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

[The Big Dunn]

I wasnt aware a person needed to pass the Bar in order to comprehend what a "financial interest" is..........

There is more than just "financial inters". I keep asking you to point to the section where it says specifically what you are posting. Each time, you have posted an interpretation of a specific section.

What is scary is you are not even willing to consider that your interpenetration is wrong. Just because you see a conflict doesn't mean there is one. I mean you once operated in the job-promoter-that this law targets the most.

[OnePunch]

I don't agree with your premise. Managers get paid a % of the fighter's purse. The manager pays the promoter to promote. The incentive is to pay the fighter a higher purse so that % is higher. I don't see an incentive to pay the fighter less, which is in part why the Ali act was created.

I also don't see a conflict of interest because the fighters are paid upfront. Yes, if the event succeeds they may end up with a smaller % of the take. However, if the event fails, they are not in a situation where the promoter gets their cut 1st and leaves them with what is left.

I see this as the manager protecting their client by making sure they get paid upfront, regardless of the success of the event.

Look at it this way: (for comparison purposes we will assume 10% management fee, and overall revenue for all 3 scenarios is identical)

Scenario 1: Typical promoter / manager roles are observed. Fighter purse is $700,000. Manager is paid $70,000

Scenario 2: Manager controls event. Fighters purse is $700,000. After all expenses event profit is $200,000. In this case manager is paid $270,000

Scenario 3: Manager controls event. Fighters purse is $500,000. After all expenses event profit is now $400,000. In this case manager is paid $470,000.


in scenarios 2 and 3 the "manager" is negotiating purses against his own self interests. THIS is why I believe the writers of the Act did not want managers involved in event revenue. And the fact that no fighters have yet complained about the "irrational player" doesnt mean the conflict doesnt exist. What will happen when he becomes more "rational"?

[OnePunch]

There is more than just "financial inters". I keep asking you to point to the section where it says specifically what you are posting. Each time, you have posted an interpretation of a specific section.

What is scary is you are not even willing to consider that your interpenetration is wrong. Just because you see a conflict doesn't mean there is one. I mean you once operated in the job-promoter-that this law targets the most.

Exactly. And having a deeper understanding of the distinct differences and subtleties in the "promoter" and "manager" roles certainly shaped my opinion. Promoters have no fiduciary duty to the fighter. The manager does. Which is EXACTLY why a manager should have nothing whatsoever to do with event revenue. The conflict for a manager is obvious. The promoter has no conflict because he has no fiduciary duty to the fighter.

I think alot of people dont know what that means.

[IMDAZED]

The court really didnt address that, because it didnt matter as it pertained to the lawsuit. The lawsuit was about damages, and the only thing the court addressed was that GBP had failed to prove that Haymons "alleged" conduct "injured" them.

it sounds like legal mumbo jumbo, but its an important distinction. It wasnt that Haymon didnt do it, it was that GBP didnt prove injury regardless of whether he did it or not.

I think if the judge thought Haymon was totally above board, he would have dismissed WITH prejiduce, instead of WITHOUT. I mean, if there really were no issues here, why would the judge give them the option to refile? But that part is just speculation......

I'm not sure the court didn't address it. We werent privy to the daily transcripts of a case that went on for months.

Second, part of the case brought against Haymon Boxing was that he was in violation of the Ali Act. By this alone, the court would have reviewed ALL documents related to the financials and the Act to ensure that wasn't the case. They concluded that GBP being harmed by some competition didn't mean he had violated the Act. If there had been some other way to show that he was in violation, either the courts--or GBP's legal team--would have shown that. I think it's a bit much to say they couldn't and you have reason to speculate.

I read all 24 pages of the judgement. It specifically states that the promoter on record for PBC fights collects proceeds from "ticket sales, gate revenue and local sponsorship sales. In the cases where the television networks pay a license fee, the promoters collect those fees as well."

[OnePunch]

I'm not sure the court didn't address it. We werent privy to the daily transcripts of a case that went on for months.

Second, part of the case brought against Haymon Boxing was that he was in violation of the Ali Act. By this alone, the court would have reviewed ALL documents related to the financials and the Act to ensure that wasn't the case. They concluded that GBP being harmed by some competition didn't mean he had violated the Act. If there had been some other way to show that he was in violation, either the courts--or GBP's legal team--would have shown that. I think it's a bit much to say they couldn't and you have reason to speculate.

I read all 24 pages of the judgement. It specifically states that the promoter on record for PBC fights collects proceeds from "ticket sales, gate revenue and local sponsorship sales. In the cases where the television networks pay a license fee, the promoters collect those fees as well."

yes, I read that too. It says they "collect" it. The same way a Walmart cashier "collects" your money at the register. But they dont get to keep it. Think about it for a second. Since the promoter is being paid a flat-fee, who ultimately gets the revenue? If I tell you Im going to pay you $500k to run an event, and you collected $2.4 million in ticket sales and rights fees / commercials, after the expenses get paid do you think the "promoter" gets to keep the difference even though he already got his 500k?

[IMDAZED]

yes, I read that too. It says they "collect" it. The same way a Walmart cashier "collects" your money at the register. But they dont get to keep it. Think about it for a second. Since the promoter is being paid a flat-fee, who ultimately gets the revenue? If I tell you Im going to pay you $500k to run an event, and you collected $2.4 million in ticket sales and rights fees / commercials, after the expenses get paid do you think the "promoter" gets to keep the difference even though he already got his 500k?

Right but you didn't address anything else in my post.

[OnePunch]

Right but you didn't address anything else in my post.

I wish the judge had been more specific in his language about the alleged Act violations. He can point to certain "tasks" performed by this entity or that entity, but that has nothing to do with the Act. The ONLY issue as it pertains to the Act is "financial interest". To me its absurd to think that Haymon does not have a financial interest in the events he controls. He obviously has a financial interest by default. Just the action of agreeing to pay a promoter $xxx amount gives him a "financial interest" But im not really sure what a civil court judge could do about it anyways, because GBP failed to show injury. This is really a matter for the Justice Dept, who in 15 years hasnt shown the slightest bit of interest

[IMDAZED]

I wish the judge had been more specific in his language about the alleged Act violations. He can point to certain "tasks" performed by this entity or that entity, but that has nothing to do with the Act. The ONLY issue as it pertains to the Act is "financial interest". To me its absurd to think that Haymon does not have a financial interest in the events he controls. He obviously has a financial interest by default. Just the action of agreeing to pay a promoter $xxx amount gives him a "financial interest" But im not really sure what a civil court judge could do about it anyways, because GBP failed to show injury. This is really a matter for the Justice Dept, who in 15 years hasnt shown the slightest bit of interest

So to be clear -- if one is to assume he is in violation of the Act, you would also have to assume that:

The courts, in spite access to everything--and having to judge whether or not he was in violation of the act--either ignored or could care less about any information that he did

That Golden Boy was either too incompetent or also indifferent to any information that he did

That all extra proceeds go directly to his pockets

You can argue/assume one but all three? That's a very weak case, weaker than the one GBP just had thrown out of court.

[OnePunch]

So to be clear -- if one is to assume he is in violation of the Act, you would also have to assume that:

The courts, in spite access to everything--and having to judge whether or not he was in violation of the act--either ignored or could care less about any information that he did

That Golden Boy was either too incompetent or also indifferent to any information that he did

That all extra proceeds go directly to his pockets

You can argue/assume one but all three? That's a very weak case, weaker than the one GBP just had thrown out of court.

to the the first 2 points, I dont have the slightest idea. Golden Boy obviously did a poor job of convincing the judge that they have been harmed by Haymons actions as opposed to their own internal bumbling. Whether that was due to poor lawyering or simply no basis for damages, I simply dont know.

Point 3, I have to assume he controls any profits, absent any information to the contrary, such as revenue sharing deals, or what not. Everything that leaked out in the trial pointed to flat fee arrangements, and I've never heard anything to refute that. So once all the "flat fees" are paid, the remaining revenue doesnt simply vanish.......

[The Big Dunn]

Look at it this way: (for comparison purposes we will assume 10% management fee, and overall revenue for all 3 scenarios is identical)

Scenario 1: Typical promoter / manager roles are observed. Fighter purse is $700,000. Manager is paid $70,000

Scenario 2: Manager controls event. Fighters purse is $700,000. After all expenses event profit is $200,000. In this case manager is paid $270,000

Scenario 3: Manager controls event. Fighters purse is $500,000. After all expenses event profit is now $400,000. In this case manager is paid $470,000.


in scenarios 2 and 3 the "manager" is negotiating purses against his own self interests. THIS is why I believe the writers of the Act did not want managers involved in event revenue. And the fact that no fighters have yet complained about the "irrational player" doesnt mean the conflict doesnt exist. What will happen when he becomes more "rational"?

The problem is you are equating the manager's total take with his payment which isn't right.

The payment as a manager and the profits are 2 separate things. The manager's pay is based solely on the % agreement with the fighter.

The money from revenue of the event comes from everything else-parking, concessions, etc.

There is no incentive to pay the fighter less because the manager's take will be less.

and profit isn't guaranteed. The manager assumed the risk so if there is profit there is nothing wrong IMO that they reap the benefit of that risk.