"Since then Oscar is on a steady decline. Oscar got beaten by PBF and marked heavily by Forbes in a sleeper fight.
Losing to Floyd didn't indicate that Oscar was on a steady decline. In fact, I think most people thought Floyd would win in more convincing fashion than he actually did. Oscar was very competitive in that fight, more competitive than most experts thought he would be.

More importantly, Oscar's popularity (which is what effects purse splits) is not in decline. Oscar-Floyd broke all records, and then Oscar sold out a soccer stadium against a no-name in Forbes. And because this is being billed as Oscar's last fight, he will draw a huge audience again.

On the other hand PAC on steady rise, belt at 130, most exciting boxer, belt at 135, no. 1 P4P best boxer, etc. So IMO seriously PAC deserves 35 to 40 percent of the purse... "
And how does this make Pacquiao any different than Floyd at the time of the Oscar fight last year? Floyd had risen thru 4 weight classes and was considered the #1 PFP fighter in the world. You label Pacquiao as the "most exciting boxer," yet that exciting style has not translated into PPV buys, because there are other factors that effect marketability besides a fighter's exciting style.

For example, a fighter like Floyd gets labeled as "boring", especially compared to someone like Pacquiao, but Floyd is still more marketable than Manny in a megafight because Floyd can do a much better job of promoting the fight to a US audience.

Oscar is the draw, it's a fact and giving 60% or 65% to Oscar is a clear indication that he's the draw otherwise Oscar gets 50% or less...
But Oscar isn't just 60 or 65% of the draw, he's more than that. Look at the history of what Oscar has done in terms of PPV buys, and look at Pacquiao's history. Those numbers will show you that in an Oscar-Pacquiao fight, Oscar would be responsible for at least 70% of the people paying $50 to order the fight on PPV.