Andy Ruiz Jr vs Anthony Joshua rematch

[Kirkland Laing]

If I was Ruiz I would demand fucking everything to make sure I was financially secure for life - and the next generation.

If he loses the rematch (for the record , at present, I don't believe he will) he's not going to be getting a rematch or another big pay day any time soon and will have to build up again - these guys who get labelled one time wonders have a habit of disappearing.....

How long have they got to sort this rematch it's doing everyone's head in.

I think it's fair to have it in the UK and will be in the contract. But as for the pay day fuck yes Ruiz should milk it.

If Matchroom are even minimally competent at drawing up contracts, and I'm sure they are, Ruiz' purse for the rematch will have been included in the original contract. He'll be able to stamp his foot and make threats and may get a few extra quid but it won't be anything substantial. Maybe he'll get a Nando's all-you-can-eat-free card valid for however long he's in Britain.

I remember Whyte turning down the April fight specifically because the rematch clause stipulated what he would be entitled to which was in his opinion very low.

These rematch clauses need to be banned and made illegal.

Even assuming it would be possible to ban the formally legally codified result of the disparity in negotiating leverage between a champion and a challenger, which it isn't, why would you want to do this? What difference does it make?

I think they banned "options" in boxing, where the promoter of the champion has a say in the next fight(s) of the challenger should they win. So they could do the same with rematch clauses, it gives the challenger very little say in the next fight in terms of money, venue and other key factors of their career. It could be argued Ruiz could earn far more if he was free to negotiate on a fair level field.

How can you ban options? It's something negotiable and something challengers are willing to give up to get a crack at champions. Ruiz could earn more if he was free to negotiate but he isn't because he signed a contract. And he signed the contract because it was a massive opportunity for him that has actually paid off. When he signed it he had zero negotiating leverage. Almost zero, Joshua was desperate for an opponent. But Joshua could have fought anybody really. The contract Ruiz signed was a fair reflection of his worth in a commercial deal. He's only on the hook for one fight and then he's free. Just going back a few years the Klitschkos used to have options on three or four future fights for anybody they fought. Go back a century and fighters would be willing to pay the heavyweight champion most of their future purses for a fight for the title. Champions have the right to look after their interests as much as is legally possible. Joshua is only doing what anybody else in his position would do. It's a short career.

I am sure a smart lawyer could argue that Ruiz is being denied his actual worth, now that he took the chance and won the title. Ruiz could get far more money in a unification against Wilder.

Any lawyer who has passed the bar can argue anything. It's whether it'll stand up in court that matters. And if Ruiz wants to spend years tied up in court blowing the purse he earned and going into debt to pay his lawyers while the sanctioning bodies hand the belts back to the PPV star/stadium filler/gigantic sanctioning fee producer he won them off then he's more than welcome to try.

He's only worth what he's currently worth because the champion agreed to give him a fight. And the champion only agreed to give him a fight if Ruiz agreed to a variety of terms and conditions. If you sign a contract that's it mate. Have a look at the contracts some bands have signed. The Rolling Stones contract with Allen Klein for instance. His estate still owns the publishing rights and makes millions of dollars in royalties for some of their biggest songs, songs they had no idea he had any ownership over when they signed the deal. Tyson's first contract with Jim Jacobs and Bill Cayton gave Jacobs and Cayton effectively more than half of every dollar Tyson made amongst other things. Tyson's contract with King was even worse. A contract is a contract. If you've signed a contract you're obligated to fulfil everything within the four corners of that contract even if you were badly advised before you signed it. And Ruiz is advised by Al Haymon, supposedly the smartest man in boxing.

Tyson contested the contracts with Jacobs/Cayton and King and essentially won both when they settled with him.

Ruiz will end up getting some concessions from AJ.

Unfair contracts are not worth the paper they are written on.

Cayton got paid every penny he was due from the contract until it expired. All Tyson did was spend a fortune on lawyers on top of the money he paid out to Cayton and then an even bigger share of his earnings to King than Cayton was taking. For about four years Tyson was paying two managers and a bunch of lawyers.

Ruiz did not sign an unfair contract. Nobody forced him into signing it, he was not expected to win, a late replacement, and made several times his career earnings and enough money to make him financially secure from one fight. His advisor was one of the smartest men in boxing and he advised him to sign the contract. The fact that Joshua now has one (1) fight that Ruiz has to take and seemingly no further options makes it as good as any deal that has ever been offered to any challenger for the heavyweight title ever.

So to recap.

A shot at the heavyweight title.

A payday that was several times his career earnings up to that date and an amount that will keep him in Twinkies for perpetuity.

A contract that gave Ruiz as good a deal as has ever been offered to any heavyweight challenger ever.

Advised to sign the contract by his adviser Al Haymon, the smartest man in boxing.





By no stretch of the imagination can the contract be considered unfair.