Mayweather vs. Pacquiao: Why Pacman, Bob Arum Are Looking Elsewhere

On Saturday, Jan. 21, RingTV.Com reported that Manny Pacquiao and Miguel Cotto "could be finalized on Monday." This was followed up with a story on Sunday in which Cotto's adviser, Gabriel Penagaricano, confirmed that a rematch between his client and Pacman was close to fruition:

"

Miguel Cotto's advisor, Gaby Penagaricano, confirmed that "general" discussions have taken place with the camps of welterweight Floyd Mayweather, Jr. and Manny Pacquiao regarding potential bouts against Cotto if Mayweather-Pacquiao does not come to fruition.

RingTV.com reported that WBA junior middleweight beltholder Cotto had agreed to terms, other than resolving a few minor details, that would allow for a rematch with WBO welterweight beltholder Pacquiao. An announcement could come as early as Monday.

But Penagaricano said there has been "nothing concrete yet" concerning a return bout with Pacquiao, which sources say could take place on June 9 in Las Vegas at either the Thomas & Mack Center or the MGM Grand.

"

In other words, it is looking like Monday, Jan. 23, 2012, will be the day Floyd Mayweather, Jr. versus Manny Pacquiao once more goes down in flames, with the fight everybody has wanted to see for years now replaced by a fight we have already seen once and that pretty much nobody has any interest in seeing again. 

It's enough to make a boxing fan's head explode. Mayweather-Pacquiao would almost certainly end up being the most lucrative boxing match ever put on, yet it has begun to appear as if both sides are actively running away from the bout. 

Mayweather has famously called Pacquiao out on Twitter, but according to an email he sent to ESPN last week, he is unwilling to compromise and won't accept a 50/50 purse split to make the superfight happen.

Mayweather has been busy on Twitter since, pointing out that Pacquiao gave an interview to The Manila Bulletin last December in which he said he would be willing to take a smaller purse to make the fight happen. He seems to not realize that this begs the question: If Mayweather wants the fight so badly himself, why can't he compromise and simply take 50 percent?

Still, there is plenty of blame to go around here and the Pacquiao/Bob Arum faction deserves its share of it. First, the fight couldn't happen on Mayweather's proposed date of May 5 because it would be too early for Pacquiao to have healed from the cut he received fighting Juan Manuel Marquez last November.  

However, that excuse has been largely forgotten more recently, as Arum has instead insisted Pacquiao and Mayweather can't fight on May 5 because Top Rank wouldn't have time to finish a temporary stadium in order to maximize potential revenue.

Arum's changing explanations for why Pacquiao and Mayweather can't happen has at times reminded me of the second Bush administration's changing explanations for why they invaded Iraq in 2003. 

At the end of the day, fans are still left wondering why this fight, which would make so much money for both sides, can't be made. It's the fight the fans want more than any other. It would make more money that any other possible fight that could be made.

So why are Arum and Pacquiao looking elsewhere?

Well, from Arum's point of view it all makes sense. If Arum can match Pacquiao with a fighter like Cotto, whom he has a promotional relationship with, Top Rank gets a cut from both ends.  He should be able to earn a big payday while protecting his golden goose Pacman and meanwhile raising Cotto's profile for future paydays (my guess: against Arum's client Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr.). 

It's cynical, but it's big business. As a fan I can't stand it, but as a boxing writer I know that it is what it is.

So maybe we get Pacquiao-Mayweather next November or December, if Mayweather can be convinced to take Pacquiao as his first opponent after he gets out of jail.

There are a lot of fights I am looking forward to in 2012. Capping it all off with "The Fight" would be the perfect end to the year. But I'm not holding my breath on that one.