Do the boxer pay Al Haymon or Al Haymon pay the boxer?

[N/A]

The Ali Act states that a manager cannot have "a financial interest in the promotion of a boxer". Obviously since all the event revenue is controlled by Haymon Sports, he does have a financial interest in the promotion. He is clearly violating the Ali Act.

As long as Haymon is only getting paid a percentage of what is paid to the fighter, and isn't skimming off the top, he's on the clear on the Ali act.

You've claimed many times, with no evidence, that Haymon is skimming off the top and stealing from the fighters. If you're right, that'd be an Ali act violation.

But there's no logical reason to believe your wild conspiracy theory.

[OnePunch]

As long as Haymon is only getting paid a percentage of what is paid to the fighter, and isn't skimming off the top, he's on the clear on the Ali act.

You've claimed many times, with no evidence, that Haymon is skimming off the top and stealing from the fighters. If you're right, that'd be an Ali act violation.

But there's no logical reason to believe your wild conspiracy theory.

that is a straight up LIE. I have never accused Haymon of stealing, and I challenge you to prove it.

All I have said is that by controlling event revenue (as a manager) he is violating the Ali Act. Plain and simple.

[N/A]

All I have said is that by controlling event revenue (as a manager) he is violating the Ali Act. Plain and simple.

Wrong. Getting paid on revenue that hasn't filtered through the fighters yet would be the violation. Haymon can control EVERYTHING and it still doesn't make him a promoter unless he's profiting from the promotion. Haymon doesn't make a dime other than from managerial commissions. Therefore, it's not a violation. When we've discussed this before, you insisted if the event has a profit, it goes to Haymon, not the fighter. Which isn't true, it goes to the fighter and Haymon gets his cut. The arrangement you're insisting on would be skimming. That's not what he's doing.

[OnePunch]

Wrong. Getting paid on revenue that hasn't filtered through the fighters yet would be the violation. Haymon can control EVERYTHING and it still doesn't make him a promoter unless he's profiting from the promotion. Haymon doesn't make a dime other than from managerial commissions. Therefore, it's not a violation. When we've discussed this before, you insisted if the event has a profit, it goes to Haymon, not the fighter. Which isn't true, it goes to the fighter and Haymon gets his cut. The arrangement you're insisting on would be skimming. That's not what he's doing.

unless you are his accountant, you havent the slightest idea what you're talking about.

The law is not ambiguous.

"A manager cannot have a financial interest in the promotion of a boxer".

That language is pretty clear. And controlling event revenue is indeed "having a financial interest", whether he gives it all away or not.

[N/A]

unless you are his accountant, you havent the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Then you're claiming that he's skimming.

Because I don't have to be his accountant to know what his arrangement is with several of his headline fighters. Who retain ownership of their events and pay a commission to Haymon. Unless Haymon is skimming off the top, he's not a promoter, because he has no financial interest in the promotion, only his managerial cut of the fighter.