Canelo-Cotto payouts and update on tickets

November 20, 2015

Saul “Canelo” Alvarez fights Miguel Cotto on Saturday night at the Mandalay Bay Events Center in Las Vegas, Nevada.  The Nevada State Athletic Commission has divulged the purses for Saturday’s event.

Cotto will make at least $15 million while Alvarez will make $ 5 million.

Alvarez will also benefit from PPV upside from Mexico.  No word if Cotto will receive a part of the PPV cut.

There are a few tickets left on Ticketmaster as of Friday night.  However, those tickets start at $2,000.  On the secondary market, you can find tickets for $615.

Payout Perspective:                   

This fight will be one of the bigger fights of the year.  As with boxing, nation pride comes into play when factoring in the popularity of the fight.  Cotto, who is from Puerto Rico, and Alavarez, who is from Mexico, should draw huge followings both in person and on PPV.  While I do not think that this fight will climb to Ronda Rousey levels, Alvarez is a major draw.  Cotto is an older fighter but is competitive and it should be a good fight.

Haymon files motion to dismiss Top Rank lawsuit

September 2, 2015

This past Monday attorneys for Al Haymon and other Haymon entities sued in the antitrust lawsuit brought by Top Rank in Los Angeles have filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint in its entirety.  A hearing is set for October 5, 2015.

The Haymon Defendants (as they are identified in the moving papers) state that all of the antitrust claims should be dismissed and that the violations of the Muhammad Ali Act should be dismissed as well.

Notably, in response to Top Rank’s claim that Premier Boxing Champions strategy of purchasing time buys as a “loss leader” strategy to “tie out” other competitors is false.  Rather, it states the move as a “pro-competitive innovation” meant to promote interest in the sport with regularity and at minimal cost “with the intention of expanding the diminishing fan base for the sport,” according to its motion.

The attorneys for Haymon point to the lack of evidence from Top Rank reflecting the predatory nature of Haymon in which it foreclosed opportunities for Top Rank to promote or sign boxers or were financially damaged from its practices.

It also stated that Top Rank’s use of the Ali Act is incorrect as only boxers are entitled to use the federal law.

According to records obtained by the Sports Business Journal, PBC was backed by at least $448M from a $23B mutual fund managed by Waddell & Reed Financial.  Per the SBJ, in its latest SEC filings, as of June 30, 2015,  Haymon Media Group Holdings are down $155M from its initial cost of $448M in 2013.  It is believed that this is the part of the Waddell Fund that funds PBC.  One may assume that the losses are based on the investment in PBC.

(H/t: Bill King)

Payout Perspective:

MMA Payout will have a more detailed evaluation of the motion to dismiss in the coming days.  The motion was expected at the outset even with a similar lawsuit filed by Golden Boy.  One would assume that a similar motion is in the works for the Golden Boy lawsuit although there was an arbitration hearing on the matter in July to decide whether the arbitrator or a court would decide Golden Boy’s lawsuit.

Cotto-Canelo set for November 21st

August 13, 2015

HBO PPV officially announced Miguel Cotto and Canelo Alvarez set for Saturday, November 21st at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, Nevada.

It’s official!!!!!!

A photo posted by Oscar De La Hoya (@oscardelahoya) on

Oscar De La Hoya posted the fight poster between the Puerto Rican and Mexican star on Thursday.

The PPV is set for $65 HD and $55 SD with most distributors.

According to an ESPN Deportes article, Roc Nation Sports, Miguel Cotto Promotions and Golden Boy Promotions (on behalf of Alvarez) are involved in putting the fight together. Two notable items for the fight: the canvas will be black, a staple of Roc Nation boxing events and the fighters have agreed that there will be no rematch clause.

Payout Perspective:

Confirmation of Cotto-Alvarez should cap off three big boxing PPVs this fall. Mayweather-Berto on September 12th, GGG-Lemieux on October 17th and Canelo-Cotto on November 21st. The question is whether fans will purchase all three. Certainly, November’s fight between Canelo and Cotto has the makings of a big money fight with a sufficient amount of time for HBO to build this fight. It will also ignite two big ethnic fight bases. The report of the “no rematch clause” is an interesting twist if true. Of the three fights, which one will do better on PPV?

Haymon-Golden Boy file Arbitration Briefs which may decide lawsuit

July 27, 2015

Arbitration briefs have been filed in the Al Haymon-Golden Boy case in which Haymon’s attorneys are seeking to stay the court case claiming that an arbitrator should decide the promotion’s grievances against Haymon and his business entities.  Arbitrator Daniel Weinstein is set to hear the parties’ arguments on July 29th.

Golden Boy argues in its brief to the Arbitrator that it does not have jurisdiction over the federal claims it filed against Haymon and his business entities this past May.  It states that the parties’ agreement was not “clearly and unmistakably” granting authority to arbitrate its particular dispute outlined in the May 5 lawsuit.  In addition, it states that Bernard Hopkins, a party to the lawsuit, is not a party to the Settlement Agreement signed by Golden Boy last December which Haymon’s attorneys claim negate GB and Hopkins’ federal claims which include Antitrust and Ali Act violations.  Hopkins is a plaintiff in the Golden Boy lawsuit.  Even if the Arbtirator claims that he has jurisdiction over the parties, Golden Boy argues that the federal claims are not within the arbitration clause and that the arbitration provision does not cover the term’s end.

The overall suggestion here is that the federal claims cannot be decided by an Arbitrator because the claims were never waived in the Settlement Agreement and/or the release of claims were not arbitrable.

In its opening arbitration brief which includes several sections that are redacted, Haymon’s attorneys argue that the Arbitrator has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the federal claims are subject to the December 2014 Settlement Agreement executed between Haymon and Golden Boy.  It argues that Golden Boy has come up with the date of January 1, 2015 to “plead around” the Settlement Agreement signed by the parties.  Essentially, Haymon argues that the alleged monopoly and claimed violations of the Muhammad Ali Act existed on December 19, 2014.  Thus, the Haymon camp claims that the claims relate to the Settlement Agreement entered into by Haymon and Golden Boy. As for Hopkins, it argues that he is a shareholder in GB and the argument that it was not a party to the Settlement Agreement falls flat.

Haymon’s attorneys stress that “there is no explanation for Golden Boy starting its federal claims on January 1, 2015.”  This contention is in response to Golden Boy’s lawsuit which claims injuries sustained beginning on January 1, 2015.  In its briefing, Haymon attorneys stress that it had signed a bulk of the 100 fighters prior to the December 19th Settlement Agreement.  Thus, any sort of claim violating Antitrust laws or the Ali Act would have occurred prior to the parties entering into the Settlement Agreement.

Haymon’s attorneys also point to the broad release language in the Settlement Agreement in arguing that the release covers the present claims in the Golden Boy lawsuit.  They argue that Golden Boy could have negotiated for terms within the Settlement Agreement that would have addressed the issues currently before them.

Golden Boy's Arb Brief Re Preliminary Issues

Haymons’ Arb Brief by JASONCRUZ206

Payout Perspective:

We could know this week whether one of the two Antitrust lawsuits filed against Al Haymon will be put on hold.  One would think even with an Arbitrator ruling on jurisdiction, we will see an appeal by one of the sides.  It’s clear that the ruling will hinge on the language within the Settlement Agreement regarding the arbitration of the agreement.  We will keep you updated.

Haymon seeks to stay lawsuit filed by Golden Boy

July 8, 2015

Attorneys for Al Haymon are seeking to stay the lawsuit filed by Golden Boy Boxing arguing that arbitration in the matter between Haymon and Golden Boy is pending.  Thus, the issues brought up by Golden Boy in its lawsuit may be resolved by the end of July.

The motion seeks to put on hold the lawsuit filed by Golden Boy on May 5th citing Haymon violates portions of the Muhammad Ali Act, antitrust laws and state laws in California.  Haymon’s attorneys state that by July 29, 2015, an Arbitrator will rule on whether all of the claims in the Golden Boy lawsuit have been released pursuant to a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (“Settlement Agreement”).

Taking a step back, Haymon and Golden Boy entered into the Settlement Agreement which would sever its business relationship.  According to court documents, the Settlement Agreement was signed by the parties (including Richard Schaefer and Oscar De La Hoya) on December 18-19, 2014 and exercised by Haymon on January 8, 2015.  According to Haymon, it was a “global” settlement of all issues between the parties.  Haymon made “a substantial payment to Golden Boy” which Golden Boy accepted when the parties decided to end its business relationship.  The Settlement includes an arbitration provision which would require that the parties be subject to an Arbitrator rather than litigate the matter in court.

According to the motion, a Sports Illustrated article leaked to the press on April 28, 2015 regarding a potential lawsuit to be filed by Golden Boy against Haymon sparked action by the PBC head’s legal team.  Recognizing that the lawsuit might be filed soon, Haymon requested Arbitration under the Settlement Agreement on April 28th.  Attorneys for Golden Boy filed counterclaims against Haymon.  Golden Boy filed suit on May 5th.

The Settlement Agreement includes language preventing a financial audit of Haymon’s records.

Haymon attorneys state that the arbitration was filed before the May lawsuit and the Settlement Agreement includes an arbitration clause stating that the Arbitrator has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the claims have been released.  It cites the Federal Arbitration Act as the reason the court should stay the lawsuit.  The Arbitrator will receive legal briefs on the issue on July 10th and a hearing before the Arbitrator will be held on July 29th.

The actual Settlement Agreement is attached to Al Haymon’s Declaration but it is heavily redacted preventing the public from reading the salacious details of the settlement.

The hearing on the motion to stay will be on August 10th in US District Court in Los Angeles.

Motion to Stay Case – Haymon

Dec of Al Haymon in Support of Motion to Stay

Payout Perspective:

While the court papers state that the Arbitrator will hear the arguments on July 29th, it’s not clear when a decision might be made.  Although Haymon’s legal team will argue that the lawsuit is covered in the Arbitration agreement, it is not known when the Arbitrator would rule.  Thus, aside from substantive legal issues, Golden Boy will argue that this is a stall tactic by Haymon avoiding litigating the lawsuit.

On July 6th, the court transferred the case filed by Top Rank against Al Haymon to the same judge that is handling the Golden Boy case.  Even if the Golden Boy lawsuit is stayed, it still has the Top Rank filing ahead of it.

Bellator 139: 764K viewers and Friday night boxing numbers

June 29, 2015

Bellator 139 drew an average viewership of 764,000 viewers on Spike TV Friday night per Sports TV Ratings.  The event is down from its tent pole event of a week prior but it still was the second-best rating on the network since February.

In the main event of Friday night, former UFC heavyweight Cheick Kongo defeated Alexander Volkov.  The other big news coming out of Bellator 139 was the KO of Joe Schilling by Hisaki Kato.  Per Nielsen sources, the peak for the show was 988,000 viewers during the last quarter hour (10:45-11pm).

Bellator 137 pulls the promotion’s 2015 Spike TV average up to 800,000 viewers.

Overnight Peak
Bellator 132 767,000 1,200,000
Bellator 133 565,000 967,000
Bellagtor 134 872,000 1,200,000
Bellator 135 607,000 922,000
Bellator 136 655,000 900,000
Bellator 137 594,000 768,000
Bellator 138 1,580,000 2,100,000
Bellator 139 764,000 988,000

Bellator 139

Sports TV ratings also notes that boxing on TruTV drew 303,000 viewers Friday night in the 10pm-12am slot.  The TruTV fights are promoted primarily by Top Rank.  Also, boxing on FS1 on Friday drew 129,000 viewers.  The event on FS1 appears to be the last promoted by Golden Boy.  Additionally, Showtime aired a prospect card Friday night although no information on the ratings were available at this time.

Payout Perspective:

There were a lot of viewing options Friday night for combat sports enthusiasts but viewers tuned in to Bellator 139 which should be seen as a positive for the company and Spike.  It’s interesting that it did so well the week after its tent pole event.  The last tent pole event, Bellator 131, did not have a follow event the next week.  In fact, the next Bellator event was not until January 2015.  We could see more follow up events the week after to take advantage of the momentum.

In terms of boxing ratings, the TruTV ratings are surprising and it looks like Top Rank has found a nice way to promote its HBO fights the next night.

Golden Boy sues Haymon for antitrust violations

May 9, 2015

Golden Boy Promotions LLC and boxer Bernard Hopkins filed suit this week against Al Haymon and a variety of Haymon’s businesses and associates with respect to violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Los Angeles.

The lawsuit paints the picture that many competitors have accused Haymon of for some time.  He is attempting to monopolize professional boxing in the United States and drive out all competition.  The lawsuit accuses Haymon of “blatantly” ignoring the “firewall” imposed by federal (specifically the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act) and state laws which preclude a manager also acting as a promoter for a fighter.  The lawsuit claims that he has forbidden “hundreds of boxers” he manages from signing with another promoter.

The lawsuit names Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc. and Waddell & Reed, Inc. as defendants that financed and aided Haymon through an investment fund that funded the boxing enterprise.  Plaintiffs claim that these defendants provided more than $400 million dollars to finance Haymon.

The lawsuit claims that Haymon, et. al have created a “tying” relationship in violation of antitrust laws.  This is done through agreements affecting to separate relevant markets.  The first market is for management of Championship-Caliber Boxers and the market for promoters.  As described in the Complaint, the management market is the “tying” market whereas the promotion market is the “tied” market.  Essentially, the fact that Haymon manages so many fighters it affects the promotions market since he has exercised control over the direction of each fighters’ career.

The Complaint filed by Bertram Fields of Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machinger, LLP in LA states that Haymon acted as an unlicensed promoter.  In fact, the Complaint cites an LA Times article which states that Haymon was the “main promoter” for the Floyd Mayweather-Manny Pacquiao fight.  The scheme articulated by Plaintiffs is that Haymon is using his dominance in one business to “take over and monopolize another business that federal and state law prohibit them (Haymon, et. al) from even entering.”

Plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $100 million which, according to relevant statutory law, could lead to treble (3 times) damages.  Thus, the lawsuit could be for more than $300 million.  In addition, Golden Boy is seeking an injunction from Haymon’s continued promotion.  This possibly could mean the severing of his multi-network affiliations with airing Premier Boxing Champions.

Perhaps not a coincidence, the Oscar de la Hoya led Golden Boy filed the lawsuit on Cinco de Mayo.  Plaintiffs seek a jury trial.

Payout Perspective:

We will have more on this in the weeks to come but if you were to compare this lawsuit to the one filed by the former UFC fighters, I would tend to believe that this antitrust claim has much more of a bite to it. Although it’s likely to sustain a Motion to Dismiss from Haymon’s lawyers, I think it has a better chance of making it to the discovery stage of the lawsuit.  We shall see how this will go.

Golden Boy eyes potential antitrust lawsuit against Haymon, PBC

May 1, 2015

There are reasons why Al Haymon never speaks, one of those may be to prevent the threat of litigation.  A recent article about Haymon’s Premier Boxing Champions may bring on an antitrust lawsuit involving rival Golden Boy Promotions as chief plaintiff.

A recent Sports Business Journal article featured Haymon’s PBC and went over how funding was structured.  Although Haymon did not provide comment for the article, factual information in it allegedly strengthened the argument that Haymon’s business model for PBC violates portions of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.

A draft of the Complaint has been viewed by and it appears that Golden Boy Promotions is seeking a temporary restraining order and then a permanent injunction against his business practices that violate state and federal laws.  It also requests monetary damages against Haymon.

The claim is that Haymon is using his monopoly as a boxing manager to create another monopoly for promoting TV fights.

Golden Boy is hush on if and when this lawsuit may be filed.

Notably, the SI article includes a letter dated April 28, 2015, from the Association of Boxing Commissions (“ABC”) to the Department of Justice in which it claims that Haymon is in violation of the Ali Act.  Essentially, through his controlled companies Haymon is acting as manager and promoter which the ABC claims to be a violation of the “Firewall provision” of the Ali Act (specifically section 5(b) of the Act).  ABC also calls into question the contracts Haymon fighters must sign.  Essentially, ABC believes that they are in “restraint of trade” and “contrary to public policy” as the contracts exceed 12 months.  A footnote in the letter notes that UFC, Bellator and other MMA promotions have this contractual model.  It also notes that MMA is not covered by the Ali Act.

Payout Perspective:

This will be an interesting lawsuit and with the Zuffa antitrust lawsuit ongoing, we can see some major waves happening in the business of combat sports.  Haymon’s boxing business model is unique and received much scrutiny by rival promoters.  There have been attempts in the past to sue Haymon but those were summarily dismissed and/or settled.  If Haymon and PBC are sued, we may see some interesting information divulged from the factual discovery process in the lawsuit.  It could also overturn the current wealth of boxing on multiple networks by PBC.  MMA Payout will keep you posted.

May-Pac PPV will cost $99

April 1, 2015

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that May 2nd’s long-awaited PPV fight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather, Jr. will have a price point of $99 HD and $89 SD.  It will be the highest priced PPV ever.

The previous high for a sport PPV was “The One” which featured Mayweather fighting Canelo Alvarez.  The event which drew a record $152 million in PPV also had the highest price point, $74.95 HD ($64.95 SD) for a PPV prior to next month’s event.

HBO and Showtime are handling the negotiations with pay-TV distributors and had sought an advantageous split on behalf of Mayweather and Pacquiao.  With a normal split of 50/50 for PPVs, HBO and Showtime were looking for a 70/30 split of the PPV revenue.  Of course, pay-TV distributors balked at the proposal.

The key distributors involved are iN Demand and DirecTV. The other distributors that the networks must reach agreements with are Dish Network and Vubiquity, the entity that handles negotiations for AT&T and others.

The WSJ report indicates that distributors will concede a split in the favor of the networks but not as much as the 70% proposal.

Estimates claim that the PPV could garner 3 million PPV buys which may almost double the previous PPV record.

Payout Perspective:

It’s unlikely that $100 will deter many wanting to see this fight.  Although the price is steep for a fight that many believe should have happened years ago, it is still an attraction that is unique and features the best known boxers in the sport.  It was no surprise that HBO and Showtime sought a bigger piece of the pie in these negotiations as both are trying to maximize the revenues as they have agreed to partner in this event.

Featherweight boxer Gonzalez sued by Golden Boy

March 31, 2015

ESPN reports that Golden Boy Promotions filed a lawsuit against boxer Jhonny Gonzalez on Friday prior to his fight on Saturday.  The complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court claims that Gonzalez’s Mexican promoter violated Golden Boy’s exclusive rights to promote his bouts.

Despite the lawsuit, it did not attempt to file an injunction from stopping Gonzalez from fighting Gary Rusell, Jr. Saturday night.  It is requesting $1 million and for equitable relief which asks the court to enforce Golden Boy’s promotional agreement which Gonzalez entered into in 2013.

The lawsuit implicates Al Haymon as conspiring with Gonzalez’s promoter, Osvaldo Kuchle’s Promociones del Pueblo, in delaying a bout with Russell (who Haymon manages) until Golden Boy was not in the picture.

Gonzalez was stopped by Russell, Jr. on Saturday.

Payout Perspective:

Although the story does not indicate a cause of action, one might expect it to be a breach of contract claim.  This is at least the second boxing lawsuit which names Al Haymon as a contributing issue in a promotional dispute.  Last year, you might recall that Sergey Kovalev’s promoter, Main Events, sued Adonis Stevenson’s management group as well as the boxer.  That lawsuit was settled essentially with Bernard Hopkins stepping up to fight Kovalev.  Here, we may have a similar (not the same) situation.  Obviously, the timing of the lawsuit probably precluded an injunction, although it would have been interesting.  But we will see what happens next.

« Previous PageNext Page »