slave contracts

Haye made a lot of noise about the klitschkos offering slave contracts. However when haye fought harrisson im sure (correct me if im wrong) haye made 5 million and harrisson made 1. that means there was a pot of 6 million in total which means harrisson got just over 15 %.

If that is correct does that mean haye offers slave contracts?

(hayes contract had a rematch clause in it to in case he lost to harrisson)

I'd fight Haye for £1m. I'd probably throw more punches than the big slaphead as well. I don't recall many slaves being paid £1m but if that's the going rate, bring it on!

There is no such thing as a slave contract and to be honest the use of the term slave when someone is earning up to a million pounds is just flat out offensive. There are two types of contracts, those you choose to sign and those you don’t. Think this whole issue is nonsense, if you want a guaranteed percentage get to mandatory status, there are four governing bodies out there and in no divisions currently is the talent pool prohibitively deep, if you have any talent it should not be too difficult and if you are not good enough to become a mandatory challenger you are not good enough to fight for a world title so should be grateful for the opportunity, irrespective of what it is paying.

Absolutely not. Harrison was being given a gift. He brought literally nothing to the table other than a mouth

It is a million pounds.... End of story.

Pathetic topic. Obviously a WUM.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Pathetic topic. Obviously a WUM.

think you're missing the point. The point is that haye said klitschko offers slave contracts but based on the haye v harrisson fight so would haye under his own views.

I believe Haye's comments weren't all about price. It was also about who controlled your career (at least for the next two or three fights) if you were rude enough to win. Having to match big brother and then rematch little brother as part of the contract was, in my opinion, going a little bit too far. Anyway, I agree that £1M for a one off fight with no commitments afterwards is not cause for bleeting and I don't believe Harrison ever did on that particular issue. Well paid for one of the fights ever.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Pathetic topic. Obviously a WUM.

I'd steer away from using terms such as 'slave contracts', but i think the OP does have a point.

Not that i think we should be surprised about sportsmen being hypocritical, particularaly boxers and boxing promoters, but to bemoan getting a small slice of the pie whilst himself offering a similar slice to an opponent is double standards.

Of course, Harrison will have earned dramtically more taking 15% of the total purse against Haye than he would 50% against virtually any other opponent, and similarly, Haye will earn more accepting around 15% against one of the Klitschko's than he would a bigger portion against A N Other.

Basically, in most negotiations one side will have the bargainning power. The Klitschko's have Haye exactly where they need him, so they could probably even just offer him expenses only knowing it's his only shot at redemption. Similarly, given how Audley's career's ended, he's not in any position to demand big shares of cash. Beggars can't be choosers.

If Haye had any moral opposition to fighters getting such one-sided purses, though, then sure, he wouldn't have offered Harrison such a small percentage (though seven-figures for not throwing a punch isn't too shabby!), but it's the way the game works - very short careers, very high risk, earn as much as you can, pay your SIZEABLE overheads and get out of the game in a healthy position; mentally, physically, and financially.

K2 offer slave contracts and I don't find the term insulting in any way. Its not as simple as making it to mandatory or signing the contract of not. Get to fight K2 and you do not own your own destiny should you have the temerity to actually win. They control you, your next fights, how much you earn, how much you give them etc etc etc.

A slave doesn't control his or her own destiny and are often sold to the highest bidder. Boxers who sign up to fight K2 lose control of their lives and careers and place it firmly in the hands of the brothers.

But only if you get a free shot - if you earn your way to the match then fair enough otherwise accept it or urine off.

ShahenshahG wrote:But only if you get a free shot - if you earn your way to the match then fair enough otherwise accept it or urine off.

You must be under the impression that boxing politics is all above board and honest and open.

I dont even think Harrison was entitled to a title shot never mind 15%. On top of his 15% he is also getting a massive opportunity. 15% for Harrison is perfectly fair I think.

Not at all - I'm just irritated that fckwits who wouldn't even be wortrh urinating on to half the greats of the past gets a free shot and then whine about slave contracts. The only difference between Klitschkos and others is that they are acting as fighters and promoters both. Anyone who makes their mandatories get a sizeable chunk - those who don't, don't.

Its not about the money but the conditions attached to the contracts. It was Floyd who first coined the phrase when he tried to leave Arum. Arum said to all who were listening that floyd was going to earn X amount of millions. Floyd simply said he wanted to control his future and couldn't under the terms Arum tried to impose.

The proportion of the purse is generally reflected in how deserving the challenger is or what he brings to the table. If you are a Chisora or a Mormeck, picked to fill in because there is no one better available at the time then you can expect 10-15%. If you are Haye or Ibragimov who hold titles then they got 50%. If you bring something extra to the table like an American audience then you can expect a better split. Rahman got 35% and Arreola 30%.

1 million, 1 punch. Most people would call that good business.

Harrison should've had all da money taken off yim and he clothes burnt on his mofo back.

he robbed us all, silly name and da worse hair cut I've seen since Bruce da foreskin

monzon wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Pathetic topic. Obviously a WUM.

I'd steer away from using terms such as 'slave contracts', but i think the OP does have a point.

Not that i think we should be surprised about sportsmen being hypocritical, particularaly boxers and boxing promoters, but to bemoan getting a small slice of the pie whilst himself offering a similar slice to an opponent is double standards.

Of course, Harrison will have earned dramtically more taking 15% of the total purse against Haye than he would 50% against virtually any other opponent, and similarly, Haye will earn more accepting around 15% against one of the Klitschko's than he would a bigger portion against A N Other.

Basically, in most negotiations one side will have the bargainning power. The Klitschko's have Haye exactly where they need him, so they could probably even just offer him expenses only knowing it's his only shot at redemption. Similarly, given how Audley's career's ended, he's not in any position to demand big shares of cash. Beggars can't be choosers.

If Haye had any moral opposition to fighters getting such one-sided purses, though, then sure, he wouldn't have offered Harrison such a small percentage (though seven-figures for not throwing a punch isn't too shabby!), but it's the way the game works - very short careers, very high risk, earn as much as you can, pay your SIZEABLE overheads and get out of the game in a healthy position; mentally, physically, and financially.

Well put and exactly what I was trying to get across.

victorgarco wrote:

monzon wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Pathetic topic. Obviously a WUM.

I'd steer away from using terms such as 'slave contracts', but i think the OP does have a point.

Not that i think we should be surprised about sportsmen being hypocritical, particularaly boxers and boxing promoters, but to bemoan getting a small slice of the pie whilst himself offering a similar slice to an opponent is double standards.

Of course, Harrison will have earned dramtically more taking 15% of the total purse against Haye than he would 50% against virtually any other opponent, and similarly, Haye will earn more accepting around 15% against one of the Klitschko's than he would a bigger portion against A N Other.

Basically, in most negotiations one side will have the bargainning power. The Klitschko's have Haye exactly where they need him, so they could probably even just offer him expenses only knowing it's his only shot at redemption. Similarly, given how Audley's career's ended, he's not in any position to demand big shares of cash. Beggars can't be choosers.

If Haye had any moral opposition to fighters getting such one-sided purses, though, then sure, he wouldn't have offered Harrison such a small percentage (though seven-figures for not throwing a punch isn't too shabby!), but it's the way the game works - very short careers, very high risk, earn as much as you can, pay your SIZEABLE overheads and get out of the game in a healthy position; mentally, physically, and financially.

Well put and exactly what I was trying to get across.

Well why didn't ya ! Don't beat around da bush, you'll be gobbled up here.

I'll keep ya rite, chum

Sheez

I think the Haye slave contracts thing was really just an excuse to stall the fight when he wanted to to rack up a couple of easier defences.

He signed pretty much straight away when he moved up to heavyweight and was ok with fighting Valuev which included a rematch clause and options. I think he was offered 50/50 after he beat Ruiz but he wanted the Harrison fight which was free money so he just used the contract thing as a reason to delay.

*sigh*

Haye offers 1 million and a rematch clause to a man who wasn't even in the same stratosphere in terms of ranking or talent or opponents. How is this a slave contract?

The top heavyweights for the past 10 years offer a very lucrative deal to Haye, who holds one belt from 4 and this is a slave contract?

Its a WUM!

Haye got offered 25 million dollar to fight Vitali and turned it down he fought da hairy russian tombstone head instead and ran more da miles than Mohamed farad

You are a terrible "alt" and that is a terrible WUM.

That clearly isnt the real Eric Da Cat..

JabMachineMK2 wrote:You are a terrible "alt" and that is a terrible WUM.

If you are sad enough to think that an article calling haye a hypocrit over comments he made regarding slave contracts is a wum then please do not comment. I'm sure you have some washing up to do or something instead.

Wow. A boxer who is also a hypocrite. We have never seen one before. In fact show me a boxer who is not a hypocrite and I'll show you a perennial contender.

I think the fact that Harrison got paid £1 million pounds makes it damn sure it isn't a slave contract. Percentages or not, if the rate was that high then it doesn't matter. No rematch clauses, no if you beat me then you have to fight my uncle, my brother, my aunty and then my mates Kangaroo either, straight up £1 million pounds for the fight. How is it a slave contract, did I mention HE GOT £1 MILLION!

Audley's contract was fine and normal. He got well paid for his troubles also. But the purse is not the issue. It's only one part of the contract. As Alex states, no fighting the whole family and their pets and no options on their next 30 fights either. Just a rematch clause.

azania wrote:Audley's contract was fine and normal. He got well paid for his troubles also. But the purse is not the issue. It's only one part of the contract. As Alex states, no fighting the whole family and their pets and no options on their next 30 fights either. Just a rematch clause.

Show me proof that there is a contract that K2 offers which state you must fight the OTHER brother if you win? Proof meaning not Haye's words.

Asking for proof is a cop out. How on earth can I get a copy of their contract?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/oct/22/dereck-chisora-wladimir-klitschko-wba

http://www.boxinginsider.com/headlines/wach-vs-klitschko-may-fall-apart-over-slave-terms-of-contract/

Not just Haye, Chisora and Wach...I remember the likes of Solis and Charr complaining over the contract.

There you go Az

http://www.boxingscene.com/alexander-povetkin-i-not-slave-klitschko--35936

http://www.worldboxingnews.net/2011/01/solis-backs-up-hayes-grievance-with.html

More proof...All these boxers cant be wrong can they.

What did Haye get again? Oh yeah, 50/50 no clauses.

Povetkin turned down a mandatory opportunity for 2 million.....

Haye brought something to the table which K2 wanted. A belt and PPV money. He could therefore dictate terms for an equitable split.

The others bring little and are offered slave contracts.

A champion wanting to take the lion share of the purse.........whatever next! :-)

Super D Boon wrote:A champion wanting to take the lion share of the purse.........whatever next! :-)

Nothing to do with the purse for me. More to do with the terms of the contract and future rights to your own career.

Yeah but If you earn your shot you get a fair purse and no conditions ...through mandatories or through holding another belt. If you want a free shot ..what haye was asking for prior to valuev then you accept whatever contract they give you.

ShahenshahG wrote:Yeah but If you earn your shot you get a fair purse and no conditions ...through mandatories or through holding another belt. If you want a free shot ..what haye was asking for prior to valuev then you accept whatever contract they give you.

Fighting for the title is an honour. You put your life on the line for it. Then to be told that if you want a shot you have to mortgage your future leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Have the mmatch. Permit the rematch clause. But asking for a portion of future earnings and several rematches is plain wrong.

azania wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:A champion wanting to take the lion share of the purse.........whatever next! :-)

Nothing to do with the purse for me. More to do with the terms of the contract and future rights to your own career.

But then rematch clauses and options are nothing new.

Super D Boon wrote:

azania wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:A champion wanting to take the lion share of the purse.........whatever next! :-)

Nothing to do with the purse for me. More to do with the terms of the contract and future rights to your own career.

But then rematch clauses and options are nothing new.

Its a rematch plus a fight with brother and a rematch with brother. Plus options far into the future. Sorry mate, I reckon its a slave term. Sell your future to the lowest bidder. If you think that's fine then fair enough.

I aint defending the K bros as the Germans are disgusting with their options. It's the very reason useless no marks like Robert Stieglitz gets to keep a belt for a while because no-one decent will fight him.

Just saying these slave contracts are hardly a concept invented by the K bros that's all.

I would like to meet a slave who signed a contract

I recall Floyd coining the term when he left Arum way before it was associated with K2. He was derided for it at the time due to the amount he was promised. But he was proven to be correct. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

ShahenshahG wrote:I would like to meet a slave who signed a contract

I see someone has taken to use the litteral meaning of slave. Ah well. It's a term used for an unfair contract one feels coerced to sign.

ShahenshahG wrote:I would like to meet a slave who signed a contract

Prince or "&" or whatever it was he claimed to be his new name.

I think its simple enough work your way up - earn your title or yield promoters rights to Boente should you win. A free shot remember - the only thing they are guilty of is acting as promoter/fighter both

Champions often have voluntary defences. Its nothing new. Options are nothing new. Don King was roundly criticised for his options and rightly so. There is nothing right about options. It makes boxing look like a mafia sport. Larry Holmes said boxing is the only sport where the lions are scared of the rats. In K2's position, its a hybrid rat/lion.