Sunday, August 17, 2008

Good News For Everyone But Pacquiao

According to the most up-to-date news articles, De la Hoya-Pacquiao, which would have been a fight between the biggest boxing star in the US and the best fighter in the world, is off. To me, this is good news. De la Hoya's huge size advantage against a man who began his career as a flyweight made this fight all but a joke to me, and created in my mind the image of the schoolyard bully picking on the smallest kid in class.

Pacquiao, however, had badly wanted the fight. He had pursued the De la Hoya fight. He had been the one to mention Ricky Hatton and Oscar as possible potential opponents. He wanted the recognition that comes, in America, from fighting Oscar de la Hoya, no matter how deserving or undeserving de la Hoya may be of the fight.

The reason for the failure appears to be money. Pacquiao felt that his status as the best fighter in the world on nearly everybody's pound for pound rankings in the wake of Floyd Mayweather Jr's retirement entitled him to a 60-40 split of the purse. De la Hoya felt just as strongly that his box office draw and celebrity appeal entitled him to a 70-30 split despite having not won a meaningful fight since knocking out Fernando Vargas.

Since I don't think the fight should have been taking place in the first place, I am glad it's off. However, I can't help but side with Pacquiao's argument that he deserved a bigger split. I would even go so far as to say, comparing Pacquiao's current status as the best fighter in boxing, he deserved at least a 50-50 split, if not the better end of the purse. Sure, de la Hoya is a huge box-office draw. However, he holds no title or championship. Pacquiao is not coming up in weight to challenge for a title. He's the man with the gold on his waist, even if this fight would be a non-title fight. It would be de la Hoya, fighting the best man in the sport, who had something to prove and would be in the position of 'challenger.'

The reason the money was handled the way it was, in my mind, is that De La Hoya's camp did not see Oscar's last fight as a fight. They saw it as an event, a stage play in which Oscar was the star and he deserves the bulk of the rewards. De la Hoya's celebrity is undeniable, and so is his box office draw. American fans hear his name and get an image no longer in tune weith reality, and Oscar believes his image is worth seventy percent of a purse. Many Americans who are not boxing fans or are only casually fans may agree. Their argument would be: Pacquiao cannot make the kind of money entailed by thirty percent of the de la Hoya purse from any other fight he could make and the purse would be generated by de la Hoya's star power, not Pacquiao's greatness as a fighter. Objectively, this argument may be true.

That said, Pacquiao is a great fighter and de la Hoya is not, not anymore. He has always been more celebrity than substance and, at this point in his career, celebrity is all he has left. Whether or not Pacquiao was being offered more money than he had ever seen before is beside the point. I am absolutely certain that Pacquiao's pride would in no way brook being given an insulting purse split by a man whose last meaningful win was six years ago, particularly when he is coming off his impressive jump to lightweight, which was considered highly dubious in many quarters. Pride is a very important part of a successful athlete's make up, and I can completely understand why Pacquiao would be insulted. The offer of a 70-30 split is a statement. It says clearly 'you don't deserve what I deserve, I am entitled and you are no more than another opponent.'

The best fighter in the world does not deserve to be treated like an alphabet mandatory no one has heard of before, as if he were facing the undisputed champion. He deserves his fair share. Period.

Certainly life is not fair. Pacquiao will not make as much money elsewhere. However, if his pride is more important to him than money, he has made the right choice. Boxing may be a business, but not every fighter approaches the sport as a businessman.

No comments: