Is Floyd Mayweather a Bigger Pay-Per-View Attraction than Manny Pacquiao?

Manny Pacquiao seems to be the name on the tongue of just about every fight fan at the moment.

After the "Pac-Man's" explosive victories over Oscar de la Hoya and Ricky Hatton, it would seem as though Pacquiao's long journey from poverty to superstardom had finally been completed.

There was little doubt that Pacquiao topped the Welterweight division and was at the head of the mythical pound for pound list. That is, until a certain brash young man, the self-proclaimed Floyd "Money" Mayweather, decided to announce his comeback—conveniently on the morning of the Hatton/Pacquiao fight.

Given that Mayweather had dominated boxing for so long and had held the pound for pound throne for what felt like an eternity, it was only natural that the public would clamour to see these two fight.

Everything about this fight screams success, at least financially.

We have a fighter against a boxer, a puncher against a technician, and a loudmouth against someone who defines the word "humility."

Add to this the typical friction within the Mayweather camp and the ever-entertaining, ongoing dual between Mayweather Sr. and Freddie "The Joke Coach" Roach and you really have it all.

Hell, I'm sure if the 24/7 for the fight was on pay-per-view it would sell two million shows by itself.

This all leads to the dreaded question of "the split," i.e.: How big a slice of the pie does each fighter get?

In my opinion, for all Pacquiao's recent success, Mayweather is still the bigger draw in boxing. I know this may shock some of you, but let me explain using objective evidence to back up my argument.

The fights between Manny and De la Hoya/Hatton managed to draw in about two million pay-per-view buys.

The fights with Mayweather and De la Hoya/Hatton, by contrast, managed to draw 3.5 million pay-per-view buys.

Now I have heard someone raise the point that the economy was a lot worse for Pacquiao than it was for Mayweather, but I don't buy this argument at all.

The big pay-per-view attractions have always managed to sell, regardless of the obstacles that are in front of them—just take Brock Lesnar as a case in point.

Furthermore, I am almost certain that Mayweather's fight against Marquez will get more buys than Pacquiao's fight against the very same opponent.

Did Pacquiao not enjoy better economic conditions for his fight?

To compare the Mayweather/Marquez fight against Pacquiao/Cotto is not very fair, in my opinion. We have one pay-per-view attraction in Floyd up against two in the form of Miguel Cotto and Manny Pacquiao.

However, if one were to compare apples with apples and take an objective approach, it is clear that Floyd Mayweather is a bigger pay-per-view attraction than Manny Pacquiao.

As such, Pacquiao should accept a smaller share of the purse and we should all hold our breath for what will be one of the most anticipated boxing fights of all time!