Tweet
Haye, Pavlik & Mayweather: Breach or Business?
Over the last several weeks three highly anticipated fights were cancelled due to training camp "injuries." Kelly Pavlik pulled out of the Sergio Mora fight because of an alleged staph infection, David Haye cancelled his title shot against Wladimir Klitschko for what his camp is calling a "back injury," and this past weekend we learned that Floyd Mayweather, Jr. not only has brittle hands, but also fragile ribs. I will let you decide if the alleged illnesses or injuries are legitimate.
As a matter of basic contract law applicable in almost every United States jurisdiction, the concept of good faith and fair dealing applies to boxing contracts. It makes no difference what the purse split was to be in any of the three fights above, but rather it is more important to examine the potential claims that may arise when training camp injuries equate to a breach of contract.
Three things are important here: (1) a legitimate injury or illness will most likely render the contract void with minimal damages, if any; (2) bout termination by way of unsubstantiated medical excuse may be actionable in arbitration or court; and (3) the non-breaching fighter has an obligation to mitigate his damages.
Before I get started, my malpractice insurance carrier requires me to say that this is not legal advice and that no attorney-client relationship exists without a signed fee agreement.
Now, let's take a look at each scenario. Assume that the medical reasons for bout termination cannot be medically justified:
Kelly Pavlik-Sergio Mora. Mora stood to make more money in this fight than any of his previous fights. He was likely well into training camp, which costs his manager/promoter to operate. Mora has an obligation to find a reasonable replacement fight to offset his damages, if any. If the best fight out there is worth $500,000 to Mora and he was going to earn $600,000 from the Pavlik fight, then Mora was damaged $100,000.
David Haye-Wladimir Klitschko. This fight was scheduled to take place in Germany as an HBO production. Klitschko has mitigated his damages by contracting to fight Ruslan Chagaev instead of Haye who asked for a postponement. Assuming that Klitschko would have sold out the arena in both instances, is he damaged? Yes, in the amount of the HBO licensing fees. If television rights were not part of the equation, then an argument could be made the Klitschko was not damaged by Haye's breach.
Floyd Mayweather, Jr.-Juan Manuel Marquez. This case is the most interesting. Let's say that Marquez stood to make $1,000,000, Mayweather $2,000,000, and both men were to split the pay-per-view revenue. Let's also say that Mayweather stands to make $5,000,000 to fight Manny Pacquiao instead. In this instance, Marquez still has to mitigate his loss, but such will not be at the Mayweather-level purse revenue and most likely not a pay-per-view telecast. Assume that Marquez can mitigate $500,000 and he's been damaged $500,000. Mayweather's breach of contract was financially beneficial because he will earn more money even if he has to kick Marquez $500,000.
Now the examples above are provided as very basic scenarios as to what the rights of the non-breaching fighters may be under basic contract law theories. Every fight contract is different and is in many ways governed by language prescribed by third parties. It is to say, however, that sometimes training injuries are real. Sometimes training injuries are just good business decisions.
As a matter of basic contract law applicable in almost every United States jurisdiction, the concept of good faith and fair dealing applies to boxing contracts. It makes no difference what the purse split was to be in any of the three fights above, but rather it is more important to examine the potential claims that may arise when training camp injuries equate to a breach of contract.
Three things are important here: (1) a legitimate injury or illness will most likely render the contract void with minimal damages, if any; (2) bout termination by way of unsubstantiated medical excuse may be actionable in arbitration or court; and (3) the non-breaching fighter has an obligation to mitigate his damages.
Before I get started, my malpractice insurance carrier requires me to say that this is not legal advice and that no attorney-client relationship exists without a signed fee agreement.
Now, let's take a look at each scenario. Assume that the medical reasons for bout termination cannot be medically justified:
Kelly Pavlik-Sergio Mora. Mora stood to make more money in this fight than any of his previous fights. He was likely well into training camp, which costs his manager/promoter to operate. Mora has an obligation to find a reasonable replacement fight to offset his damages, if any. If the best fight out there is worth $500,000 to Mora and he was going to earn $600,000 from the Pavlik fight, then Mora was damaged $100,000.
David Haye-Wladimir Klitschko. This fight was scheduled to take place in Germany as an HBO production. Klitschko has mitigated his damages by contracting to fight Ruslan Chagaev instead of Haye who asked for a postponement. Assuming that Klitschko would have sold out the arena in both instances, is he damaged? Yes, in the amount of the HBO licensing fees. If television rights were not part of the equation, then an argument could be made the Klitschko was not damaged by Haye's breach.
Floyd Mayweather, Jr.-Juan Manuel Marquez. This case is the most interesting. Let's say that Marquez stood to make $1,000,000, Mayweather $2,000,000, and both men were to split the pay-per-view revenue. Let's also say that Mayweather stands to make $5,000,000 to fight Manny Pacquiao instead. In this instance, Marquez still has to mitigate his loss, but such will not be at the Mayweather-level purse revenue and most likely not a pay-per-view telecast. Assume that Marquez can mitigate $500,000 and he's been damaged $500,000. Mayweather's breach of contract was financially beneficial because he will earn more money even if he has to kick Marquez $500,000.
Now the examples above are provided as very basic scenarios as to what the rights of the non-breaching fighters may be under basic contract law theories. Every fight contract is different and is in many ways governed by language prescribed by third parties. It is to say, however, that sometimes training injuries are real. Sometimes training injuries are just good business decisions.
Comment