Golden Boy sues Al Haymon for 300 MILLION

[Beanflicker]

And the lawsuits continue to pile up....


MayPac Aftermath: Golden Boy Sues Al Haymon | FIGHTLAND

In its wake, the richest fight in the history of boxing has left a bad taste in the mouth of thousands, if not millions of people. While some fans were happy to see Mayweather cement himself as “the best” there are maybe just as many who think the fight proved nothing, and that it was boring, ugly and disappointing—that in no way did it determine who truly is the better boxer. Beyond that, there are two spectators suing Manny and his camp in a class-action lawsuit for consumer fraud, alleging that Top Rank’s omission of a shoulder injury misled those who paid for tickets and the Pay-Per-View, along with the myriad bettors who put money on the fight, that they did not, in fact, receive what they paid for. Had they known of the injury, they wouldn’t have financially behaved in the manner they did. They demand no less than US$ 5 million in damages.

The party doesn’t end there, however. Now, Golden Boy—Oscar de la Hoya’s promotion, and Floyd Mayweather’s once-upon-a-time promotion—is suing Money’s advisor and iconic figure of the boxing world, Al Haymon, for US$ 300 million. The company announced the federal lawsuit on Wednesday, and the complaint blankets over Haymon and all of his business entities.

The lawsuit stems from a belief that Haymon and Co. have disregarded and violated anti-trust laws as well as the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act. A federal law, The Ali Act was created to forbid managers from doubling their role as a promoter. Golden Boy claims that Haymon has in fact been both promoter and manager/advisor to a stable of at least 180 fighters.

A statement by Golden Boy reads, "Since the moment Al Haymon launched Premier Boxing Champions, he has repeatedly and brazenly broken the letter and spirit of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act that is meant to protect fighters from exploitation. As part of an anti-competitive conspiracy that includes financial backers from Waddell & Reed, Haymon has [according to the suit] 'entered into agreements to restrain trade in a substantial portion of the market for promotion of championship-caliber boxers.'"

How does Haymon “get away with it?” Haymon puts in place different promoters on different cards, on a card-by-card basis. He is never officially the promoter of any fight in which he is also the manager of the fighters performing.

[Master]

Lawyers just get richer. As long as promoters are fighting with one another and it is not the fighter then fine.

[Ron Swanson]

GBP needs a lawyer as a partner rather than hiring because they are about to waste a lot of money misunderstanding the Ali Act.

[corvette]

GBP needs a lawyer as a partner rather than hiring because they are about to waste a lot of money misunderstanding the Ali Act.

yep....

[fan johnny]

GBP needs a lawyer as a partner rather than hiring because they are about to waste a lot of money misunderstanding the Ali Act.

That makes no sense what so ever. The act is clear in SEC. 5. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Section 17 of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C. 630 (as redesignated by section 4 of this Act) is amended--

(1) in the first sentence by striking ‘No member’ and inserting ‘(a) REGULATORY PERSONNEL- No member’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘(b) FIREWALL BETWEEN PROMOTERS AND MANAGERS-

‘(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.

‘(2) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1)--

‘(A) does not prohibit a boxer from acting as his own promoter or manager; and

‘(B) only applies to boxers participating in a boxing match of 10 rounds or more.

[Ron Swanson]

GBP needs a lawyer as a partner rather than hiring because they are about to waste a lot of money misunderstanding the Ali Act.

That makes no sense what so ever. The act is clear in SEC. 5. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Section 17 of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C. 630 (as redesignated by section 4 of this Act) is amended--

(1) in the first sentence by striking ‘No member’ and inserting ‘(a) REGULATORY PERSONNEL- No member’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘(b) FIREWALL BETWEEN PROMOTERS AND MANAGERS-

‘(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.

‘(2) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1)--

‘(A) does not prohibit a boxer from acting as his own promoter or manager; and

‘(B) only applies to boxers participating in a boxing match of 10 rounds or more.

Wait and see. This will be another case where I am right for years. Do better than Pac fans and own it when it's all said and done

[Ron Swanson]

GBP needs a lawyer as a partner rather than hiring because they are about to waste a lot of money misunderstanding the Ali Act.

That makes no sense what so ever. The act is clear in SEC. 5. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Section 17 of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C. 630 (as redesignated by section 4 of this Act) is amended--

(1) in the first sentence by striking ‘No member’ and inserting ‘(a) REGULATORY PERSONNEL- No member’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘(b) FIREWALL BETWEEN PROMOTERS AND MANAGERS-

‘(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.

‘(2) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1)--

‘(A) does not prohibit a boxer from acting as his own promoter or manager; and

‘(B) only applies to boxers participating in a boxing match of 10 rounds or more.

Where GBPs is messing up is, well it's all over the place. First, incentive. GBPs had no problem with Haymon as long as he was working exclusively with GBPs. That is a conflict of interests. Now they have sold fighters to Haymon and want to sue him for their benefit? It's nonsense, they are getting a higher percentage. So GBPs wants to sue to get them a worse deal, for their benefit? It's laughable.

Now on to the meat and potatoes. The thing they are suing over is false. Haymon is not the Manager and Promoter. PBC is not a promoter like The WBO is not a promoter. And Haymon is hiring different promoters on one off contracts for different events. They really have absolutely nothing on him. Nothing!

Where the WBO wants to get involved has nothing to do with getting Haymon for what he is doing. It's about redefining the parameters about what he is allowed to do. It's to undermine the PBC which benefits fighters but hurts the sanctioning bodies. So the WBO is only self interested, just like GBPs. And it is so transparent that it undermines GBPs already flimsy case.

This lawsuit basically says "we all want our cuts, we want the fighters to get less. But we want them to get less for their good" GTFOOH with that trash.

If you can't see through this nonsense I pity you and offer 2 questions. 1)do you really think Haymon got hundreds of millions of dollars from people when he was breaking the most famous rule in boxing, or would one of these very wealthy men have broached this obvious question? And 2)why is GBPs doing this now?

Answer those questions and you will see their motives and how badly they will be crushed in court.

[Julius Rain]

Al Haymon has Mayweather Promotion to get leverage on fighters to join his plans. Mayweather PRomotion may not even be a real, official, legit, licensed Promotion. Mayweather lacks endorsements and is smart enough to brand himself in many ways. TMT, TBE, Mayweather Promotion. All just gear brands at it's best. No doubt Haymon plays his cards well.

[Julius Rain]

BTW it's Richard Shaefner who should be getting sued by GBP.

[fan johnny]

snip...

Where GBPs is messing up is, well it's all over the place. First, incentive. GBPs had no problem with Haymon as long as he was working exclusively with GBPs. That is a conflict of interests. Now they have sold fighters to Haymon and want to sue him for their benefit? It's nonsense, they are getting a higher percentage. So GBPs wants to sue to get them a worse deal, for their benefit? It's laughable.

Now on to the meat and potatoes. The thing they are suing over is false. Haymon is not the Manager and Promoter. PBC is not a promoter like The WBO is not a promoter. And Haymon is hiring different promoters on one off contracts for different events. They really have absolutely nothing on him. Nothing!

Where the WBO wants to get involved has nothing to do with getting Haymon for what he is doing. It's about redefining the parameters about what he is allowed to do. It's to undermine the PBC which benefits fighters but hurts the sanctioning bodies. So the WBO is only self interested, just like GBPs. And it is so transparent that it undermines GBPs already flimsy case.

This lawsuit basically says "we all want our cuts, we want the fighters to get less. But we want them to get less for their good" GTFOOH with that trash.

If you can't see through this nonsense I pity you and offer 2 questions. 1)do you really think Haymon got hundreds of millions of dollars from people when he was breaking the most famous rule in boxing, or would one of these very wealthy men have broached this obvious question? And 2)why is GBPs doing this now?

Answer those questions and you will see their motives and how badly they will be crushed in court.

I don't care about GBP or AL Haymon's motivations, other than it affects the fighter. I don't care if they win or lose a lawsuit. I'm pointing out that GBP is not "misunderstanding" the Muhammad Ali Act. In any event, GBP is two faced same as Al Haymon and any other promoter that cheats the fighter and I hope the fighter comes out the better for it.

How do you know how many millions of dollars Al Haymon has or how he makes contracts with the fighters? If GBP is suing as indicated in the article over conflict of interest, I would think they have some of the fighter's (s) contacts that show who and how the fighters are being represented and paid. I have no knowledge to support the theory nor do I think you do aside from reading it in a article. Unless you have seen the fighter's contracts? But then again, I don't see a connection between GBP damages and the fighter(s) damages so I'm assuming there probably be more language to support the connection in the lawsuit.

Now the article basically says "spirit of the law" which is not a direct act but rather a indirect act. I have seen many decisions that rule on intent.

[Ron Swanson]

snip...

Where GBPs is messing up is, well it's all over the place. First, incentive. GBPs had no problem with Haymon as long as he was working exclusively with GBPs. That is a conflict of interests. Now they have sold fighters to Haymon and want to sue him for their benefit? It's nonsense, they are getting a higher percentage. So GBPs wants to sue to get them a worse deal, for their benefit? It's laughable.

Now on to the meat and potatoes. The thing they are suing over is false. Haymon is not the Manager and Promoter. PBC is not a promoter like The WBO is not a promoter. And Haymon is hiring different promoters on one off contracts for different events. They really have absolutely nothing on him. Nothing!

Where the WBO wants to get involved has nothing to do with getting Haymon for what he is doing. It's about redefining the parameters about what he is allowed to do. It's to undermine the PBC which benefits fighters but hurts the sanctioning bodies. So the WBO is only self interested, just like GBPs. And it is so transparent that it undermines GBPs already flimsy case.

This lawsuit basically says "we all want our cuts, we want the fighters to get less. But we want them to get less for their good" GTFOOH with that trash.

If you can't see through this nonsense I pity you and offer 2 questions. 1)do you really think Haymon got hundreds of millions of dollars from people when he was breaking the most famous rule in boxing, or would one of these very wealthy men have broached this obvious question? And 2)why is GBPs doing this now?

Answer those questions and you will see their motives and how badly they will be crushed in court.

I don't care about GBP or AL Haymon's motivations, other than it affects the fighter. I don't care if they win or lose a lawsuit. I'm pointing out that GBP is not "misunderstanding" the Muhammad Ali Act. In any event, GBP is two faced same as Al Haymon and any other promoter that cheats the fighter and I hope the fighter comes out the better for it.

How do you know how many millions of dollars Al Haymon has or how he makes contracts with the fighters? If GBP is suing as indicated in the article over conflict of interest, I would think they have some of the fighter's (s) contacts that show who and how the fighters are being represented and paid. I have no knowledge to support the theory nor do I think you do aside from reading it in a article. Unless you have seen the fighter's contracts? But then again, I don't see a connection between GBP damages and the fighter(s) damages so I'm assuming there probably be more language to support the connection in the lawsuit.

Now the article basically says "spirit of the law" which is not a direct act but rather a indirect act. I have seen many decisions that rule on intent.

It is common knowledge Haymon gives the fighter the largest percentage. It's on the books that he even takes nothing regularly because he is looking to the future. They will not get him on the fighters best interests.

What GBPs suggests is Haymon is working both as manager and promoter. But he's not. He may be manipulating by using one off contracts(he almost assuredly is manipulating) but he is not acting as a promoter. He's smarter than that.

There is no doubt he is into shady business manipulating the system for his benefit. But he's doing it by the rules. That's why the WBO wants the rules changed. They don't want the PBC to get a foothold where Haymon can work without them. There is not one thing noble in this suit.

The fighters are getting more, it's on the books if anyone cares to do the legwork to see. Haymon should not be allowed to become a monopoly but his business model is far better for the fighters than GBPs or TRs or Main Events etcetera. It's a new world plan though and old money has generally ruled in Nevada. Who knows better who to bribe is what we will learn.

[fan johnny]

Snip...


It is common knowledge Haymon gives the fighter the largest percentage. It's on the books that he even takes nothing regularly because he is looking to the future. They will not get him on the fighters best interests.

What GBPs suggests is Haymon is working both as manager and promoter. But he's not. He may be manipulating by using one off contracts(he almost assuredly is manipulating) but he is not acting as a promoter. He's smarter than that.

There is no doubt he is into shady business manipulating the system for his benefit. But he's doing it by the rules. That's why the WBO wants the rules changed. They don't want the PBC to get a foothold where Haymon can work without them. There is not one thing noble in this suit.

The fighters are getting more, it's on the books if anyone cares to do the legwork to see. Haymon should not be allowed to become a monopoly but his business model is far better for the fighters than GBPs or TRs or Main Events etcetera. It's a new world plan though and old money has generally ruled in Nevada. Who knows better who to bribe is what we will learn.

That fist sentence is just stupid. When does a manager take money outside of a percentage of the purse? In actual fact, this is also not true. It's in his contract that the fighter is responsible for his expenses.

Interpret how you want, but I see it as a clear conflict of interest. He calls himself an Adviser acting as the fighter's manager taking 15% of the purse. He also operates as the promotional arm choosing who the fighter fights. This is what is known as a conflict of interest under the Act. Is not only the fights Haymon gets a piece of, it's everything his boxing career that generates money, endorsements and appearances, movies etc. Kind of sounds like he wants to be the WWE. oh and get this her also puts into the agreement, even if the contract is found to be illegal, he still gets paid. I don't see how that works but he puts it in there.

Again, I don't care what the motives of GBP are. I'm just saying they are not wrong.

[Master]

Ron and Julius should be lawyers.

[Ron Swanson]

Snip...


It is common knowledge Haymon gives the fighter the largest percentage. It's on the books that he even takes nothing regularly because he is looking to the future. They will not get him on the fighters best interests.

What GBPs suggests is Haymon is working both as manager and promoter. But he's not. He may be manipulating by using one off contracts(he almost assuredly is manipulating) but he is not acting as a promoter. He's smarter than that.

There is no doubt he is into shady business manipulating the system for his benefit. But he's doing it by the rules. That's why the WBO wants the rules changed. They don't want the PBC to get a foothold where Haymon can work without them. There is not one thing noble in this suit.

The fighters are getting more, it's on the books if anyone cares to do the legwork to see. Haymon should not be allowed to become a monopoly but his business model is far better for the fighters than GBPs or TRs or Main Events etcetera. It's a new world plan though and old money has generally ruled in Nevada. Who knows better who to bribe is what we will learn.

That fist sentence is just stupid. When does a manager take money outside of a percentage of the purse? In actual fact, this is also not true. It's in his contract that the fighter is responsible for his expenses.

Interpret how you want, but I see it as a clear conflict of interest. He calls himself an Adviser acting as the fighter's manager taking 15% of the purse. He also operates as the promotional arm choosing who the fighter fights. This is what is known as a conflict of interest under the Act. Is not only the fights Haymon gets a piece of, it's everything his boxing career that generates money, endorsements and appearances, movies etc. Kind of sounds like he wants to be the WWE. oh and get this her also puts into the agreement, even if the contract is found to be illegal, he still gets paid. I don't see how that works but he puts it in there.

Again, I don't care what the motives of GBP are. I'm just saying they are not wrong.

You're getting into a grey area with "promotional arm" a manager is responsible for making sure the fighter makes money. By that he has an interest in fight selection. Where Haymon protects himself is he doesn't do the actual promoting. He's using promoters I've never heard of often that are probably puppet companies but he is using promoters and not doing it himself.

Any way you figure it GBPs looks foolish because they had absolutely no problem with Haymon until he separated from them.

And FTR I think Haymon is a criminal, just like everyone else in boxing. I just think he is worlds smarter than ODLH. Too smart to get caught doing anything. He'll be right on the edge of what he can get away with but he won't sink the ship to spare the flag from being lowered. I'll eat my crow if I am wrong though

[fan johnny]

Snip...


It is common knowledge Haymon gives the fighter the largest percentage. It's on the books that he even takes nothing regularly because he is looking to the future. They will not get him on the fighters best interests.

What GBPs suggests is Haymon is working both as manager and promoter. But he's not. He may be manipulating by using one off contracts(he almost assuredly is manipulating) but he is not acting as a promoter. He's smarter than that.

There is no doubt he is into shady business manipulating the system for his benefit. But he's doing it by the rules. That's why the WBO wants the rules changed. They don't want the PBC to get a foothold where Haymon can work without them. There is not one thing noble in this suit.

The fighters are getting more, it's on the books if anyone cares to do the legwork to see. Haymon should not be allowed to become a monopoly but his business model is far better for the fighters than GBPs or TRs or Main Events etcetera. It's a new world plan though and old money has generally ruled in Nevada. Who knows better who to bribe is what we will learn.

That fist sentence is just stupid. When does a manager take money outside of a percentage of the purse? In actual fact, this is also not true. It's in his contract that the fighter is responsible for his expenses.

Interpret how you want, but I see it as a clear conflict of interest. He calls himself an Adviser acting as the fighter's manager taking 15% of the purse. He also operates as the promotional arm choosing who the fighter fights. This is what is known as a conflict of interest under the Act. Is not only the fights Haymon gets a piece of, it's everything his boxing career that generates money, endorsements and appearances, movies etc. Kind of sounds like he wants to be the WWE. oh and get this her also puts into the agreement, even if the contract is found to be illegal, he still gets paid. I don't see how that works but he puts it in there.

Again, I don't care what the motives of GBP are. I'm just saying they are not wrong.

You're getting into a grey area with "promotional arm" a manager is responsible for making sure the fighter makes money. By that he has an interest in fight selection. Where Haymon protects himself is he doesn't do the actual promoting. He's using promoters I've never heard of often that are probably puppet companies but he is using promoters and not doing it himself.

Any way you figure it GBPs looks foolish because they had absolutely no problem with Haymon until he separated from them.

And FTR I think Haymon is a criminal, just like everyone else in boxing. I just think he is worlds smarter than ODLH. Too smart to get caught doing anything. He'll be right on the edge of what he can get away with but he won't sink the ship to spare the flag from being lowered. I'll eat my crow if I am wrong though

Question: How important is symantics in Law? Does it make a difference if there is intent?

True or false

1. Is Al Haymon a promoter? i.e. does he promote fights?
2. Is Al Haymon a manager? i.e. does he manage fighters careers?

Al Haymon no matter how smart he is toward doing business or writing contracts cannot make his own rules that circumvent the rules. The basic rule of law is that you can't take away a person's rights. If you read his contracts that is exactly what he does writing traps into his contact. His intent is to act as the fighters manager and to act as the promoter. The operative word is intent. The problem with boxing is that the boxing commission is allowed to operate in conflict of intrest. Thus they do not actively enforce the rules to protect the fighters. Who enforces the Ali act? It is supposed to be the boxing commission. The Ali Act is a federal law and commissions are state. The only time the rules get enforced, is either there is public outcry, or when someone is sued. GBP may or may not have the right motivation in bringing a law suit against Al Haymon, and you make think that they look foolish, but see it as justified.