London, UK – September 2, 2026 – A significant rift has emerged in the boxing world regarding the purported collapse of negotiations for a highly anticipated third fight between light heavyweight titans Dmitry Bivol and Artur Beterbiev. The dispute centers on conflicting accounts from prominent figures in the sport, specifically boxing promoter Eddie Hearn and International Boxing Association (IBA) president Umar Kremlev. Sportsamo.com reports that Hearn vehemently denies IBA president Kremlev’s assertion that Bivol rejected a lucrative third encounter with Beterbiev, claiming that no "reasonable offer" ever materialized for the Russian fighter.
This disagreement escalates the already complex situation surrounding Bivol’s mandatory WBO title defense against Callum Smith. Hearn, speaking to the media, suggested that Bivol would have readily relinquished his championship belt had a satisfactory financial package for a Beterbiev trilogy been presented. This statement implies that the mandatory defense against Smith was not the primary impediment to the trilogy, but rather the absence of a tangible and acceptable offer from the Beterbiev camp.
"It was never offered, by the way," Hearn stated during a media scrum, as reported by ProBox TV. "If there was an offer that was even remotely reasonable, the Callum Smith fight wouldn’t be happening. Dmitry would have vacated and fought Beterbiev." This perspective directly challenges Kremlev’s narrative, which posits that Bivol twice declined an offer that would have doubled his previous purse. Kremlev further alleged that Beterbiev was prepared to forgo his own purse entirely to facilitate the trilogy, a move intended to demonstrate his commitment to the superfight.
The crux of the dispute appears to lie in the distinction between public pronouncements and concrete contractual agreements. While Kremlev’s statements suggest a willingness from both sides, Hearn’s counter-argument highlights the absence of a formal, actionable contract. A mere verbal commitment or a publicly declared sum of money, however substantial, does not constitute a legally binding agreement in professional boxing. Such agreements require meticulously detailed terms, including the date and venue of the bout, broadcasting rights, payment schedules, financial guarantees, and the fulfillment of all regulatory requirements.
Beterbiev’s reported readiness to compete without compensation, while indicative of his eagerness for the trilogy, does not resolve the fundamental economic challenges of staging such a high-profile event. His purse, while a significant component, represents only a fraction of the overall financial undertaking. The successful promotion of a Bivol-Beterbiev trilogy would necessitate substantial guarantees for Bivol, alongside the considerable costs associated with production, marketing, and sanctioning fees. Without these elements being clearly defined and secured in a contract, any offer, regardless of its reported magnitude, remains speculative.
The stalled negotiations for the trilogy have already contributed to the erosion of the undisputed light heavyweight championship status that Bivol and Beterbiev once held jointly. Bivol had previously relinquished his WBC belt rather than face David Benavidez, a move that followed his successful IBF mandatory defense. The current WBO obligation to face Callum Smith presents yet another hurdle, potentially placing another formidable challenger between Bivol and the long-awaited third encounter with Beterbiev.
Callum Smith, a former super middleweight champion himself, offers a point of comparison between the two light heavyweight elites. Beterbiev definitively stopped Smith in the seventh round in January 2024, overpowering the durable Briton with relentless pressure. A decisive victory for Bivol over Smith would inevitably invite comparisons, though the contrasting styles of Bivol and Beterbiev make such direct appraisals inherently problematic. While Beterbiev’s victory over Smith was characterized by physical demolition, Bivol’s likely approach would involve a more calculated dismantling through superior distance management, precise timing, and intricate combinations.
The passage of time presents a more significant concern for Artur Beterbiev. The formidable Russian has not competed since his February 2025 rematch, a period of inactivity that contrasts sharply with Bivol’s recent activity, including his win over Michael Eifert and his upcoming bout against Smith. At 41 years old, Beterbiev’s window for significant ring appearances is narrowing, and prolonged periods away from competition are difficult to overcome.
Should the trilogy be further postponed into 2027, Beterbiev could find himself having spent nearly two full years outside the squared circle. While a Bivol-Beterbiev fight would undoubtedly still draw significant attention, the conditions under which it eventually takes place may differ considerably from the seismic clashes that defined their first two encounters. What began as a seemingly evenly matched rivalry now risks becoming a poignant examination of how age and inactivity may have impacted Beterbiev’s formidable capabilities. The narrative, once centered on a clash of titans at their peak, now carries the shadow of a potential decline, casting uncertainty over the legacy of one of boxing’s most compelling rivalries.
