Comments Thread For: Judge Rules Against Golden Boy in Its Lawsuit Against Al Haymon

[The Big Dunn]

Haymon can't be in a situation where paying his fighters less results in him making a profit. He is their business manager. Throw the ali act out the window and it wouldn't change a thing. He still has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the fighter. He can't create a situation where he profits from paying the fighter less.

But that isn't the situation he's created. He's created a situation where he has maximum leverage with promoters and can ensure that the lion's share of the revenue is paid to the fighters. But he's not making his money from the "profit" of the event. He's making his money from management commissions.

Haymon and his lawyers seemed to have found a loophole and are exploiting it while also making sure fighters get more money. Now we can disagree if this is a good or bad thing but whether it is legal or illegal is determined by the courts.

[The Akbar One]

There are quite a few arse sore people among the Haymon haters on several boxing forums. Just a few months ago the lot of them were gloating, as if Haymon was about to be taken down. Right about now, they are all looking like some ***** faced haters. It really ruined their week that the Golden Boy case was dismissed.

[original zero]

Haymon and his lawyers seemed to have found a loophole and are exploiting it while also making sure fighters get more money. Now we can disagree if this is a good or bad thing but whether it is legal or illegal is determined by the courts.

No. They have not found a loophole. Haymon's business model is the exact business model being used in the concert industry right now. Haymon's business model is 100% legitimate and 100% legal. No loopholes needed.

[The Big Dunn]

There are quite a few arse sore people among the Haymon haters on several boxing forums. Just a few months ago the lot of them were gloating, as if Haymon was about to be taken down. Right about now, they are all looking like some ***** faced haters. It really ruined their weak that the Golden Boy case was dismissed.

Good post. greenk coming.

No. They have not found a loophole. Haymon's business model is the exact business model being used in the concert industry right now. Haymon's business model is 100% legitimate and 100% legal. No loopholes needed.

I haven't seen anything to contradict your opinion here. Maybe something in the future but I think the judge was clear there wasn't a violation.

[OnePunch]

If Haymon puts out all the money upfront, he is entitled to what is left once he takes care of his fiduciary responsibilities. His employing promotional companies is legal. His profit is legal. Again, the issue seems to be your understanding of the rule.

There is no conflict from where I sit between his fighters and wadell but I am not an attorney either. Has he lost money, yes. Is that ok? Should be seeing as how he isn't the 1st or the last hedge fund to go through a rough period of losing money.

If he tunrs a profit in the end and his fighters get paid fairly, It appears he has met his responsibility to both.

Sure there is. Any event surplus "profit" that Haymon Sports makes, Haymon/Waddell keeps 100% of it. If that surplus is distributed out to the fighters, the companys share drops from 100% down to 10-15%.

[OnePunch]

No. They have not found a loophole. Haymon's business model is the exact business model being used in the concert industry right now. Haymon's business model is 100% legitimate and 100% legal. No loopholes needed.

your statement would be correct if the concert business was governed by an Ali Act type law. But it isnt.

[IMDAZED]

Sure there is. Any event surplus "profit" that Haymon Sports makes, Haymon/Waddell keeps 100% of it. If that surplus is distributed out to the fighters, the companys share drops from 100% down to 10-15%.

Does this bother you?

[The Big Dunn]

Sure there is. Any event surplus "profit" that Haymon Sports makes, Haymon/Waddell keeps 100% of it. If that surplus is distributed out to the fighters, the companys share drops from 100% down to 10-15%.

Are you sure about this or are you speculating based on your experience? There very well could be language in place that addresses this that you are not aware of.

[OnePunch]

See, this is where you are likely having a problem. This is YOUR definition of an Ali Act violation but may not be the legal definition.

http://www.*************.com/almanac...-reform-act-2/

Where does it say what you are suggesting in this post?

your link doesnt work, but I can explain where my interpretation comes from.

My interpretation of the statement "A manager cannot have a financial interest in the promotion of a boxer" is that the framers of the Act did not want managers involved in any revenue streams other than the fighter commissions. And to me that makes sense. If the manager controls event revenue, he is basically now a promoter, whose interests are best served by paying the fighters as little as possible, therefore keeping more for himself. This is not greed, its Business 101. Why not keep 100% of the profits instead of paying it to the fighters and getting only 10-15%?

Now sure, people like to think that Haymon is some kind of saint, and only pays so much because he's looking out for everyone. But you only need go back to Caldwell's statement about being the "irrational player" to see the strategy behind that. At some point there will be a correction.

How anyone can think its a good situation for a manager to have this sort of conflict of interest is beyond me. You basically have 3 different en****** (Haymon, Waddell, and the fighter) all wanting their share of the pie. And it is impossible to serve the best interests of all 3 at the same time, because there is only so much pie to be divided, and every slice 1 entity gets comes at the expense of the other 2.

[original zero]

your statement would be correct if the concert business was governed by an Ali Act type law. But it isnt.

my statement is still correct because the model haymon co-opted is completely compatible with the ali act.

and it's interesting that you tried to cherry pick such an innocuous post while ignoring the other posts that completely destroy your position.

you have no evidence that haymon is violating the ali act because he isn't.

you imagined a business model, that would be a violation, that he isn't using, and are now using that delusion to claim he's violating. it's ridiculous.