Fury v Joshua staged 'where commercial potential meets an absence of genuine jeopardy', argues Jonathan Liew

In a Guardian column published on 8 October 2026, Jonathan Liew wrote that the long-awaited heavyweight fight between Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua is taking place "at the sweet spot where commercial potential meets an absence of genuine jeopardy." He framed the bout as a deliberate commercial construction rather than a pure sporting showdown.

Liew opened his column with the story of Shizo Kanakuri and the 1912 Olympic marathon, noting the race was held in a Scandinavian heatwave and that Kanakuri, who had barely trained and struggled to sleep on his journey to Stockholm, dropped out at around the 16-mile mark, wandered into a garden party and "sat and drank orange juice for an hour." He reported that Kanakuri quietly returned to Japan the next day, remained on Sweden's missing persons list for more than 50 years, was located in the 1960s in Kumamoto by a journalist, was flown back by Swedish television and finally completed the 1912 marathon in March 1967 in a time of "54 years, eight months, six days, five hours, 32 minutes and 20.3 seconds."

Liew argued Fury v Joshua is frequently described as a fight taking place "several years too late," noting both men are beyond their peaks at ages 38 and 36 and that it has been years since either had beaten an opponent of world-class pedigree, a delay that he said makes Mayweather v Pacquiao "look impromptu." He maintained the timing serves commercial ends rather than sporting necessity.

The column set out a timing rationale: staging such a bout in 2021, Liew wrote, would have put titles and the undisputed crown at real risk; staging it in 2031, he suggested, would leave the match appearing "a fairground sideshow." He quoted Anthony Joshua: "We will get it on at the right time," and added that in April 2016 a fight with Fury would have been worth a fraction of the "£150m it is worth now."

Liew catalogued Fury's absences from the sport, saying Fury has sought to blame Joshua for delays while himself having spent "two and a half years" out of the sport dealing with "a combination of doping charges, substance abuse, and mental health crises," followed by a further "two and a half years" fighting Deontay Wilder "not just in the ring but in the courts." He also listed roughly five retirements, citing Fury's 2013 line ("1000000%, no matter what, ill never fight again"), his 2017 statement ("THE END"), his 2022 claim ("the truth, the gospel truth, nothing but the truth, I’m done, no amount of material assets or money will make me come back"), and a most recent retirement from 2025 to 2026.

The piece contrasted boxing's organisational shortcomings with other sports, asserting that "virtually every other sport on earth" builds structures so the best meet the best, while boxing does not, and posing the question of whether boxing can be considered a sport "in the modern, codified sense." Liew presented that mismatch as a driver of boxing's drift toward mainstream irrelevance.

Liew set out boxing's twin logics — meritocratic sporting excellence and algorithmic celebrity power — and applied examples: he called Moses Itauma "one of this country’s best-kept sporting secrets" and said an all-British world title clash between Daniel Dubois and Fabio Wardley was "feted as one of the greatest fights of the decade but generates virtually zero wider recognition." He cited other phenomena he described as symptomatic of celebrity power: Jake Paul as "one of the sport’s most bankable names," Oleksandr Usyk "fighting a kickboxer," Floyd Mayweather Jr "in talks about coming out of retirement to fight Mike Tyson," and Conor Benn and Chris Eubank Jr "keep rematching for the next 10 years." He asked explicitly which of those worlds Fury v Joshua belongs to and wrote, "I want to believe – and so do Netflix – that Fury can still be the force of old," adding, "I want to believe in the Joshua of the 2010s, unscarred and optimistic, this beautiful man of beautiful clean lines."

Liew concluded by questioning what the contest will actually settle, warning that any definitive outcome might be undesirable commercially given "the potential for an even more lucrative rematch sometime in late 2027."