-
-
Actually, Haymon didn't try to "tie up" every network. I'm pretty sure all of his deals, were not exclusive. Meaning all the networks were free to show boxing for other promoters. That is why the case got tossed out. Arum and GB tried to say that the deals didn't allow other networks to show their fights. But the deals didn't say that at all, and thus, they got tossed out and cost TR and GB court costs and lawyer fees. Basically Arum and Oscar were mad that PBC was putting on so many fights, so they sued, and they lost. If Haymon did have contracts forbidding the networks from showing other fights, it most likely would have been ruled illegal.
I don't know of any deal that forbids a network from showing rival promoters cards. ESPN shows some crappy GB cards and they show TR fights. hbo did show fights from TR, Loeffler, Hearn, and Duva.
hbo and espn contracts do prohibit the fighters signed to them from fighting on other networks, but the networks themselves are allowed to show any fight they want. They just usually refrain from hyping up a promotional company signed to a rival network.Comment
-
This is my first hearing about this DAZN. It does make sense though. It sounds a lot like ESPN+ except they show world class soccer, and in some countries DAZN shows NBA, NFL, pro tennis, pro darts, rugby, and ice hockey.
PBC can put on a lot more fights than TR and PBC could consistently put on better fights. Even without the NFL and/or NBA, it would be like ESPN+ but slightly better. Most of the better fights might still be on Showtime, but with roughly 200 fighters, PBC could put on decent boxing at least once a week. While PBC was doing the network tv run, they still had some of the better fights on Showtime.
Don't know if it is true or not, but it makes sense. It would only be a good thing if the quality and quantity of fights are worth the subscription cost. It could be a great deal, showing great boxing year-round. Or it could just have a lot of second and third tier fighters, plus an elite guy vs. an opponent, and then throw in one or two great fights a year. That would take away some top fights from Showtime, but still not make DAZN worth the cost.
Bottom line, it could be awesome for boxing or bad for boxing fans, it would all depend on the fights Haymon would put on. As for Hearn, it matters very little if he was in on the PBC deal or not. I don't care if the official promoter for a fight is Dibella, Schaefer, Hearn, Arum, or Oscar or anyone else. All I care about are the fights.Comment
-
see your wrong again. As part of their settlement with TR, PBC Alfred to renounce their exclusivity. Look it up. It’s all over the place. That’s how TR was Abel to get their deal on ESPN.
Fox, NBC, spike, etc were all exclusive. That’s why the PBC started right after Main Events deal with NBC ended and that’s why Espn did away with Friday night fights.
Golden boys cards on espn are a time buy and that deal was done before top rank’s deal was done where Espn pays for fights.
Showtime doesn’t have an exclusivity deal with Haymon being that they show Joshua fights well until he goes to DAZN but Haymon leverages his stable so that they don’t try to bid on a Golden Boy Card.Comment
-
I don't. I've said repeatedly that I don't know if he has an exclusive or not, but the fact that the WBSS is on DAZN would indicate he may not have the exclusive. What reason is there to believe he's exclusive other than him saying so? Him saying something isn't proof of anything.Comment
-
i asked u for proof he isn’t exclusive and you said the WBSS is your proof. So make up your mind. You are going back and forth.
If Hearn has 250 mil guaranteed for 2 years and potential of 1 bil over 8 years logic says it’s probably exclusive and the their other capital will go for other sports.Comment
Tweet
Comment