If You Let Your Spending Rise to Meet Your Income, Not Even Floyd Mayweather Money Can Save You
Reportedly, Floyd Mayweather has made roughly $1.2 billion (with a B) over the course of his career. His Manny Pacquiao and Conor McGregor fights alone were reportedly worth a combined $550 million.
When people hear numbers like that, they often think how great it would be to have that kind of virtually limitless supply of money... except, as it turns out, it’s not as limitless as it seems since Floyd Mayweather apparently has serious money troubles.
Boxer Floyd Mayweather is facing two felony charges alleging theft and “intent to defraud” by passing a bad check to purchase a $200,000 watch in Las Vegas, according to Nevada court records.
Mayweather was not present for a Clark County court hearing Monday and was instead represented by his counsel. Mayweather’s official charges are “theft, value $100,000 or greater” and “draw or pass check with intent to defraud, value $1,200 or greater.”
...It is the latest in a litany of legal woes for Mayweather.
Plaintiffs in separate civil cases in at least four states allege Mayweather owes them money. The Internal Revenue Service has a tax lien of more than $7.2 million levied against Mayweather for unpaid taxes in 2018 and 2023. A Las Vegas-area gated community filed a separate lien of over $22,500.
The IRS declined comment about Mayweather’s lien, saying the agency cannot discuss or release tax information.
Has Floyd Mayweather filed for bankruptcy? Nope. Is he broke? Probably not in the sense that most of us think of. He owns a lot of expensive assets, still has big earning potential, and probably isn’t cancelling his Netflix subscription and eating Ramen noodles to save money.
Still, I think most of us just assume that if we made a billion dollars, money woes would be off the table for good. So, why hasn’t that happened for Floyd Mayweather?
Well, the problem is his spending.
Per BroBible, which turned Floyd Mayweather’s insane spending habits into a whole article, here are some of the things he spent money on.
He owns 50+ cars worth more than $40 million and has someone whose full-time job is to sanitize his cars.
He supposedly has a fully stocked candy shop inside his home.
He has multiple watches worth more than $1 million, including one watch that’s worth $18 million.
He owned a $50,000 diamond-encrusted iPod.
Supposedly, his jewelry collection is worth $50 million. He has multiple pieces worth more than $1 million, and there are claims he never travels with less than $5 million worth of jewelry at a time.
There are claims he was paying his barber $1,000 per haircut and his chef $1,000 per meal.
He has not one, but two private jets.
He spends millions per year gambling, reportedly bet more than $5 million on a single game, and there are claims he lost $100 million in a single year.
As you read about all this, you’re probably thinking, “This sounds INSANE! Why would anyone spend that much money on such trivial things?”
Well, what if I told you that most people with long-term financial troubles have the exact same financial problem that Floyd Mayweather does, albeit on a much lower level?
What do I mean by that?
I mean that most people who struggle with money long-term have that problem because they consistently allow their expenses to rise to meet their level of income.
This is why, no matter who the President is, roughly 60% of Americans end up living paycheck to paycheck. It’s why roughly one-third of Americans making over a quarter of a million dollars per year are living paycheck to paycheck. It’s also why this happens:
A 2009 Sports Illustrated report estimated that 78% of National Football League (NFL) players file for bankruptcy or are experiencing financial stress only two years after retiring, and 60% of National Basketball Association (NBA) players suffer the same fate after five years of retirement.
All of this is a result of natural human tendencies that may not be logical, but that are quite common.
When you get to a certain level of income, it’s very easy to assume that the money will keep coming in at least at that level from then on.
When your expenses seem to level off, it’s easy to forget that surprise bills, sometimes very large ones, are eventually going to happen.
It’s very easy to start buying things not because you need them, but because you’re trying to live up to other people’s expectations. The moment you start thinking that you have to live in a big house, wear Gucci, drive a luxury car, or wear a Rolex because of what other people may think, that’s the moment your finances become about impressing other people and keeping up with appearances instead of doing what’s best for your future.
Unless you’re specifically thinking about these issues, this type of thinking often happens almost automatically.
Let’s say you’re making $30,000 per year with nothing left over, living with roommates, and driving a clunker. What are you going to think when you make $40,000? “AWESOME! Now, I can get my own place, get a better car, and pay all my bills on time!” Except, next thing you know, you’re living by yourself, you have payments on the new car, and you’re struggling even more than before to pay your bills.
Then, you get a raise to $50,000! Now, all your problems are over for sure! Well, except you do need a new living room suite so you can get rid of that crummy couch your cousin gave you. Also, you start eating out at lunch every day because you can “afford it,” you overspend a bit to go on a vacation, you start paying a trainer $50 per hour, three days a week, to get in shape, etc., etc., etc. Now, you’re struggling to pay your bills at $50,000 per year.
As you can see by looking at Floyd Mayweather, there’s always something else you can spend your money on, even when you make a billion dollars.
So, how do you beat this?
All you need to do is budget and set aside money to save and invest first, then spend what’s left over. If those numbers won’t work, then you either need to work more or spend less until they do.
It really is that simple.
The unfortunate part is that it’s also boring, it takes a lot of discipline, and it requires putting your long-term interests ahead of what you want right now. It may not seem like it if you’ve never done it, but not having to struggle to pay your bills is worth more than anything you can do for “fun” or to impress other people with your money. If you don’t believe that, try it for a year, and you will change your mind.
Might I suggest that the reasons for Americans' fiscal problems aren't limited to poor habits?
I've spent 34 of my 50 years employed, watching coworkers live on leftovers, drive fifteen-year-old cars and live paycheck-to-paycheck. Done it myself and it sucks. And it's not because we're layabouts or spendthrifts, it's because the system is stacked against us. Most of the economic problems Americans face are things they can't control.
Op-ed conservatism acts like an Army drill sergeant yelling at recruits for being exhausted after an hour of PT at six in the morning. The running and the calisthenics aren't really tiring, goes the narrative, the recruits are just lazy and weak and don't want to work for it. They aren't trying hard enough. They don't want it badly enough. Their exhaustion isn't a physiological response to all that exercise, it's a MORAL failing. A character flaw.
In this article, there's no mention of macroeconomic realities beyond the control of normal people.
No talk of multinational corporations sending jobs to Third World countries or importing half of Bangalore to dodge American market rate. No tell of taxes, or inflation or a hundred other things individuals making five, six, even seven figures have no control over. No discussion of the reality that being successful, in a corporate heirarchy or as an entrepreneur, requires a specific combination of traits most people lack as a package. And no small amount of luck, particularly in creative endeavors like writing and art.
Yes, people could work more hours, get more formal qualifications and seek out better employment. I agree with that. I'm doing that myself right now - today, in fact. But these days, the larger economic reality is that nobody's gonna nickel-and-dime their way into a house. College degrees are expensive, worthless formalities unless you want to be a doctor, a lawyer or an engineer. Nobody has twenty grand in cash just sitting around that could go to buy a used car like Dave Ramsey seems to think we do. Nobody's going to overtime their way out of a five-figure credit card bill. These things require movin' on up.
You're not lazy or entitled if you're working your ass off making $75,000 and the floor for "Life Can't Fuck You Up With Weird Curveballs Anymore" is $150,000. That's governments' fault. That's the banks' fault. That's OSHA's fault. But it's not YOUR fault.
I agree with everything you say here, but I feel like you are leaving out the other half of the situation.
Going with your example, you have the guy making 30k a year. He's making it. Living exactly within his means.
So now he makes 40k. What is he supposed to do, in your mind? I would agree that he should stay living on 30k for now and bank the extra 10k for a bit. But not forever. At -some- point he should start to spend the money. So build up an emergency fund for a while. I'd say 6 months worth. Then get the IRA/401k funded, 15% of 40k is 6k. So you have an extra 4k, so you can at some point start to live on 34k instead of 30k. And the same applies once you're making 50k.
Aesop has a fable about a miser, the moral of which is that a possession is only valuable if it is used. There is no point in doing all this if you aren't going to do something with it.
I'm not saying you should go out and sign up for a long term note/debt on a car or house because I 100% agree, you can't always count on the income. And that is especially true on a "perishable good" like an athlete.
But if you told me Mayweather was living on 30k a year despite being a billionaire I would argue that is even more irrational than spending it all and going bankrupt, because at least then he got to consume -something- for all his effort.
There is, of course, a middle path. I am not saying anything you claim is wrong, only that it leaves out the entire other side of the situation. The situation is a balancing scale, both sides have to be weighed against the other. The goal is not zero consumption, it's actually quite the opposite. It's to maximize consumption by not over-consuming in a way that lowers you ability to consume in the future.