Jon Jones has been a dominant drive within the MMA scene, however someway one of many UFC’s all-time greats needs his subsequent problem to be towards a retired 53-year-old boxer.

The UFC mild heavyweight champion known as for fights towards Mike Tyson on social media, saying he needs to have each boxing and MMA fights towards the person over twenty years older than him.

“@miketyson I’ll field you within the ring if you happen to promise to present me an actual combat within the octagon afterwards,” Jones wrote on Instagram. “And since I respect you a lot, I promise I gained’t break something on you”

Jones, who has had very public points about fighter pay and negotiations with the UFC not too long ago, says he’s asking for a Tyson combat to lastly earn more cash. The UFC champion responded to one of many feedback asking for a Dominick Reyes rematch as a substitute, writing “Bro I’m attempting to receives a commission. I’ve been beating no names for years.”

Curiously sufficient, this complete dialog initially began with Tyson speaking in regards to the state of fighter pay within the UFC. Tyson by no means really known as out Jones, however he made a degree as an example how MMA fighters must step in to boxing to get huge cash.

“A UFC (fighter) won’t ever be richer than a firstclass (boxer). To make 100 million {dollars}, Conor (McGregor) needed to combat Floyd (Mayweather)! Even when he fights Jon Jones, he’s not going to get that,” Tyson stated on a dwell chat. “Jon Jones gotta combat me to make some tremendous cash.”

Other than Jones and now Tyson, many different MMA fighters and stars have voiced out their considerations about fighter pay not too long ago, asking for a greater income share with the UFC.

It’s additionally not precisely search for the state of UFC fighter pay when Jones, who’s arguably the best of all time, has to name out a retired 53-year-old from a distinct sport to be able to receives a commission. There’s cause we don’t see Canelo Alvarez needing to name out Royce Gracie.



CLICK HERE TO THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE