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

[jjsmyth87]

If you read the summary judgement issued in gbp lawsuit against haymon the judge said that there is merit to haymon acting as a promoter in violation of the ali act but that the ali act was built to protect fighters and wasnt meant for anti trust lawsuits between promoters and gbp couldn't prove that haymon acting as a promoter and manager hurt gbp.

[OnePunch]

Exactly, pbc is the one putting these events on using investors money and therefore is collecting all proceeds and they are paying the promoter a flat fee for handling the logistics of the event

shhhh, saying such things will get you labeled as an idiot, a hater, a racist, or all 3!!!!

welcome to my world haha

[snoopymiller]

I dont necessarily think that $500k per show would be an outrageous amount for a Spike type network to spend. The REAL issue would be how many shows they would commit to on an annual basis. 8 or 10 shows per year isnt anywhere near enough to keep Haymons roster active, even factoring in Showtime's commitment.

Unless they were willing to buy around 36-42 shows per year, I dont see how it would be enough to not only keep his current guys busy, but to expand as well. So if you take the $500k per show, add in production expenses, etc, it would be somewhere around $30-35 million that they would have to be willing to pony up each year. Maybe they would spend that, maybe not. Its certainly not outside the realm of possibilities. Spike was spending quite a bit more for UFC, but then again UFC delivers in that key 18-34 demo.....

But that kind of deal would still only fill a certain need, for haymons low to mid-level guys. You cant put a Keith Thurman or a Danny Garcia, or a Leo Santa Cruz on shows with a $500k budget. So he still would have a shortfall for those higher end cards.....

I'm referring to $500k average across Spike, Fox, ESPN, NBC... something like 50 events annually + Sho/CBS in which the network would pay for production.

At that point PBC would be sitting on about $200M in cash with a decent but not great deal so the bleed would be slow.

[OnePunch]

I'm referring to $500k average across Spike, Fox, ESPN, NBC... something like 50 events annually + Sho/CBS in which the network would pay for production.

At that point PBC would be sitting on about $200M in cash with a decent but not great deal so the bleed would be slow.

well ESPN and NBC have both had their fill of PBC and are just finishing out their paid dates.

But to the larger point I would be surprised if "several" networks were all willing to make content deals. I would think that making that kind of commitment a network would want some sort of exclusivity. Would a network really want to fork out 30 or 40 million a year to showcase PBC, only to have PBC shown on 3 or 4 other networks as well? Spike maybe would, considering they are paying for PBC content right now that other networks are getting for free, but I tend to doubt that multiple networks would all be willing to buy content that is also available on a competitors channel.

But this is just my opinion. 90% of the time I havent the slightest idea why these network guys make the decisions they make........

[OnePunch]

If you read the summary judgement issued in gbp lawsuit against haymon the judge said that there is merit to haymon acting as a promoter in violation of the ali act but that the ali act was built to protect fighters and wasnt meant for anti trust lawsuits between promoters and gbp couldn't prove that haymon acting as a promoter and manager hurt gbp.

unfortunately the people that have been arguing with me all day arent interested in facts. You either blindly follow Haymon like in some pied piper ****, or you're an idiot racist hater.

[snoopymiller]

well ESPN and NBC have both had their fill of PBC and are just finishing out their paid dates.

But to the larger point I would be surprised if "several" networks were all willing to make content deals. I would think that making that kind of commitment a network would want some sort of exclusivity. Would a network really want to fork out 30 or 40 million a year to showcase PBC, only to have PBC shown on 3 or 4 other networks as well? Spike maybe would, considering they are paying for PBC content right now that other networks are getting for free, but I tend to doubt that multiple networks would all be willing to buy content that is also available on a competitors channel.

But this is just my opinion. 90% of the time I havent the slightest idea why these network guys make the decisions they make........

Well I believe NBC was shelling out $150kish range for Main Events prior to the PBC deal so I can see them paying $500k for a more premium product.

Fox/FS1 seems dedicated to showcasing boxing to a certain extent so I can see them spending an PBC.

ESPN is somewhat of a wildcard.

$30-40 million per network isn't happening. For 12 dates it'd be much closer to $10 million.

But if PBC can just get Spike, NBC, & FOX paying that range to start... wouldn't that be a good thing for US boxing?

[OnePunch]

Well I believe NBC was shelling out $150kish range for Main Events prior to the PBC deal so I can see them paying $500k for a more premium product.

Fox/FS1 seems dedicated to showcasing boxing to a certain extent so I can see them spending an PBC.

ESPN is somewhat of a wildcard.

$30-40 million per network isn't happening. For 12 dates it'd be much closer to $10 million.

But if PBC can just get Spike, NBC, & FOX paying that range to start... wouldn't that be a good thing for US boxing?

broadcast networks being willing to allocate resources for boxing would be a GREAT thing for the sport. Now whether haymons model is the best one to use though is still up for debate. And Im also not a big fan of "exclusive content" deals, as the lack of competition usually leads to an inferior product in the end. I prefer the old method of multiple promoters all pitching proposed cards to the networks......

[original zero]

Then who decides how much the fighter will get paid if the fighter is not contractually bound to any promoter. The promoter makes a flat rate for each fight and haymon sets the purses and everything else just like a promoter would.

It's a negotiation between the manager and the promoter just like any other fight. The difference is that since Haymon's guys aren't under exclusive promotional agreements, Haymon has far more leverage to get his fighters the biggest purses possible.

The promoter has a cap on how much they can make. Which doesn't make Haymon a promoter, it makes him a great manager. If you have the leverage to limit how much the promoter makes, that means more money for your fighters and ultimately, more money for yourself via management fees.

[original zero]

But seriously, in a normal negotiation, the manager would negotiate with the promoter to get the most money he can get for his fighter.

Which is exactly what Haymon does.

In Haymon World, the promoter is his employee,

Wrong.

and he tells the promoter what the purse budget is for the event, at which point then I guess he negotiates with the promoter using the number he just gave him himself. I wonder if he ever gets himself to raise his own number lol

And if Haymon raises the number too high, the promoter will say **** off and Haymon can either lower the numbers or try to find a promoter who says yes.

Haymon is acting as a manager in every way. He's just a way better manager than what boxing was accustomed to, so he's been able to negotiate far better terms for his fighters.

Before, HBO would put up 2 million for a fight, the promoter would keep a million for himself and let the fighters split the rest. And if the fighters didn't like it, too bad, you're under an exclusive contract and you can sit home and starve or you can take the fight.

Since Haymon was smart enough to build a stable that isn't locked up under exclusive promotional contracts, he can say to the promoter, the entire 2 million goes to the fighters, you can make some profit and have your expenses reimbursed from other revenue streams, but the fighters are getting the bulk of the money and if you don't like it, you can sit home and starve and I'll find another promoter that'll say yes.

So the balance of power has changed. But Haymon isn't doing what you're imagining he's doing. You're imagining that he divvies up the pot how he sees fit and puts any "profit" directly into his pocket, thus creating a financial motive to actually lower the purses of the fighters. Which OF COURSE would violate the Ali act, but even separate from the Ali act, he has a fiduciary duty to his performers and in ANY BUSINESS that would be fraud and if caught, he could go to jail.

But you have NO PROOF and NO EVIDENCE that he's doing that and after 35 pages you refuse to offer any proof or evidence. It's just a wack job conspiracy theory that you invented that has no basis in fact or reality.

[MrRolltide91]

Thank you Al Haymon