Comments Thread For: Hearn To Parker: Joshua Has Glass Jaw? Then Jump on This Fight!

[sotgoda]

[1]I don't know how much AJ is worth in the US to be exact... that is exactly why I said that Wilder is worth at the very minimum of 50%. If you want to twist that into me supposedly saying that Joshua deserves close to 50% in the US than go ahead, but don't try and pretend that's me showing bias...

[2] Where did I say he did? In fact my exact words were Wilder is a bigger draw than Joshua in the US.

My entire response to KnickTillDeath was in relation to the notion that draw = 65% of a split and that that should be applied as a blanket rule, hence my final line:

This is exactly what I said was contradictory. Most of these AJ fans say AJ is worth more so it should be 90/10 in the UK or 80/20. So, if Wilder is the more popular in the US, I don't see anything wrong with a 65 or even 70 % for Wilder versus AJ using the "terrible" logic of AJ's delusional fans.

This is core of the problem. They are both young champions and have not reigned for long. AJ is the more marketable but Wilder has had the belt longer and has the more prestigious belt. AJ has beaten the bigger name, albeit a guy who was already defeated and had been out for a long time. I think the ratio should be closer irrespective of where the match takes place.

[Deus]

This is exactly what I said was contradictory. Most of these AJ fans say AJ is worth more so it should be 90/10 in the UK or 80/20. So, if Wilder is the more popular in the US, I don't see anything wrong with a 65 or even 70 % for Wilder versus AJ using the "terrible" logic of AJ's delusional fans.

This is core of the problem. They are both young champions and have not reigned for long. AJ is the more marketable but Wilder has had the belt longer and has the more prestigious belt. AJ has beaten the bigger name, albeit a guy who was already defeated and had been out for a long time. I think the ratio should be closer irrespective of where the match takes place.

If Wilder brings in that much more money than Joshua in the US then yes he'll deserve 65 or 70% of the US pot. There's no terrible logic in that; it's simply just numbers. Numbers that can be quantified and validated. Although I feel like I need to point out that I myself have not once said that Joshua deserves 80/20 or 90/10.

Your second paragraph is where we totally and utterly disagree... you believe the ratio should be closer due to sporting reasons and in doing so are preferring to totally ignore economic reasons which lean more towards the ratio's being further away.

The reality is somewhere between the two of those viewpoints is the sweet spot.

[sotgoda]

If Wilder brings in that much more money than Joshua in the US then yes he'll deserve 65 or 70% of the US pot. There's no terrible logic in that; it's simply just numbers. Numbers that can be quantified and validated. Although I feel like I need to point out that I myself have not once said that Joshua deserves 80/20 or 90/10.

Your second paragraph is where we totally and utterly disagree... you believe the ratio should be closer due to sporting reasons and in doing so are preferring to totally ignore economic reasons which lean more towards the ratio's being further away.

The reality is somewhere between the two of those viewpoints is the sweet spot.

I never stated that you mentioned the 80/20 or 90/10 ratio. Also, my 2nd paragraph does not ignore the economic reasons. I have never once said that AJ should not get more. He is the more marketable fighter but that's in UK mainly. So, if the fight occurs in the UK, he should make more. If a mandatory gets 25 - 30% during negotiations, why should there be an issue with paying a full-fledged champion 40 - 45% of the purse?

Two dance partners are needed to make the kind of money we are talking about. None of these money comes into our pockets as fans. Both stand to make more money fighting each other. My biggest problem is that Wladimir was not a champion when AJ fought him, was on the way out, over the hill from an age standpoint, was not necessarily a marketable fighter save for Germany and maybe a little bit in the UK, yet AJ and Hearn had no issues giving him 50%. (I think they did this because they wanted his scalp knowing his age, lack of confidence and that he was coming off a loss).

Why then should Wilder - a young, in his prime, undefeated, longer reigning, knockout heavyweight champion not be able to get 40 - 45% of the pot? I am not saying you agree or disagree with me here on the % but this is the problem I have with the logic of AJ's delusional worshippers. If they can explain the financial logic by which Wlad was paid 50% and can use that to justify why Wilder or Parker should receive crap, then I am happy to listen.

[Scipio2009]

He's a champ just like AJ how is not worth more than Martin ? Dude should be paid more than the like of Pulev and Takam, if he wants the belt he's got to pay like they paid Martin. The precedent has been set.

Because Martin was a champ, Joshua wasn't, and Martin was traveling over to make a voluntary defense.

Joshua has his own belts (so there goes the champion's premium that Martin got), Joshua is rated top fighter in the division (compared to just being a promising prospect when he fought Charles Martin), and Joshua is starting to emerge as a global attraction (with Showtime, RTL, and Sky Box Office all throwing in with him).

How you figured Parker should get more than Martin got, based on nearly nothing, is beyond me

[Deus]

Why then should Wilder - a young, in his prime, undefeated, longer reigning, knockout heavyweight champion not be able to get 40 - 45% of the pot? I am not saying you agree or disagree with me here on the % but this is the problem I have with the logic of AJ's delusional worshippers. If they can explain the financial logic by which Wlad was paid 50% and can use that to justify why Wilder or Parker should receive crap, then I am happy to listen.

The thing is the notion that Fighter A got 50% against Joshua so Fighter B should also get 50% doesn't actually work because it is in no way that simple. That's also why arguments that Charles Martin got X so Parker deserves Y doesn't work either.

Wlad got 50% more so because he was a scalp (as you mentioned); although Wlad took more of the kitty Joshua has made that and more on the back of the Wlad win as it had rocketed his promotional value, hence how after that he was able to make close to £20million against Carlos Takam.

Parker on the other hand basically just offers a belt so doesn't have so much value and thus isn't going to be getting near the amount Wlad did. Parker and his team know that which is why they'v come down from 50 to 40 to 35 and I think will probably end up settling at 33.

If Joshua does indeed face and beat Parker to setup a Wilder fight then i'd hazard a guess that Wilder would be getting the kind of percentages that you've just mentioned for the same kind of reason that Wlad got 50%: the potential for additional revenue upon winning the fight and being the first undisputed world heavyweight champion in 17/18 years far outweighs the loss of the purse of the actual fight itself.

[KnickTillDeaTh]

At least try to make your bias slightly less obvious because your comparisons are simply not comparable.

Wilder is a bigger draw than Joshua in the US so should expect to get more of the US pie in a fight with Joshua (I would certainly expect that at a very minimum Wilder would get 50% of the US pie when Wilder and Joshua fight) but whether Wilder is so big a draw in comparison to Joshua that he should be getting 65% is debatable.

On the other hand Joshua is a huge draw in comparison to Parker and thus should get the lion's share.

It's really, really simple. The more money you generate = the more money you deserve.

You probably should have followed the thread. This post was to make a point to someone else.

[KnickTillDeaTh]

Povetkin is a bigger draw in Russia than AJ is. So in that case... what PPV power Povetkin holds in Russia?...

Im sorry man... I don't understand the point you were trying to make.

[KnickTillDeaTh]

[1]I don't know how much AJ is worth in the US to be exact... that is exactly why I said that Wilder is worth at the very minimum of 50%. If you want to twist that into me supposedly saying that Joshua deserves close to 50% in the US than go ahead, but don't try and pretend that's me showing bias...

[2] Where did I say he did? In fact my exact words were Wilder is a bigger draw than Joshua in the US.

My entire response to KnickTillDeath was in relation to the notion that draw = 65% of a split and that that should be applied as a blanket rule, hence my final line:

it's really, really simple. The more money you generate = the more money you deserve.

If Wilder generates a whole lot more cash in the US than Joshua then he deserves the lion's share of the US cash, in the same way that Joshua deserves the lion's share of the UK cash. How is that biased?

Yeah that 65% bull schit wasn't my notion. I was responding to another post with a point about his notion that no one should get over 35% against Joshua because of his drawing power in Europe.

[Scipio2009]

Wilder is a bigger draw in America than AJ is. So in that case since the fight will more than likely be carried on PPV in America, then that means AJ should get less than 35% of what ever is sold in America. Including PPV, Closed circuit, merchandise, etc... Correct?

For a Wilder fight, the calculus is going to be different, simply because of all of the revenue streams coming in on that fight.

As a quick a dirty breakdown, the full UK rights/Germany rights and 35% of everything generated in North America would seem to be about right.

Still, Joshua brings additional event sponsors, Joshua sells a fair bit of his own merch, etc.

The UK rights alone on the fight are likely worth easily $15m in their own right, so the overall split will be in Joshua's direction, but he's unlikely to get the lion's share of the North America money.

[Raggamuffin]

Yeah that 65% bull schit wasn't my notion. I was responding to another post with a point about his notion that no one should get over 35% against Joshua because of his drawing power in Europe.

Knick you're talking too much common sense. They're Joshua **** gobblers hell bent on accepting Hearn and Joshua's low balling and getting out of tough fights.