How can DAZN be a broadcaster and a promoter?

[Motorcity Cobra]

They own 40% of Matchroom USA. I thought that was a violation of the Ali Act. Somebody explain this to me

Matchroom’s latest accounts confirm they only own 60% of Matchroom Boxing USA shares, suggesting that Hauser’s assertion that DAZN own the remaining 40% is probably true (as usual with Hauser). pic.twitter.com/LCarQgOQ1L

— Chris Williamson (@chrisrobwill) January 5, 2020

[Motorcity Cobra]

Anybody?!?!?!?

[Holler]

Not a lawyer but I don't think this violates the act as I've understood it:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...r1832/text/enr

[Kezzer]

Even if you owned 40% your only a minority shareholder? Even odder though that matchroom would have a shareholder for only the US part of the business given they are a global brand, conflict of interest in how they account things for sure !

[Real King Kong]

All I read is “probably true...as usual with hauser”. That seals it...he was right about the mayweather iv-gate.

[Citizen Koba]

Anybody?!?!?!?

I've just had a quick scan through the act linked by the poster below immediately your comment and it doesn't appear to have a great deal to say about broadcasters / content providers, though to TBH it probably should given the increasing role such ent1ties (oh ffs you don't even spell t1tties with one 't') have had in both promoting and matchmaking since the act was introduced, with broadcasters in fact acting in many ways as de facto promoters and even straying into roles traditionally thought of as the province of fighter managers.

EDIT: Umm. kinda scratch that, under the 'coercive contracts' sectionthe following indicates that anything applying to a promoter also applies to a broadcaster, though I can't see any thing to indicate that there's a necessary delineation of roles between a broadcaster and promoter, merely that (ubnder section 5) 'conflict of interest' there should be a firewall between manger and promoter, thus:

(1) IN GENERAL- It is unlawful for--

‘(A) a promoter to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the management of a boxer; or

‘(B) a manager--

‘(i) to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the promotion of a boxer; or

‘(ii) to be employed by or receive compensation or other benefits from a promoter, except for amounts received as consideration under the manager’s contract with the boxer.

Even if under these terms the term promoter could be replaced with BRoadcaster (which isn't specified for this particular article in the documnet) it still ain't saying that there must be a firewall between broadcaster and promoter, merely between broadcaster and manger.

For the purpose of this subsection, any reference in subsection (a)(1)(B) to ‘promoter’ shall be considered a reference to ‘commercial broadcaster’.

[_Rexy_]

They would need to hold 51% ownership for it to be a violation


#loophole.

[_Rexy_]

Even if you owned 40% your only a minority shareholder? Even odder though that matchroom would have a shareholder for only the US part of the business given they are a global brand, conflict of interest in how they account things for sure !

Oh, it's 100% a conflict for sure, and seems shady. How would they even handle the preferential treatment since they also have GBP.


Likely had to do with them financing the creation of Matchroom USA.

[Citizen Koba]

They would need to hold 51% ownership for it to be a violation


#loophole.

I don't understand, which article in the act would it violate?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...r1832/text/enr

I ain't given it a really thorough look through but best I can tell the firewall is between promoter and manger, not between promoter and broadcaster.

[Larry the boss]

Be real man, Haymon is sliding on the guidelines of the Ali Act as well man...these people are getting money and giving us all atleast 2-3 good fights a year... THEY ALL USE LOOPHOLES..