Floyd Mayweather Earned More Money in One Night Than Tiger Woods Did in 328 Events

A very intriguing statement in recent years was that Floyd Mayweather had made more money in one night than Tiger Woods in his entire career in golf. Let us investigate how much of the statement is true and in what ways it can be justified. To begin, if we are to consider a boxing match or a golf event a distinct commodity, in the sense that they satisfy a particular human want, then we shall grant them each a “social use-value”.

Further, if one had to claim that boxing generated more income compared to golf, then he/she would need to prove that the former exceeded the latter in terms of both spectatorship and social use-value. As we proceed, at the outset we should also mention that social use-value and spectatorship are two distinct entities even though the former determines the latter but not vice versa.

Watch This Story – Top 5 Best Selling PPV Fights Of Floyd Mayweathers Boxing Career

So how did Floyd Mayweather in one night make more money than Tiger Woods‘ lifetime income in golf? And does boxing ensure more spectatorship than golf, and if so, then what determines the social use-value of boxing?

The battle of zeros: Floyd Mayweather made around thrice of Tiger Woods in just one night

In 2017, following the ‘Money Fight’, Kyle Thompson tweeted this. In just one fight, he claimed Mayweather to have made almost thrice of what Woods had earned in 328 golf events combined.

According to Forbes, Mayweather vs. McGregor sold 4.3 million pay-per-views worldwide and captured a $55 million gate. Reportedly, the fight topped a revenue of $550 million, just a little “short of the $600 million haul for the 2015 Pacquiao fight.”

As per ESPN, an estimated 50 million people watched the event in the United States alone. Given the numbers, one thing that is assured is the significant spectatorship of boxing. Now we ask, what determines this rich viewership of a combat sport? And why do so many people prefer watching a fight?

The social use-value of boxing: ‘Money Fight’

Initially, we considered boxing a commodity that satisfied a particular human want. In this sense, we even granted it a social use-value. Just like any product that is acknowledged to be a commodity, the ‘social use-value’ of a boxing match is determined by a series of factors – quantity of skill involved, state of science, capabilities of the means of production, and its social organization.

Other than the skills and labor of those who helped stage the ‘Money’ fight, we had two highly skilled athletes taking part, who generated a massive consumer desire in the masses. Second, Showtime and the UFC joined hands, and, being the multi-billion-dollar organization they both are, took good care of the means of production.

Why we watch a fight: Catharsis in combat sports

Now we are left with the third and most crucial factor – it is “the want” or the desire to see a fight. Every living organism has a survival instinct. And in its rawest essence, a boxing match, surrounded by pain and fear, represents struggle.

Long ago, Aristotle had argued that Tragedy worked as a medium to relieve repressed feelings by arousing pity and fear. Since drama worked as a mirror of life, the Greeks filled their theatres.

Read More –Mike Tyson Brutally Snubs Floyd Mayweather From His League of “Savage” Masters

In this sense, now that a fight between two trained athletes represents hardship, pain, endurance, courage, and love, boxing has a social use-value and hence unparalleled congestion of views.

What is your take on the matter? Would you say that boxing ensures more viewership than golf? And why do you think you agree with the above arguments? Let us know in the comments below.