What if Only the Winner of these Fights Got Paid?

[Marchegiano]

Let's say we take it back all the way to true prize-fighting. The guys fight and only the winner gets paid. Would we see better fights or more corruption? What would be the outcome? Post and discuss.

This era never existed. The loser was always paid, just less.

Both should get paid but winner should take the most , 70/30 for the winner

This era did exist, it's right in Broughton's Rules.

it's 2/3rds split done in the ring in public in front of the audience unless otherwise agreed to before the fight.

Y'all crack me up.

[4truth]

I like having a winner’s and loser’s share instead of haggling A-side/B-side. Certainly it would make negotiating easier but it’s just never going to happen, sadly.

[giant_king]

Man if it goes back to that you'll see alot more roiding in boxing.its already pathetic how many use now but with a winner takes all type system more boxers would use to feed they family.because for some of them that's all they know

[boliodogs]

It would be a bad system because the judging is often terrible and the clear winner does not always get the win. Mikey no doubt would have tried harder if he knew he would get no money if he lost. But then he probably would never have agreed to a winner take all fight in the first place.

[Ray*]

Do you know how much corruption would be at play? Just imagine how most of those fights would be rigged/brought. Unless its "Death match" where the last man standing get the payday. I just can't see a clean scenario even in that.

[megh50]

What happens in the case of a draw or a No contest? How about the A-side vs B promotional debate? Why should a fighter who has been built up to be a huge money-making marketing machine, who brings the people to see the event, have to settle for less if he or she loses? The prize is not only winning the fight...there is a business side