Tyson Fury's staggering 9-figure fortune revealed as Gypsy King, 36, banks £195k PER DAY
BOXER Tyson Fury has made £186million, from the sport, accounts show.
The Gypsy King turned over a heavyweight profit last year, with his main business banking £71million — £195,000 per day.
2
The former champ, 36, who has said he wants to make ' as much money as I can until the wheels fall off', recorded a huge turnover at his company Tyson Fury Ltd.
The business handles boxing and sponsorship earnings and was worth £186.1million last September.
But Fury only paid himself £100,000.
The year before he paid himself £150,000.
The new accounts show Fury's firm had funds of £162million after settling bills.
The firm's turnover included Fury's purse from his fight with Francis Ngannou and split decision defeat to Ukraine's Oleksandr Usyk, 38 in May last year.
But the figures do not include Fury's purse from his last fight in December when he was beaten for a second time by Usyk in a Saudi Arabia bout.
His fortune is set to soar further if he agrees to a showdown with Anthony Joshua, 35.
2
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
33 minutes ago
- BBC News
Motion for Sunday football passed at Irish FA AGM
A motion to approve Sunday football in Northern Ireland has been approved at the Irish FA's annual general meeting. The proposal, brought forward by the Northern Ireland Football League [NIFL], gained a 76% majority on Monday with chief executive Gerard Lawlor believing it is a necessary step in efforts to improve standards of the competition."The NIFL Board holds firm in its belief that being professional is more than a label, it is a standard we must reach and uphold in every sense," he said."The landscape of professional football is changing rapidly throughout the world, and Northern Ireland must evolve with it, or risk being left behind."We are pleased with the outcome and look forward to further engagement and implementation with our member clubs."The proposal will only apply to NIFL competitions, which are the three men's top divisions, the Women's Premiership and their respective League Cup Irish FA's rules stated "no match shall be played within Northern Ireland on a Sunday unless the two participating clubs and competition organisers agree to do so".An amendment to this was first proposed by NIFL two years ago but was rejected by a large that occasion, NIFL had proposed an amendment by saying it "shall not apply to matches played under the auspices" of the governing time, the motion for Sunday football was put forward with the caveat that Irish League clubs had the option to opt in or out through their participation amendment means matches in the top three flights of football in Northern Ireland, which come under NIFL's jurisdiction, could be played on any day of the week."The data is clear: traditional Saturday afternoon attendances are in decline. We must recognise this and respond accordingly," NIFL CEO Gerard Lawlor posted on X , externalahead of Monday's AGM."This is not a debate of tradition versus change, it is about responding to reality with a forward-thinking approach."The flexibility offered by this proposal allows for fixtures to be played on Wednesday or Thursday evenings, creating new opportunities for increased visibility, enhanced commercial value, and improved fan engagement."Sunday football has become a more regular occurrence across Northern Ireland in recent years. Last season, Larne played a number of Irish Premiership matches on a Sunday after they qualified for the Uefa Conference League and their European fixtures were played on a Thursday have also hosted the BetMcLean Cup final on a Sunday for the past four years, and the decider of the women's competition was played on Sunday as Cliftonville defeated addition to this, a number of Women's Premiership matches have also taken place on a Sunday in recent who oppose Sunday football in Northern Ireland have often cited religious reasons, and concerns about attendance numbers by going up against big Premier League matches which are televised on a Sunday.
The Sun
34 minutes ago
- The Sun
Wimbledon slammed over ‘terrible decision' involving Taylor Fritz by ESPN analyst and ex-US star
WIMBLEDON organizers came under fire for a controversial decision involving Taylor Fritz. The No. 5 seed American was involved in a first-round battle with Frenchman Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard. 5 5 5 Fritz won a dramatic fourth set tie-break to level the match at two sets apiece. He and his opponent were then approached by a tournament referee shortly after 10.15 pm local time. And a decision was made to stop the match despite there being more than 40 minutes of time available. It was deemed that the match might not finish before the curfew. And stopping before the fifth set began rather than potentially interrupting it at 11 pm was the preferred option. Fritz showed his unhappiness on court having just fought back from two sets down to wrestle momentum. The US star will have to return to No. 1 Court Tuesday to play to a finish. ESPN's coverage from The All England Club began at 6 am ET on Tuesday. Former Wimbledon semifinalist Sam Querrey, 37, joined Patrick McEnroe and Rennae Stubbs in the studio. "I think it was about 10.17 pm," Querrey noted on the timing of the postponement. Emma Raducanu laughs off champagne cork flying onto the court after winning her 1st round match at Wimbledon "You can play until 11 pm here with the curfew. "Terrible decision," the former world No. 11 said. "To go out and say 'we might not finish the fifth set'. "You can't make the decision based on a hypothetical "One of them could have won the fifth set 6-2 in 30 minutes." 5 5 The US star was two sets down in a game that was moved onto No. 1 Court. Officials took a decision to start the game under the roof at shortly after 7 pm local time. The move was made to avoid a delay in closing the roof if the game went beyond 9 pm and daylight faded. Play can continue on Centre Court and No. 1 Court until an 11 pm curfew. Fritz and Mpetshi Perricard follow No. 1 seed Jannik Sinner onto court on Tuesday to complete their game.
Daily Mail
36 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Multimillionaire couple sue insurers for £1m over fire that 'engulfed' their £2m house and £300k watch collection - after firm refused to pay out because they'd failed to declare building work
A multimillionaire couple are embroiled in a £1million legal battle with their insurer after the firm did not pay up for part of rebuilding costs as well as damage to a collection of Rolexes following a house fire. The £2million home of wedding makeup artist Biborka Bellhouse and her property investment boss husband Charles Bellhouse went up in flames on December 29, 2022, with 60 firefighters and eight fire engines having to bring the blaze under control. The four-bed detached house in Park Road, Chiswick, was seriously damaged in the blaze which broke out while they were in the process of having it extended and refurbished. Following the fire, which the couple say caused them 'psychological harm', they went on to claim £16,000 towards scaffolding to make the property safe and around £140,000 for alternative accommodation and furniture from their insurers, Zurich. Although the insurance firm agreed to pay the couple around £155,000 towards these costs, they refused to pay out over £1million for claims made for rebuilding the property, as well as a luxury watch collection. Mr Bellhouse, 46, and Mrs Bellhouse, 42, claimed around £600,000 to rebuild the house and up to £475,000 for contents, which included the property investment boss's Rolex Chronograph and Patek Philippe watches. The Rolex Chronograph and the Patek were individually insured for £40,000 and £187,000 respectively, while three other Rolex watches were insured for £75,000. Now the couple are suing Zurich Insurance Plc, by taking them to the High Court in a bid to force them to pay out so they can reconstruct their destroyed home. But, the insurance firm has insisted the family had breached the terms of their cover and thus invalidated their policy as they failed to inform them about the construction of their extension. In documents submitted to the court, Mek Mesfin, representing the multi-millionaire couple, explained the fire broke out causing 'substantial damage' to their home. Neither the couple or their children were home when the incident occurred. 'Following the fire, a claim was made under the policy,' said the barrister, who went to claim Zurich has 'wrongfully and in breach of the terms of the policy' refused to accept liability beyond scaffolding and rehousing payments. '[The insurance firm] has refused to pay the claimants any sum in respect of the losses which the claimants have suffered as a consequence of the fire.' According to the barrister, only one of the valuable watches was in the home at the time of the fire, however boxes and authenticity certificates may have perished in the flames, potentially impacting the value of the other luxury accessories. 'The authentication materials, including the boxes and/or certification, for the watches were in the property during the fire. Due to the unsafe condition of the property, the claimants do not know, but assume, whether they have been damaged or destroyed,' he said. Mr Mesfin insisted his clients are entitled to indemnity and/or damages from the insurance firm if the items suffered a loss in value as a result of damage to authentication materials in the fire. The couple are also claiming 'medical expenses' of around £8,000 from Zurich, stating that they have suffered 'psychological harm' and needed therapy due to Zurich's failure to pay up. They also want around £20,000 for additional scaffolding costs and around £600,000 to rebuild the property, although they say the project may cost more. However, lawyers for Zurich say it is not obliged to pay out anything else on the policy and has 'avoided liability' due to a 'misrepresentation'. They say that when the couple took out the insurance, they had no plans to carry out any major works to their home within the next 12 months. The company says it would not have insured the house had it known the extension and renovation was planned and as such the policy is invalid. At a pre-trial hearing in the case, Judge David Hodge explained: 'Zurich asserts that in May 2022, the claimants made a deliberate or reckless, or careless, qualifying misrepresentation by misrepresenting their intention to carry out contract works to their home in the following 12 months. 'The claimants expressly the property was not likely to undergo any contract works within the next 12 months 'The claimants did then, in fact, carry out the contract works; and these caused loss and damage, both to the contract works themselves, and to the property, on 29 December 2022, when a fire occurred during the course of the contract works. 'Without the misrepresentation, Zurich would not have entered into the contract of insurance with the claimants at all. Zurich have now avoided the policy.' However, he said the couple deny making a 'qualifying misrepresentation' and insist there is 'no factual basis' for the allegations made against them. They are suing for a declaration that Zurich is obliged under the insurance policy to compensate them in respect of the claim, together with an indemnity, damages, interest and costs. In its defence, Zurich barrister Daniel Crowley says that as well as denying they are liable to pay out anything else, the insurer is counterclaiming in a bid to force the family to pay back the £169,507 it has already paid out to them. The couple and the insurers have already clashed in two preliminary hearings. The case will now return to court for a full trial unless it is settled beforehand.
