How can DAZN be a broadcaster and a promoter?

[Inspired]

boxnation is owned by frank warren...
so i doubt there's a law against it.

[GhostofDempsey]

Same way Haymon can be a promoter and a manager.

[Citizen Koba]

boxnation is owned by frank warren...
so i doubt there's a law against it.

The Ali act is a US law, man, it wouldn't effect Warren unless he was operating in the US. That said best I can tell it doesn't apply to the situation of a braodcaster / promoter overlap, only to a promoter / manger overlap.

Main thrust of it is that there's a conflict of interest between the needs of a promoter (who has to act in the best interest of his company / shareholders) and a manger (who is required to act in the best interest of his fighter). In the case of a broadcaster / promotional overlap neither of them is under any legal obligation to act in the best interest of the fighter anyway so - with regards to protectiing the interests of the fighter (which is the purpose of the Ali act) - there is no conflict, even if potentially one between the interests of the promotion and those of the broadcaster is possible.

[Motorcity Cobra]

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:



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.

Seems like networks/broadcasters have to register as promoters?

I remember this from the Golden Boy PBC lawsuit. Haymon claimed the networks are promoters not him

https://www.fightopinion.com/2016/11/01/audacious-boxing-al-haymon-golden-boy-antitrust-lawsuit-depositions/

[Citizen Koba]

Seems like networks/broadcasters have to register as promoters?

I remember this from the Golden Boy PBC lawsuit. Haymon claimed the networks are promoters not him

https://www.fightopinion.com/2016/11...t-depositions/

Welll, he's kinda right about that I'd say, the networks have had a huge role in both matchmaking and the production of events for decades probably, likely ever since broadcasts took over from the live event as the main driver of revenue. Equally the line between promoter and manger - in spite of the Ali act - is never likely to be clear cut, in spite of the legal firewall which the Ali act attempts to create.

What the Ali act is really about is attempting to clearly delineate the legal responsibilities of the various parties, and make sure that if a fighter is screwed over they got some comeback. A promoter (or indeed a broadcaster) is legally responsible to act in the best interest of their shareholders / company, so they can't simulataneously be held legally accountable for not acting in the fighters' best interest if the two are in conflict. That's the loophole the Ali act seeks to close, at least, the way I understand it.