My guest on this podcast is Todd duBoef, the President of one of the leading promoters in boxing Top Rank, Inc. We spoke about his company's television deal with ESPN and how it came about. We also talked about his vision for the future and what shoulder-programming will go on the network.
We also spoke about his star heavyweight Tyson Fury and how he fits into the heavyweight picture as well as the great fights coming up on the schedule and collision course that Vasyl Lomachenko and Teofimo Lopez are on.
It was a great conversation - enjoy!
This podcast is presented by The Ring. I'm honored to be working with The Ring and my good friend, Doug Fischer, the Editor-in-Chief. You can find the podcast on the website at Ringtv.com.
This podcast is distributed by the Leave It In The Ring podcast network. The LIITR network also includes great podcasts by founder David Duenez, Gabriel Montoya and Evan Rutkowski.
You can still find this podcast and older Boxing Esq. podcasts on this blog and on Soundcloud or subscribe to the Boxing Esq. Podcast on either iTunes, Spotify or Stitcher. If you enjoy the podcasts, please leave a comment or rating, that would be greatly appreciated. The podcast will appear on both the LIITR network of podcasts as well as under the Boxing Esq. Podcast name.
Showing posts with label Top Rank. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Top Rank. Show all posts
Monday, June 17, 2019
Sunday, May 19, 2019
Boxing Podcast With John Nash
My guest on this podcast is John Nash, a top MMA writer for Bloody Elbow. John writes primarily about MMA and boxing and also does an excellent podcast called Show Money which covers the business side of MMA.
We spoke about the rumors of Endeavor purchasing Waddell Reed's interest in Haymon Sports and the PBC. We also discussed Endeavor's possible interest in Top Rank and what an Endeavor boxing promotional entity would look like.
We further got into a few MMA topics including how the UFC's deal with ESPN is going and if Bellator is benefitting from its DAZN deal.
It was an excellent discussion - enjoy!
This podcast is presented by The Ring. I'm honored to be working with The Ring and my good friend, Doug Fischer, the Editor-in-Chief. You can find the podcast on the website at Ringtv.com.
This podcast is distributed by the Leave It In The Ring podcast network. The LIITR network also includes great podcasts by founder David Duenez, Gabriel Montoya and Evan Rutkowski.
You can still find this podcast and older Boxing Esq. podcasts on this blog and on Soundcloud or subscribe to the Boxing Esq. Podcast on either iTunes, Spotify or Stitcher. If you enjoy the podcasts, please leave a comment or rating, that would be greatly appreciated. The podcast will appear on both the LIITR network of podcasts as well as under the Boxing Esq. Podcast name.
We spoke about the rumors of Endeavor purchasing Waddell Reed's interest in Haymon Sports and the PBC. We also discussed Endeavor's possible interest in Top Rank and what an Endeavor boxing promotional entity would look like.
We further got into a few MMA topics including how the UFC's deal with ESPN is going and if Bellator is benefitting from its DAZN deal.
It was an excellent discussion - enjoy!
This podcast is presented by The Ring. I'm honored to be working with The Ring and my good friend, Doug Fischer, the Editor-in-Chief. You can find the podcast on the website at Ringtv.com.
This podcast is distributed by the Leave It In The Ring podcast network. The LIITR network also includes great podcasts by founder David Duenez, Gabriel Montoya and Evan Rutkowski.
You can still find this podcast and older Boxing Esq. podcasts on this blog and on Soundcloud or subscribe to the Boxing Esq. Podcast on either iTunes, Spotify or Stitcher. If you enjoy the podcasts, please leave a comment or rating, that would be greatly appreciated. The podcast will appear on both the LIITR network of podcasts as well as under the Boxing Esq. Podcast name.
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
Middendorf Wins Judgment For Over $500,000 Against Top Rank In Crawford Contract Dispute
Chris Middendorf's company Middendorf Sports won a judgment of $520,296.87 plus prejudgment interest in its suit against Top Rank in U.S. Federal Court, District of Nebraska, over their contractual percentage owed on Terence Crawford's purses for title defenses. Judge John Gerrard issued the opinion on Sunday.
This suit was brought in January 2017 after Top Rank stopped paying a fee equal to 8% of Crawford's title defense purses which they contracted to pay Middendorf in an Agreement and Release that enabled Crawford to sign with Top Rank back in 2011.
The Court found that the language in the Agreement and Release was "unambiguous" that "Top Rank is obliged to pay Middendorf eight percent of Crawford's 'purse' for any Crawford "title defense" that Top Rank promotes pursuant to a promotional rights agreement." The Court determined that the obligation to pay the fee did not terminate when Top Rank signed Crawford to an Exclusive Restated Promotional Agreement in 2014. The Court had essentially made this determination in its opinion on Top Rank's motion for summary judgment back in April 2018.
The parties still had a dispute over the meaning of the terms "purse" and "title defense" and recently went to trial over these issues.
Top Rank argued that the term "purse" did not include additional revenues from gate participation that were paid to Crawford. The Court disagreed and held that gate participation was also part of the purse. The Court found that the term "purse", within the meaning of the Agreement and Release, meant "simply the remuneration paid to Crawford."
Regarding the meaning of the term "title defense", Top Rank argued that a "unification bout" did not come under the definition of a "title defense" and was a separate type of bout where no fees were owed to Middendorf. The Court found that "Top Rank's argument that the categories of "title defense" and "unification bout" are mutually exclusive is not supported by the evidence." The Court reasoned that a bout can be both a unification and a title defense.
No word on whether Top Rank will appeal.
See the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
See the Judgment:
This suit was brought in January 2017 after Top Rank stopped paying a fee equal to 8% of Crawford's title defense purses which they contracted to pay Middendorf in an Agreement and Release that enabled Crawford to sign with Top Rank back in 2011.
The Court found that the language in the Agreement and Release was "unambiguous" that "Top Rank is obliged to pay Middendorf eight percent of Crawford's 'purse' for any Crawford "title defense" that Top Rank promotes pursuant to a promotional rights agreement." The Court determined that the obligation to pay the fee did not terminate when Top Rank signed Crawford to an Exclusive Restated Promotional Agreement in 2014. The Court had essentially made this determination in its opinion on Top Rank's motion for summary judgment back in April 2018.
The parties still had a dispute over the meaning of the terms "purse" and "title defense" and recently went to trial over these issues.
Top Rank argued that the term "purse" did not include additional revenues from gate participation that were paid to Crawford. The Court disagreed and held that gate participation was also part of the purse. The Court found that the term "purse", within the meaning of the Agreement and Release, meant "simply the remuneration paid to Crawford."
Regarding the meaning of the term "title defense", Top Rank argued that a "unification bout" did not come under the definition of a "title defense" and was a separate type of bout where no fees were owed to Middendorf. The Court found that "Top Rank's argument that the categories of "title defense" and "unification bout" are mutually exclusive is not supported by the evidence." The Court reasoned that a bout can be both a unification and a title defense.
No word on whether Top Rank will appeal.
See the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
See the Judgment:
Sunday, June 10, 2018
Boxing Podcast With Writer Adam Abramowitz
My guest on this podcast is Adam Abramowitz, a writer for the excellent boxing blog Saturday Night Boxing. Adam is also on the board of the independent media run Transnational Boxing Ratings, as well as The Ring ratings panel.
We spoke about his recent article on the influx of streaming networks into the sport of boxing, titled "Hearn, Top Rank and the New American Boxing Paradigm". We also got into where cable broadcasting in general is going and how that affects the sport. It was a great conversation.
To check out Adam's work on boxing go to www.saturdaynightboxing.com. You can also catch up with Adam on Twitter at @snboxing.
Enjoy the podcast. You can listen to it on Soundcloud or subscribe to the podcast on either iTunes or Stitcher. Please leave a comment or a rating, I would very much appreciate it.
We spoke about his recent article on the influx of streaming networks into the sport of boxing, titled "Hearn, Top Rank and the New American Boxing Paradigm". We also got into where cable broadcasting in general is going and how that affects the sport. It was a great conversation.
To check out Adam's work on boxing go to www.saturdaynightboxing.com. You can also catch up with Adam on Twitter at @snboxing.
Enjoy the podcast. You can listen to it on Soundcloud or subscribe to the podcast on either iTunes or Stitcher. Please leave a comment or a rating, I would very much appreciate it.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
Judge Denies Top Rank's Summary Judgment Motion in Middendorf Sports, Terence Crawford Case
Earlier this month in U.S. Federal Court, District of Nebraska, Judge John Gerrard emphatically denied Defendant Top Rank's Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the duration of the Promotional Agreement (PA) and Release in the case brought against them by Plaintiff Middendorf Sports (incorrectly spelled Mittendorf in the opinion).
The dispute involves a breach of contract alleged by Middendorf over an agreement by Top Rank to pay Middendorf fees on Terence Crawford's world title defenses. Crawford was initially promoted by TKO Boxing Promotions, an entity in which Middendorf was a partner. TKO ran into financial difficulties and assigned Crawford's contract to Middendorf Sports. Middendorf then entered into a Release with Crawford allowing him to sign with Top Rank in exchange for a fee to be paid to Middendorf equal to 8% of Crawford's purses for any world title defenses promoted by Top Rank pursuant to the PA.
After Crawford became a world champion in March 2014, Top Rank duly paid Middendorf its agreed upon fees once Crawford started making title defenses. In September 2014, Top Rank and Crawford renegotiated their agreement and entered into a Restated Promotional Rights Agreement (RPA). Top Rank continued to pay Middendorf for Crawford's next three title defenses. But in July 2016, Crawford fought a title unification bout against fellow Junior Welterweight Champion Victor Postal. Middendorf alleges that Top Rank refused to pay the fees for the Postal fight claiming that it was a "unification fight" and not a "title defense". Middendorf further alleges that Top Rank has failed to pay the fees for any Crawford title defense subsequent to the Postal fight.
Middendorf brought suit in January 2017.
Top Rank argued in their Summary Judgment Motion that once the original PA was terminated and they entered into the RPA, their obligation to pay fees to Middendorf ended. Middendorf argued that the Release contained no term and did not expire at a fixed time. Judge Gerrard opined that Top Rank's interpretation was "not supported by basic principles of contract interpretation . . . . Contract interpretation is a question of law, and if the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous, it will be enforced as written." Judge Gerrard held that the phrase in the Release stating that Top Rank and Crawford would "enter into a promotional rights agreement" was open ended and did not specify a particular promotional rights agreement.
Top Rank further argued that interpreting the Release to have no fixed term would be allowing for a contract in perpetuity. Judge Gerrard held that the contract obligation was not perpetual because "whether or not the obligation continued was in [Top Rank's] control."
Thus, the Court denied Top Rank's motion and found, as a matter of law and not as a question of fact for the jury, that "the unambiguous language of the Agreement and Release obliges Top Rank to pay Mittendorf (sic) eight percent of Crawford's purse for any Crawford title defense that Top Rank promotes pursuant to a promotional rights agreement."
This was a big win for Middendorf. This was coupled with similarly strong language from another opinion issued by the Court on the same day denying a Motion in Limine by Top Rank to exclude the expert testimony of promoter/attorney Leon Margoles. In that opinion, the Court stated that extrinsic evidence of the definition of the phrase "title defense" might be inadmissible because "the term isn't ambiguous." The Court seems to have a clear reading of the language of the PA and Release in this case and it is seeing things Middendorf's way.
Next up in the discovery phase of this case is Terence Crawford's deposition.
See MSJ Opinion below:
See Motion in Limine Opinion re: Margoles Expert Testimony below:
The dispute involves a breach of contract alleged by Middendorf over an agreement by Top Rank to pay Middendorf fees on Terence Crawford's world title defenses. Crawford was initially promoted by TKO Boxing Promotions, an entity in which Middendorf was a partner. TKO ran into financial difficulties and assigned Crawford's contract to Middendorf Sports. Middendorf then entered into a Release with Crawford allowing him to sign with Top Rank in exchange for a fee to be paid to Middendorf equal to 8% of Crawford's purses for any world title defenses promoted by Top Rank pursuant to the PA.
After Crawford became a world champion in March 2014, Top Rank duly paid Middendorf its agreed upon fees once Crawford started making title defenses. In September 2014, Top Rank and Crawford renegotiated their agreement and entered into a Restated Promotional Rights Agreement (RPA). Top Rank continued to pay Middendorf for Crawford's next three title defenses. But in July 2016, Crawford fought a title unification bout against fellow Junior Welterweight Champion Victor Postal. Middendorf alleges that Top Rank refused to pay the fees for the Postal fight claiming that it was a "unification fight" and not a "title defense". Middendorf further alleges that Top Rank has failed to pay the fees for any Crawford title defense subsequent to the Postal fight.
Middendorf brought suit in January 2017.
Top Rank argued in their Summary Judgment Motion that once the original PA was terminated and they entered into the RPA, their obligation to pay fees to Middendorf ended. Middendorf argued that the Release contained no term and did not expire at a fixed time. Judge Gerrard opined that Top Rank's interpretation was "not supported by basic principles of contract interpretation . . . . Contract interpretation is a question of law, and if the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous, it will be enforced as written." Judge Gerrard held that the phrase in the Release stating that Top Rank and Crawford would "enter into a promotional rights agreement" was open ended and did not specify a particular promotional rights agreement.
Top Rank further argued that interpreting the Release to have no fixed term would be allowing for a contract in perpetuity. Judge Gerrard held that the contract obligation was not perpetual because "whether or not the obligation continued was in [Top Rank's] control."
Thus, the Court denied Top Rank's motion and found, as a matter of law and not as a question of fact for the jury, that "the unambiguous language of the Agreement and Release obliges Top Rank to pay Mittendorf (sic) eight percent of Crawford's purse for any Crawford title defense that Top Rank promotes pursuant to a promotional rights agreement."
This was a big win for Middendorf. This was coupled with similarly strong language from another opinion issued by the Court on the same day denying a Motion in Limine by Top Rank to exclude the expert testimony of promoter/attorney Leon Margoles. In that opinion, the Court stated that extrinsic evidence of the definition of the phrase "title defense" might be inadmissible because "the term isn't ambiguous." The Court seems to have a clear reading of the language of the PA and Release in this case and it is seeing things Middendorf's way.
Next up in the discovery phase of this case is Terence Crawford's deposition.
See MSJ Opinion below:
See Motion in Limine Opinion re: Margoles Expert Testimony below:
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
Boxing Podcast with VP of Communications at Haymon Sports and the PBC - Tim Smith
My guest on this podcast is Tim Smith, VP of Communications at Haymon Sports and Premier Boxing Champions (PBC). Tim was a long-time boxing writer, having covered the sport at the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Cincinnati Enquirer, the New York Times and the New York Daily News before taking his position at the PBC. We spoke about Tim's years as a boxing writer, the PBC's pursuit of a TV deal on free TV, the PBC's potential teaming up with Dana White and Zuffa Boxing, Top Rank's deal on ESPN, the World Boxing Super Series and Floyd Mayweather potentially fighting in the UFC. Great discussion - enjoy!
Check out what's going on at the PBC at the following link: http://www.premierboxingchampions.com/
For more Boxing Esq. podcasts, you can find them on Soundcloud at the below embed or subscribe on either iTunes or Stitcher. If you enjoy the podcasts, please leave a comment or rating, that would be greatly appreciated.
Check out what's going on at the PBC at the following link: http://www.premierboxingchampions.com/
For more Boxing Esq. podcasts, you can find them on Soundcloud at the below embed or subscribe on either iTunes or Stitcher. If you enjoy the podcasts, please leave a comment or rating, that would be greatly appreciated.
Saturday, February 3, 2018
Boxing Podcast with former HBO Boxing Marketing Exec - Evan Rutkowski
My guest on this podcast is Evan Rutkowski, former manager of marketing strategy at HBO. Evan is also the author of a great new podcast titled The Fistianados Podcast, where he gives his take on what television network executives are looking at when they survey the current fight scene. We spoke in depth about Top Rank's deal on ESPN as well as the PBC's situation and why no network has picked up the WBSS. It was a fun discussion - enjoy!
To check out Evan's podcast on the Leave It In The Ring Network at the following link - https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/leave-it-in-the-ring-radio/id316004573?mt=2
Enjoy this podcast and for more Boxing Esq. podcasts, you can find them on Soundcloud at the below embed or subscribe on either iTunes or Stitcher.
To check out Evan's podcast on the Leave It In The Ring Network at the following link - https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/leave-it-in-the-ring-radio/id316004573?mt=2
Enjoy this podcast and for more Boxing Esq. podcasts, you can find them on Soundcloud at the below embed or subscribe on either iTunes or Stitcher.
Sunday, January 7, 2018
Top Rank Files Motion for Summary Judgment in Middendorf-Crawford Contract Dispute
Attorneys for Top Rank have filed for summary judgment in the case brought against them by Middendorf Sports on the issues regarding the duration of the promotional agreement between Top Rank and Terence Crawford and release. Middendorf is seeking payment for a number of Crawford bouts it claims it is owed pursuant to agreements it had with both Crawford and Top Rank.
For a recap of Middendorf's Second Amended Complaint please see this blog's summary.
District Judge John Gerrard, however, partially granted Top Rank's motion to file the summary judgment under seal to the extent that the moving papers and exhibits are only available to court users and the parties to the case. Thus, the general public (and, it follows, the readers of this blog) do not have access to the documents.
As previously reported on this blog, this case was stayed in late October, 2017 as the parties tried to resolve it in mediation. In early December, attorneys for Middendorf filed a Notice of Mediation Report informing the court that the mediation was held on November 27, 2017 and it was unsuccessful. An Amended Final Progression Order was filed by the Magistrate Judge Susan Bazis setting the final discovery deadlines, including for Top Rank's motion for summary judgment re: the issue of duration of the Agreement and Release, which was to be filed by January 5, 2018. Top Rank filed the motion on December 29, 2017.
Previous to all of this, in October 2017, Middendorf had attempted to file a Third Amended Complaint (which it also filed under seal). Top Rank filed an opposition brief and Middendorf filed their reply brief, in which Middendorf dropped a cause of action from the Third Amended for tortious interference - all prior to the mediation stay. Top Rank was allowed to file a sur-reply motion in late December. The Court has not issued an opinion on whether Middendorf can file the Third Amended Complaint.
See many of the motions and orders mentioned below.
See Top Rank's Motion in Opposition to Middendorf's filing of a Third Amended Complaint:
See Middendorf's reply brief to Top Rank's Opp:
See Top Rank's Sur-reply:
See the Court's Progression Order:
See the Court's Order partially granting Top Rank's Motion to File under Seal its motion for summary judgment:
For a recap of Middendorf's Second Amended Complaint please see this blog's summary.
District Judge John Gerrard, however, partially granted Top Rank's motion to file the summary judgment under seal to the extent that the moving papers and exhibits are only available to court users and the parties to the case. Thus, the general public (and, it follows, the readers of this blog) do not have access to the documents.
As previously reported on this blog, this case was stayed in late October, 2017 as the parties tried to resolve it in mediation. In early December, attorneys for Middendorf filed a Notice of Mediation Report informing the court that the mediation was held on November 27, 2017 and it was unsuccessful. An Amended Final Progression Order was filed by the Magistrate Judge Susan Bazis setting the final discovery deadlines, including for Top Rank's motion for summary judgment re: the issue of duration of the Agreement and Release, which was to be filed by January 5, 2018. Top Rank filed the motion on December 29, 2017.
Previous to all of this, in October 2017, Middendorf had attempted to file a Third Amended Complaint (which it also filed under seal). Top Rank filed an opposition brief and Middendorf filed their reply brief, in which Middendorf dropped a cause of action from the Third Amended for tortious interference - all prior to the mediation stay. Top Rank was allowed to file a sur-reply motion in late December. The Court has not issued an opinion on whether Middendorf can file the Third Amended Complaint.
See many of the motions and orders mentioned below.
See Top Rank's Motion in Opposition to Middendorf's filing of a Third Amended Complaint:
See Middendorf's reply brief to Top Rank's Opp:
See Top Rank's Sur-reply:
See the Court's Progression Order:
See the Court's Order partially granting Top Rank's Motion to File under Seal its motion for summary judgment:
Sunday, December 31, 2017
Boxing Podcast with Brin-Jonathan Butler Reviewing 2017 in Boxing
I had a chance to sit down with author and preeminent boxing journalist Brin-Jonathan Butler to review the year in boxing for 2017. We spoke about the comeback of the Heavyweight division and the magic of Joshua-Klitschko; Top Rank bringing big time boxing to ESPN; recapped the best fights of 2017 and the positives that the World Boxing Super Series has brought to the sport.
To enjoy more of Brin's work, check out his critically acclaimed memoir of his time living in Cuba and training with Cuban Olympic boxing coaches, The Domino Diaries, as well as his biography of Guillermo Rigondeaux, A Cuban Boxer's Journey. Brin's pieces have appeared on SBNation.com, ESPN.com, Vice.com, Salon.com, and Bloomberg.com, as well as many other sites and publications. To track Brin's goings on and latest work, follow him on Twitter at @brinicio.
Enjoy the podcast and Happy New Year! You can listen to my podcast on Soundcloud or subscribe to the podcast on either iTunes or Stitcher.
To enjoy more of Brin's work, check out his critically acclaimed memoir of his time living in Cuba and training with Cuban Olympic boxing coaches, The Domino Diaries, as well as his biography of Guillermo Rigondeaux, A Cuban Boxer's Journey. Brin's pieces have appeared on SBNation.com, ESPN.com, Vice.com, Salon.com, and Bloomberg.com, as well as many other sites and publications. To track Brin's goings on and latest work, follow him on Twitter at @brinicio.
Enjoy the podcast and Happy New Year! You can listen to my podcast on Soundcloud or subscribe to the podcast on either iTunes or Stitcher.
Saturday, November 4, 2017
Middendorf Sports v. Top Rank Headed To Mediation
An order has been issued in the Middendorf Sports v. Top Rank litigation staying all discovery deadlines pending the outcome of mediation in the case. According to sources, a one-day mediation is scheduled for later this month. This case was brought in United States District Court, District of Nebraska and the mediation will take place in Omaha.
Middendorf Sports is seeking compensation from Top Rank for money allegedly owed on the fights of Terence Crawford, including Crawford's bouts against Viktor Postal, John Molina, Felix Diaz and Julius Indongo. A recap of Middendorf's Second Amended Complaint was covered in this blog last month.
See Magistrate Judge Susan Bazis' Order staying discovery:
Middendorf Sports is seeking compensation from Top Rank for money allegedly owed on the fights of Terence Crawford, including Crawford's bouts against Viktor Postal, John Molina, Felix Diaz and Julius Indongo. A recap of Middendorf's Second Amended Complaint was covered in this blog last month.
See Magistrate Judge Susan Bazis' Order staying discovery:
Friday, September 29, 2017
Top Rank to produce documents in MMA fighter class action v. Zuffa
Attorneys representing the class of fighters who are suing Zuffa, LLC (the UFC's parent company) on monopoly and monopsony grounds, filed a Notice of Resolution of the their Motion to Compel Top Rank, Inc. to produce financial documents in the case. Unfortunately, the Notice of Resolution is heavily redacted but it's clear that Top Rank will produce at least some financial documents in the case.
In the Motion to Compel, plaintiffs' attorneys had sought "full year, aggregated financial data which includes total revenues generated from the promotion of boxing events, and total compensation paid to boxers." The Motion quoted Arum as saying that Top Rank paid its boxers approximately 80% of proceeds generated from boxing events compared to the UFC which he stated "doesn't pay out 20% to the fighters . . . They are a monopoly - and we are not."
See Motion to Compel below:
See Notice of Resolution below:
In the Motion to Compel, plaintiffs' attorneys had sought "full year, aggregated financial data which includes total revenues generated from the promotion of boxing events, and total compensation paid to boxers." The Motion quoted Arum as saying that Top Rank paid its boxers approximately 80% of proceeds generated from boxing events compared to the UFC which he stated "doesn't pay out 20% to the fighters . . . They are a monopoly - and we are not."
See Motion to Compel below:
See Notice of Resolution below:
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Middendorf Sports Files Second Amended Complaint vs.Top Rank and Bud Crawford
On September 1, 2017, attorneys for Middendorf Sports, the
corporate entity for matchmaker/advisor/promoter Chris Middendorf, filed a
second amended complaint ("SAC") in their ongoing breach of contract
suit against Top Rank and undisputed Junior Welterweight Champion Terence
"Bud" Crawford in United States District Court, District of Nebraska,
Case No. 8:17-cv-00011.
(An earlier report on the SAC
by ESPN made
it seem as if Middendorf Sports had just recently filed this suit, when, in
fact, the original complaint in this case was filed on January 10, 2017.)
Sometime in the mid-to-late
aughts, Middendorf, along with Chet Koerner, formed a promotional company, TKO
Boxing Promotions. According to the SAC, in December 2010, TKO signed Crawford
to a promotional deal. By mid-2011, TKO had fallen on tough times and worked
out an Agreement and Release ("A&R") to have Top Rank promote
Crawford. In the fee provision paragraph of the A&R, Top Rank was to pay
TKO a fee equal to 8% of Crawford's purses for any world championship title
defenses promoted by Top Rank pursuant to the Promotional Rights Agreement
between Top Rank and Crawford.
In July 2011, TKO assigned its
rights under the A&R to Middendorf Sports. In September 2014, Top Rank and
Crawford entered into a Restated Promotional Rights Agreement to promote
Crawford for the next 3 years with options to extend for another 3 years.
The SAC alleges that Top Rank
paid Middendorf Sports without fail pursuant to the A&R through July 23,
2016 - including title defenses by Crawford against Yuriorkis Gamboa on June
28, 2014, Ray Beltran on November 29, 2014, Dierry John on October 24, 2015 and
Hank Lundy on February 27, 2016.
On July 23, 2016, Crawford,
then the WBO champion, unified the titles against then WBC champ Viktor Postal.
The SAC alleges Crawford was paid $1.3 million for the fight but Top Rank
failed to pay Middendorf Sports its fee under the A&R. Similarly, the SAC
alleges Top Rank has refused to pay Middendorf Sports for subsequent defenses
by Crawford against: John Molina, for which he was paid $1.5 million; Felix
Diaz, for which he was paid $1.6 million; and Julius Indongo, for which he was
paid over $2 million.
The SAC alleges causes of
action for: 1) Breach of Contract; 2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing; 3) Accounting; and 4) Declaratory Judgment.
The SAC does make clear in a
footnote that Crawford is only named as a nominal defendant and Middendorf
Sports does not allege that he did anything wrong or actionable.
Monday, September 11, 2017
Multi-District Litigation In Re: Mayweather-Pacquiao PPV Dismissed
On August 25, 2017, in the United States District Court, Central
District of California, Judge R. Gary Klausner issued an opinion dismissing all
of the claims filed in 26 individual actions and 15 consolidated complaints
alleging that Defendants Floyd Mayweather, Mayweather Promotions, LLC, Manny
Pacquiao, Top Rank, Inc., Michael Koncz, Bob Arum, Todd DuBeouf and HBO all
concealed Pacquiao's shoulder injury and mislead the buying public into paying
for the fight that they would not have otherwise purchased.
Judge Klausner ruled that
letting these claims stand would "disrupt the nature and integrity of
competitive sports." Judge Klausner used the doctrine known as the
"license approach" in determining the legal rights of the ticket
purchasers. Under this doctrine, "a ticket to a sporting event gives
the purchaser 'nothing more than a revocable license' to view what transpires
at the ticketed event, regardless of prior promises or representations about
the performance."
Judge Klausner held that
"a misrepresentation or omission implicates the core of athletic
competitions, and therefore does not constitute a cognizable injury to a
legally protected interest under the license approach, if it is related to: (A)
competitive strategy, or (B) the quality or outcome of competitive
performance." Judge Klausner then reasoned that all of the alleged
misrepresentations of the Defendants in regards to Pacquiao's injury fell under
either competitive strategy or the quality of the performance.
"The Court is sympathetic
to the fact that many boxing fans felt deceived by the statements and omissions
made by the fight's participants and promoter. The proper remedy for such
unscrupulous behavior when it implicates the core of athletic competition,
however, is not a legal one. Disappointed fans may demand that fighters
be more transparent in the future, lobby their state athletic commissions to
impose more stringent pre-fight medical screenings and disclosure requirements,
or even stop watching boxing altogether. They may not, however, sustain a
class-action lawsuit."
"In this case, Plaintiffs
ultimately received what they paid for, namely: the right to view a boxing
match between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather, sanctioned and regulated by
the Nevada State Athletic Commission. Plaintiffs had no legally protected
interest or right to see an exciting fight, a fight between two totally healthy
and fully prepared boxers, or a fight that lived up to the significant
pre-fight hype."
See Judge Klausner's opinion
below:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Boxing Esq. Podcast #76 - Erik Magraken
My guest on the podcast is Erik Magraken, a managing law partner at McIsaac & Company in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, who has don...
