign players are normally liable to pay tax when they appear in events in Britain, the United Kingdom also gave up its withholding tax with regard to the Commonwealth Games held in Glasgow in 2014.

http://www.sportsandtaxation.com/2015/09/uk-tax-policy-towards-sports-stars/

[FrankieBruno]

All the scumbags in here telling Vargas he should take the fight and saying he will get 3 times more than he has in the past

You guys are being disingenuous with the truth

Vargas not only has to pay UK tax, management fee, coach fee, promoters fee, what will be left after all that is deducted?

Not even close to a million,

Charles Martin got $2.5 million, he's pocketed at least a million

Hearn is trying to undercut Vargas. He should pay the man the same amount as Martin

[mani1]

2015

In 2010, the famous Jamaican sprinter and Olympic champion Usain Bolt refused to participate in the Diamond League competition because of the UK tax framework, under which tax would be payable both on his winnings and on part of his global earnings from sponsorship. Taking into account the tax breaks for selected sporting events, the reaction of the Jamaican sports celebrity is not surprising. It is natural that in such a situation, there occurs the feeling of opposition against the unequal treatment and the belief that it is not worth it to take part in competitions burdened with tax at source, especially since participation in other championships in the same country may bring a tax-free prize. The decision of the Jamaican runner sparked a debate in the media and has launched an open and heated discussion about the tax treatment of sporting events. It also encouraged other athletes to refuse to participate in competitions not covered by a tax immunity. For example, in September 2010, American golfers announced that they would not participate in the 2010 Ryder Cup in Wales because of high withholding tax.

When it became clear that the United Kingdom began to be overlooked in the race for hosting major sporting events, the country departed from its general rules on several occasions and offered tax-free treatment to athletes. Other host countries have satisfied the tax immunity requests of sports governing bodies, and the UK had to comply with the emerging practice to remain a competitive bidder. For example, a tax break for players was introduced by Germany for the 2012 Champions League final in Munich, where the tax rules are similar to the UK. As a result of such tax competition, although the general UK approach to the taxation of athletes is consistent with article 17 of the OECD Model Tax Convention, the demands of sports organizations regarding the implementation of special tax regimes for championships have resulted in inconsistent behavior by the British tax authorities. The Wembley Stadium was chosen to host the 2011 and 2013 Champions League finals after the UK traded its tax on foreign athletes for hosting the Champions League. Since tax was the reason given why London missed its chance to host the prestigious game in 2010, the government announced legislation to exempt continental footballers’ prize money from UK taxation. Similar tax measures were enacted for the 2012 London Olympic Games to exempt the International Olympic Committee and participating non-resident athletes and officials involved in the Games from any tax liabilities. Worried about the prestige of the 2013 Diamond League event which has been damaged by the absence of runners such as Usain Bolt, the UK Finance Minister announced that a tax exemption would be provided for the Diamond League athletics. In 2015, Usain Bolt returned to London Olympic Stadium for Anniversary Games but only after the Government confirmed tax breaks for athletes. Although foreign players are normally liable to pay tax when they appear in events in Britain, the United Kingdom also gave up its withholding tax with regard to the Commonwealth Games held in Glasgow in 2014.

http://www.sportsandtaxation.com/201...-sports-stars/

Vargas is hardly Usain Bolt who is arguably the G.O.A.T in his field.

Boxing is a tiny niche sport too so I doubt an exemption would apply

[therealpugilist]

Red K sent for not knowing how to Green K

you'd be wasting your time...im already -10,000 or more in the red....thank the Mayweather-Pac saga from 2012-2015

***** was real, boy oh boy


just never got into it, the comments speak for themselves and more times than not most the people in green have a legion behind them. IDK about nowadays though but in 2012-2014 i was a public menace to tards

[Gary Coleman]

Would Vargas then have to pay England's 45% tax rate?

EDIT: Question has been answered.

[MrRolltide91]

Wow.........

[FrankieBruno]

and ofcourse Vargas manager wants the fight, he gets his 20% standard management fee LOL

50cent/SMS Promotions have the same deal with all of his fighters. Everytime they fight, he gets 20% from the fighters purse.

Vargas is basically coming to the UK to get his belt taken for 500k or less, is it worth it?

Should he hold out and wait for a Pacman? or Bradley?

[Motorcity Cobra]

Vargas is hardly Usain Bolt who is arguably the G.O.A.T in his field.

Boxing is a tiny niche sport too so I doubt an exemption would apply

Boxing is not a niche sport in the UK and it's more popular over there than track and field. The exemption was for the Diamond League, not just Bolt specifically.