Hyde: Rigo Destroyed Own Career..."Turned Down Many Multi-Million Dollar Offers"

[RetroSpeed05]

Does Rigo choose to stay with Carrbie or does he have some kind of slave contract? Because if he is loyal to them thats on him for F'ing up his own career.

[-PBP-]

the biggest problem with the Ali Act is that the disclosures do not have to be made in advance. Typically you get the Ali disclosure when you sign for your purse check. It is not helpful in any way, because it comes LONG after you agreed to the purse.

Truthfully even though I always followed the law, I find the revenue disclosure portion of the Ali Act to really be absurd. A competent manager knows what a fight is worth. And if fighter and manager agree on a purse, then what difference does it make how much the promoter got from the network? Are people no longer allowed to make a profit?

Profit yes. Excessive profit? No. If my name is on the headline I want to know how much money I'm bringing in. All financial info should be made available to the fighter , IMO.

lol, do you really believe that?

Yeah, and some of Don Kings fighters used to have Carl King as their manager. Same thing.........

Also, have you ever read a Haymon contract? He decides EVERYTHING. What role would an additional "manager" have? He wouldnt even have the authority to order lunch

The way I understand it he'll bring a list of opponents to the table and the fighter and his manager select which route they want to go and give their asking price.

[AddiX]

Correct, because most times the fighter never knows the amount the promoter is getting, only the amount on the actual bout contract.

And Ali Act enforcement of provision of services agreements is non-existant.....

How many times has the ali act been successfully enforced?

The only time I can think of, was ironically for a company I worked for for a short time (boxing 360), they lost there license for not being able to show some kind of past paper work for a fight.

All of there fighters contracts were nullified. And this all happened over Maurice Harris of all fighters. They took him off the streets after 3 years of inactivity and had him 1 win from a title fight. And that's how he repaid them.

But yeah, that's the only time I've ever seen the Ali act work.

[OnePunch]

OnePunch, would a promoter signing his fighter to another card need to disclose? Even when fighter is getting the cheque?

Ethically, yes

Legally its a gray area, because the other promoter is the "promoter of record" for the event, and he would be disclosing tv revenue in his own disclosures, which technically satisfies the requirement. I really dont know how a court would rule on this.

The bigger problem is that the Feds have never shown the slightest bit of interest in enforcing the Ali Act. It only comes up when a fighter is trying to break a contract........

[DoktorSleepless]

Profit yes. Excessive profit? No. If my name is on the headline I want to know how much money I'm bringing in. All financial info should be made available to the fighter , IMO.

Interestingly, Kathy Duva disagrees

As a group, promoters agree on the necessity of the above provisions. However, they are much less enthusiastic about another provision in the Ali Act: the mandatory financial disclosure of revenue to fighters. Some promoters, like Lou DiBella, believe
“financial disclosures are appropriate” and that they are “the only way to really make a
long-term relationship with a fighter work.” Others, like Kathy Duva, have fundamental issues with the provision.

The provision states the following: “A promoter shall not be entitled to receive any compensation directly or indirectly in connection with a boxing match until it provides to the boxer it promotes the amounts of any compensation or consideration that a promoter has contracted to receive from such match.”

The theory behind the provision is that by forcing a promoter to divulge the expected revenue for a bout, a boxer will be in a better negotiating position to demand a fair purse. For example, it would be more difficult for a promoter to offer a fighter only a $50,000 purse when the fighter knows that the revenue for an event will exceed $1 million. Sounds fair, doesn't it?

But is the disclosure provision helping or hurting the sport?

Those opposed to the provision believe that it doesn't take into account the long-term investments a promoter might have made in a fighter's development. According to Main Events CEO Kathy Duva, “promoters typically invest between $250,000 and $500,000 over the span of about five years nurturing a young fighter's career. We also cash-flow events, make highly-speculative investments, have staff overheads and are liable for lawsuits. Yet, fighter-promoter deals are generally made according to an 80 percent-20 percent or 70-30 split in the fighter's favor. In any other industry, if you invest capital, you receive the majority of the profits. In publishing, for example, the publisher receives 85 percent of the profits while the author only receives 15 percent. But in boxing it's presumed that promoters are evil so we are not given the same ability to make money as other business ventures.”

http://ringt v.craveonline.com/news/120291-insider-ali-act-not-the-greatest

[-PBP-]

Interestingly, Kathy Duva disagrees


http://ringt v.craveonline.com/news/120291-insider-ali-act-not-the-greatest

of course she does. She's a promoter.

[killakali]

Because peole love mentioning these big numbers as if the fighter is going to see everything.

It is the same for any fighter. If Floyd makes 100 mil uncle sam is taking 39,600,000 off the top for federal tax. Thats why I say don't include taxes in the discussion. We all have to pay them. Depending on what state you live if you got a 20k bonus from your job you would be lucky to get a check for $12,000 after all the taxes. Feel me

[-PBP-]

Because peole love mentioning these big numbers as if the fighter is going to see everything.

This is why I support Haymon's model. You get paid properly and promoters promote fights, not fighters. No hidden bull****. That's why I laugh at the violation of the Ali Acy allegations. The Act was made to look out for the fighters and he's doing just that.

[khal-d]

Ethically, yes

Legally its a gray area, because the other promoter is the "promoter of record" for the event, and he would be disclosing tv revenue in his own disclosures, which technically satisfies the requirement. I really dont know how a court would rule on this.

The bigger problem is that the Feds have never shown the slightest bit of interest in enforcing the Ali Act. It only comes up when a fighter is trying to break a contract........

Had a feeling that it wouldn't apply to the situation we discussed (promoter signing his fighter to another promoter's card).

[khal-d]

of course she does. She's a promoter.

She made very solid points and you could argue that the fighter headlining is only one part of the equation for some promoters.

If I'm a promoter with a TV deal and sponsors, what's to say any fighter headlining is the reason why the show brings revenue? Cunningham headlining her NBC shows definitely wasn't the reason she made revenue (which she probably didn't make much anyway in reality).