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

[elfag]

Why must the one holding all of the meaningful belts give into every Fury demand ?!?!?

It would be extremely satisfying if that UFC clown beat the living shlt out of Fury.
Leaving him in worse condition than McClellan.

Because pay is based on ticket / PPV sales not who has the most belts. If you havent noticed buyers dont care about belts. Jake Paul sells more than most "real boxers" its a fact of life.

[IronDanHamza]

If Usyk turned down 60-40 he is 100% to blame. He took AJ for 80-20. That is what he has to do, these other guys are the draw.


Even 70-30 was fair it was an upgrade from last time around and represents his higher status with a belt now.

These guys know how boxing works. They know that Jake Paul the fake boxer gets paid more than 95% of "champs" out there, its based on PPV sales and the draw.

From what I understand he got 50-50 for the rematch, 80-20 for the first one.

[Smash]

So surely 50-50 is fair then which was offered?

Which was the same rematch clause he got for AJ.

if tyson fury won the first fight was usyk getting 50% in the rematch?

[billeau2]

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?

Two possibilities. Regarding the logic of the clause E l f a g gave you what I consider the best response. I agree with it 100%. As far as Usyk and Fury not being in their first rodeo, they know how these negotiations work and there is no reason to simply walk away because of a rematch clause, especially if, it was reasonable, or could be negotiated. Again, as El*** says Fury is the draw, so its not unreasonable to have a rematch clause that reflects that... Paul was a great example because he may be a lame duck but his social media presence makes him the draw and negotiations reflect that fact.

The other possability and the one I think is in operation here is simply that both guys see more potential down the road for the fight. he rematch clause was simply a red herring, something that could be used as a diversion, a faux reason for a breakdown of the fight negotiation. This thinking is sad. These guys are wasting their primes. Instead of the potential for an epic trilogy, or rematch, we might get a great first fight where the second fight will take both guys into the twilight of their careers. This means both guys will become much like Vitalie, who is lauded for great skill and never fought anyone with much to offer until he finally fought lewis. Not blaming Vitalie for the Lewis situation just saying...

[IronDanHamza]

if tyson fury won the first fight was usyk getting 50% in the rematch?

No according to a poster on here if he won 80-20 in the rematch.

If he lost, 50-50.

[Smash]

No according to a poster on here if he won 80-20 in the rematch.

If he lost, 50-50.

ok so usyk point of view, 30% i win i get 50% i lose i get 20%, so thats potentially 30% & 20%

fury, 70%, he wins 80%, he loses 50% so thats at worst 70% plus 50%

u thinks thats a good deal for usyk?

or am i mixing things up here lol

[IronDanHamza]

ok so usyk point of view, 30% i win i get 50% i lose i get 20%, so thats potentially 30% & 20%

fury, 70%, he wins 80%, he loses 50% so thats at worst 70% plus 50%

u thinks thats a good deal for usyk?

or am i mixing things up here lol

Well #1 I don't think 70-30 is fair but Usyk "accepted" that so that's not relevant.

I think 80-20 if Fury wins is fair, and I think 50-50 is Usyk wins is fair, which he accepted for AJ.

I think ideally 60-40 should have been the split, but again that's irrelevant because Usyk said he'd do 70-30 (in the media)

But all of this is irrelevant anyway because Fury said scrap the rematch clause, to which Usyk then walked away.

I can't see how that's Fury's fault? No rematch clause is surely the solution to the issue here?

[Smash]

I can't see how that's Fury's fault? No rematch clause is surely the solution to the issue here?

fury is very hard to beat in the ring, usky is under dog and im sure a realist, 30% for such a big fight after missing out on a massive payday in saudi where he agreed terms is not a good deal if he loses which is quite possible, he then has no belts and no chance of a rematch whatsoever

if he cant get a better split for no match deal then maybe the calculation is better to walk away and see how that plays out

[786]

I’ve asked this same question before, they agree to everything, even 70-30 but scrapping the rematch clause was the dealbreaker?!

[Superbee]

I’ve asked this same question before, they agree to everything, even 70-30 but scrapping the rematch clause was the dealbreaker?!

The deal breaker was Jelly Belly absolutely not wanting Usyk to get 70 in the rematch assuming Usyk wins the 1st one ( and only gets 30) ...