Sky Sports analyst Johnny Nelson has warned that the much‑talked‑about showdown between Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua is drifting further away from reality. According to Nelson, Joshua and his promoters now have every incentive to hold firm on the terms they have already set, making the prospect of a Fury‑Joshua bout look "less and less likely" as negotiations stall. The saga began when Eddie Hearn, the head of Matchroom Boxing, announced that a contract had been signed for Joshua to face Fury at Wembley Stadium. The agreement, however, has been clouded by a dispute over the venue.
While London remains the preferred location for the British heavyweight clash, alternative sites such as New York’s iconic Madison Square Garden have also been floated, adding another layer of complexity to the talks. Nelson points out that Joshua’s recent performance has only heightened his camp’s resolve to dictate the fight’s conditions.
In his latest comeback, Joshua was knocked down twice by Kristian Prenga, exposing vulnerabilities that have left many observers questioning his readiness for a showdown with the unbeaten Fury. "No, I don’t think Fury vs Joshua will happen," Nelson told Sky Sports, emphasizing that any change would require the opposing side to concede to the demands set by Joshua’s team. "Unless the other side decides to lay down and say: ‘You know what, we’ll give you what you want,’" he added.
"I think Anthony Joshua and Matchroom Boxing have every reason to stand their ground." Nelson’s reasoning rests on two main points. First, the heavyweight champion’s recent display did not inspire confidence. The knockdowns against Prenga highlighted defensive lapses and raised doubts about Joshua’s ability to dominate a fighter of Fury’s caliber.
Second, the contract that Hearn says has been signed is a legal anchor. "If they’re going to embark on this fight, they’ll say: ‘This is what we asked for; if you don’t want to do it, that’s your problem,’" Nelson explained.
Eddie Hearn has been actively lobbying for the fight to stay on British soil. He has reportedly engaged in fresh discussions with London Mayor Sadiq Khan, seeking assurances that any curfew restrictions at Wembley will not hinder the event.
Khan has publicly pledged to do everything possible to bring the bout to the UK, framing the match as a significant economic and cultural opportunity for the city. Despite these diplomatic overtures, Nelson remains skeptical.
He believes that Joshua’s camp will not budge on the contractual terms, and that this rigidity could ultimately derail the deal. "I think it’s less and less likely to happen," he said, noting that the involvement of high‑profile figures like Mayor Khan adds pressure but does not guarantee a resolution.
Nelson also highlighted the role of the fight’s organizer, Turki Al‑Alshikh, and Fury’s camp in the stalemate. "Unless Turki Al‑Alshikh and Tyson say: ‘All right, let’s do this,’" he remarked, suggesting that the decision rests as much on Fury’s side as on Joshua’s. From Nelson’s perspective, the odds are tilting against the fight for several reasons. Joshua’s lackluster performance has eroded confidence in his ability to secure a decisive victory, while Fury, fresh from a win the night before, appears in a stronger position.
"If it were the other way around and Tyson Fury had performed as poorly as AJ did in his last fight, I’m quite sure this wouldn’t be as much of an issue," Nelson mused, indicating that the power dynamics are shifting. In summary, the combination of a contested venue, a firm contractual stance from Joshua’s team, and a recent display that raised doubts about his form have all contributed to a growing sense that the Fury‑Joshua fight may never materialise. While promoters, city officials, and fight organizers continue to negotiate behind the scenes, the consensus among insiders like Johnny Nelson is that the matchup is becoming increasingly improbable.
If the parties cannot find common ground on location, financial terms, and timing, the heavyweight showdown that fans have eagerly awaited could slip into the realm of “what‑might‑have‑been.”