Once again, the boxing world has been enticed with rumors of unified champion Errol Spence Jr. finally facing the Welterweight division’s WBO world champion, Terence Crawford, after reports surfaced of the two being engaged in telephone conversations and having agreed on a purse split.
— Michael Benson (@MichaelBensonn) March 6, 2023
Errol Spence and Terence Crawford are reportedly now negotiating with each other "directly over the phone" and have agreed a purse split. Spence vs Keith Thurman and Crawford vs Alexis Rocha expected next, but progress for Spence vs Crawford 2023. [According to @MikeCoppinger]
Despite a potential fight between the two champions being good for boxing, interest has waned since a fight between the two was rumored several years ago, and new reports coming out have followed a similar pattern of vague and inconclusive reporting about the two fighters being in negotiations. Though the contract talks between the two boxers have always been relatively discrete, Terence Crawford’s mandated fight against Alexis Rocha, and Spence’s still-unannounced bout with Keith Thurman, make it unlikely the fight will occur within the next couple of months, despite an undisputed fight being angled for somewhere in the Summer, likely June.
It is more likely that, if the reports are true, a fight can be held in the latter quarter of the 2023. However, with this fight having already been teased multiple times over nearly five years since Terence Crawford won the WBO Welterweight title, and the news surrounding telephone talks between the two and an agreement on a purse split does not mean a fight will actually take place.
There is clearly some apprehension at whether a bout between them will actually occur, and with no confirmation from the fighters or their teams that they have agreed to certain terms, the reports seem more of a typical red herring “bait and switch” rather than genuine news. While phone conversations can accomplish a lot, only signed contracts are considered legally binding in most states in the US, and with their conversations not having included any legal representatives, these phone talks are merely informal and don’t reflect any actual negotiations occurring between the two parties.
In retrospect, more – and official – information will need to be released before these ‘talks’ can be considered legitimate. Lack of coherency regarding a date, venue and other vital information suggests that the reports should be taken with a pinch of salt.
