How so? It seems like a fair comparison to me.
Because it doesn't even understand the boxing economic model in its current state.
Boxing is far more consolidated globally, as it always been, since it has been around forever, and it is a far more legitimized and established
sport. The amount of revenue they generate from tv, sponsorships, media, product placement, and sales
globally dwarfs the UFC, and anyone who doesn't have a peanut for a brain knows this. The amount of money that Wilder generates factoring global revenue is not even in the same ballpark compared to Jon Jones, and so his value is exorbitantly higher. This is natural: they have been around for far, far longer, and the UFC is still penetrating key markets. New York just happened a few years ago for crying out loud.
There is not a single major economy that doesn't have substantial deals for boxing broadcasts, whether through ppv or tv (mostly the latter). Even in the developing world: freaking Peru has had a ppv model for big boxing events since the
eighties. The UFC, for all its success, is still a developing sport that is growing its global market at an aggressive but consistent pace. They have made substantial advances in key countries like Mexico, Russia, China, but they're very far from being in the position boxing is globally.
To suggest Jon Jones generates as much value as Wilder is, I'm sorry, simply
stupid.