Crawford asked Hearn to fight the winner of Garcia vs Vargas

[Motorcity Cobra]

oh trust me...ive echoed that exact sentiment here many times

Ask them what they don't like and they always wanna go back to the system that made boxing a niche sport.

[N/A]

he controls the gate revenue, broadcast rights sales, advertising sales, and all related event revenue. What he does with it after the fact is irrelevant.......

you're wrong. there is nothing illegal about a manager negotiating broadcast rights on behalf of a self promoted fighter. there's nothing illegal about a manager managing any aspect his fighter wants him to.

the difference between a manager and a promoter is how they get paid. do they get a flat fee or make their money by minimizing fighter purses because theyre paid off the event's profit, or do they get paid by maximizing the fighter's pay and getting a percentage of that pay.

has nothing to do with who negotiates the license fee or venue deal. a manager is allowed to handle those things to protect his fighter.

also not illegal for the talent buyer to pay the manager directly, manager takes his cut and then pays the fighter their cut.

[OnePunch]

you're wrong. there is nothing illegal about a manager negotiating broadcast rights on behalf of a self promoted fighter. there's nothing illegal about a manager managing any aspect his fighter wants him to.

the difference between a manager and a promoter is how they get paid. do they get a flat fee or make their money by minimizing fighter purses because theyre paid off the event's profit, or do they get paid by maximizing the fighter's pay and getting a percentage of that pay.

has nothing to do with who negotiates the license fee or venue deal. a manager is allowed to handle those things to protect his fighter.

also not illegal for the talent buyer to pay the manager directly, manager takes his cut and then pays the fighter their cut.

you're wrong, but its a pointless conversation.

[N/A]

you're wrong, but its a pointless conversation.

show me where the ali act says a manager can't have a venue, sponsor, etc pay him, he takes his cut, then gives the fighter a check for their cut?

there's NOTHING in there that says that.

and if a manager is able to use his leverage over venues, networks, sponsors, etc to get his fighters a better deal, there's nothing illegal about that.

unless you can show money going into haymon's pocket that is more than he's entitled to under his managerial agreement, he's doing nothing wrong.

i'm not going to publicly post all the details of PBC's arrangements, but what you're claiming is an ali act violation, isn't a violation and you can't show us anything in the ali act saying he can't do what he's doing.

[OnePunch]

show me where the ali act says a manager can't have a venue, sponsor, etc pay him, he takes his cut, then gives the fighter a check for their cut?

there's NOTHING in there that says that.

and if a manager is able to use his leverage over venues, networks, sponsors, etc to get his fighters a better deal, there's nothing illegal about that.

unless you can show money going into haymon's pocket that is more than he's entitled to under his managerial agreement, he's doing nothing wrong.

i'm not going to publicly post all the details of PBC's arrangements, but what you're claiming is an ali act violation, isn't a violation and you can't show us anything in the ali act saying he can't do what he's doing.

haymon receiving a nickel directly from any promotional related activity (gate, sponsors, broadcast rights, etc), is an Ali Act violation. Doesnt matter if he pays out every penny to the fighters. The act of him being the receiver of the funds creates a conflict of interest that is prohibited by the Act. The law was written that way because a MANAGER has a fiduciary duty to the fighter, and the drafters of the law did not want other interests taking precedence over the fighter.

Now we all know that Saint Al is beyond reproach, would never misappropriate so much as a dime, and dots his i's with little smiley faces, but not every manager out there is as honorable and noble. So THAT is why the law was written the way it was.

But obviously we interpret the Act's rather simple text differently, so arguing about it is pointless........

Edit: And just to clear up any misconceptions, I know for a FACT that rights fees from Showtime were wired directly to Haymon Sports. And again, how he disbursed those funds afterwards is irrelevant. The fact that he was the receiver of them created a conflict of interest

[N/A]

I know for a FACT that rights fees from Showtime were wired directly to Haymon Sports. And again, how he disbursed those funds afterwards is irrelevant. The fact that he was the receiver of them created a conflict of interest

So show us the language in the Ali act that bars a network from sending the license fee to the manager. I'm not dis*****g that Showtime has wired license fees to Haymon Sports. I'm dis*****g that it's an Ali act violation. Quote the relevant language from the Ali act that disallows this. I don't see it.

[OnePunch]

So show us the language in the Ali act that bars a network from sending the license fee to the manager. I'm not dis*****g that Showtime has wired license fees to Haymon Sports. I'm dis*****g that it's an Ali act violation. Quote the relevant language from the Ali act that disallows this. I don't see it.

the Act prohibits a manager from having a "direct or indirect interest in the promotion of a fighter".

If receiving millions of dollars of broadcast fees from network partners isnt a "direct or indirect interest", then I dont know what is.........


But its really a moot point anyways, as the Justice Dept obviously has no interest in Ali Act violations, and has never filed a single case against anyone. Ever. And I doubt they start with Haymon.......

[N/A]

the Act prohibits a manager from having a "direct or indirect interest in the promotion of a fighter".

An entity sending funds to a talent's manager for that manager to disperse to the talent is standard operating procedure in countless industries and has nothing to do with having an interest in the promotion of a fighter.

Talent agencies often cut the check to the manager, who takes their cut and then cuts a check to the actor (studios often cut the check to the agency). Concert promoters often cut the check to the manager, who takes their cut and then cuts a check to the musician. Theaters and clubs often cut the check to the manager, who takes their cut and then cuts a check to the comedian. And on and on it goes.

If receiving millions of dollars of broadcast fees from network partners isnt a "direct or indirect interest", then I dont know what is.........

This is your problem. You were a low level promoter who failed spectacularly. Now you're trying to give us your legal analysis of a law you don't understand by trying to dissect terms you don't understand.

It doesn't matter if it's millions of dollars or two dollars. An entity paying a manager and the manager then paying the performer has nothing to do with having a "direct or indirect interest" in the PROMOTION of that talent. Having an interest in the promotion means you're getting a cut of the profits (if there are any). Has nothing to do with whether funds pass through you on the way to the fighter, has to do with which funds you're keeping.

You've cooked up a wacky conspiracy theory once again, which a completely bizarre interpretation of having an interest in the promotion. An interpretation nobody else shares, that has never ever been the interpretation of a promotional interest in the entire existence of commercial events.

[Motorcity Cobra]

An entity sending funds to a talent's manager for that manager to disperse to the talent is standard operating procedure in countless industries and has nothing to do with having an interest in the promotion of a fighter.

Talent agencies often cut the check to the manager, who takes their cut and then cuts a check to the actor (studios often cut the check to the agency). Concert promoters often cut the check to the manager, who takes their cut and then cuts a check to the musician. Theaters and clubs often cut the check to the manager, who takes their cut and then cuts a check to the comedian. And on and on it goes.




This is your problem. You were a low level promoter who failed spectacularly. Now you're trying to give us your legal analysis of a law you don't understand by trying to dissect terms you don't understand.

It doesn't matter if it's millions of dollars or two dollars. An entity paying a manager and the manager then paying the performer has nothing to do with having a "direct or indirect interest" in the PROMOTION of that talent. Having an interest in the promotion means you're getting a cut of the profits (if there are any). Has nothing to do with whether funds pass through you on the way to the fighter, has to do with which funds you're keeping.

You've cooked up a wacky conspiracy theory once again, which a completely bizarre interpretation of having an interest in the promotion. An interpretation nobody else shares, that has never ever been the interpretation of a promotional interest in the entire existence of commercial events.

In every other entertainment industry the manager acts the same way Haymon does. His actions are only an anomaly in boxing. It's boxing that has it backwards.

There are plenty of Ali Act Violations by promoters in boxing. The issue is the fighters don't have the money to sit out for 2 years like Mikey and fight it.

[OnePunch]

An entity sending funds to a talent's manager for that manager to disperse to the talent is standard operating procedure in countless industries and has nothing to do with having an interest in the promotion of a fighter.

Talent agencies often cut the check to the manager, who takes their cut and then cuts a check to the actor (studios often cut the check to the agency). Concert promoters often cut the check to the manager, who takes their cut and then cuts a check to the musician. Theaters and clubs often cut the check to the manager, who takes their cut and then cuts a check to the comedian. And on and on it goes.




This is your problem. You were a low level promoter who failed spectacularly. Now you're trying to give us your legal analysis of a law you don't understand by trying to dissect terms you don't understand.

It doesn't matter if it's millions of dollars or two dollars. An entity paying a manager and the manager then paying the performer has nothing to do with having a "direct or indirect interest" in the PROMOTION of that talent. Having an interest in the promotion means you're getting a cut of the profits (if there are any). Has nothing to do with whether funds pass through you on the way to the fighter, has to do with which funds you're keeping.

You've cooked up a wacky conspiracy theory once again, which a completely bizarre interpretation of having an interest in the promotion. An interpretation nobody else shares, that has never ever been the interpretation of a promotional interest in the entire existence of commercial events.

If doing over 60 shows, being involved in events on ESPN, Showtime, HBO, and HBO PPV is "failing spectacularly", then yeah, I guess you are correct. But its unfortunate that you are not intelligent enough to have a reasonable discussion without resorting to personal attacks. But at least I am not so ashamed of my place in life that I have to hide behind anonymous names on the internet. I can walk into any show in the country by myself, without a care in the world that I will bump into someone I did wrong.

But carry on, keyboard warrior!

And to your weak attempt to compare boxing management to talent agencies and concert promoters, please let me know when they expanded the Ali Act to cover those occupations. I must have missed that..........