The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court ruling dismissing a class action lawsuit filed discontent fans of the Floyd Mayweather-Manny Pacquiao fight in 2015. Fans claimed that due to the alleged concealment of a shoulder injury by Pacquiao, the fight was a bust. However, relying on past cases which indicate that fans paid for a fight and received one, the Ninth Circuit sided with the lower courts.
The lawsuit alleged a shoulder injury claimed by Pacquiao proved to render the bout not entertaining. Plaintiffs claimed that Mayweather knew of the injury since he boasted that he had a “mole” in the Pacquiao camp.
In Re Pacquiao-Mayweather B… by MMA Payout on Scribd
The trial court dismissed the Pacquiao case relying on a set of cases following the “license approach.” Under this theory, a ticket holder enjoys only the right to view the ticketed event, and therefore no cognizable injury arises simply because the event did not meet fan expectations. This approach dictates that the fans received a fight regardless of the outcome they may have witnessed.
Another line of cases asked whether the plaintiff “stated an actionable injury (or, in other words, a legally protected right or interest)” arising out of the challenged conduct.” In those line of cases which relied on legal rights asserted by fans claiming that they were duped into purchasing tickets even though the teams knew that they were moving to another city.
The trial court held that the “license approach” was the correct application since the alleged omissions and misrepresentations were based on athletic competition (i.e., concealing Pacquiao’s injury). The court did not entertain Plaintiffs’ claim that there was any fraud or misrepresentations in advertising the fight.
Following a recent case in which fans of the New Orleans Saints filed a lawsuit against the National Football League because a penalty was not called on the Los Angeles Rams which presumably led to the Rams going to the Super Bowl, the Court adopted the licensed approach. In that lawsuit, the Court adopted the approach which does not grant fans a viable claim at a sporting event due to the outcome. The lawsuit Le Mon v. NFL reasons that “public policy considerations weigh in favor of restricting the rights of spectators to bring actions based on the conduct of officials of professional sporting leagues.” Le Mon stood for the belief that “courts are not the proper forum to litigate such disputes.”
The opinion also points to policy considerations as the possibility of the floodgates of litigation opening up if the most mundane disclosures of illness or injury of an athlete are not disclosed. Also, the concern that every “blown call” could result in a lawsuit was a slippery slope the court did not want to walk on.
Despite the weight of the legal and policy decisions against them, the Plaintiffs framed their arguments as defrauded consumers that suffered an actionably claim and were more than just disappointed fans. The Plaintiffs cited a line of cases in which season ticket holders sued teams based on the reliance that the team would stay in the city despite rumors of moving the franchise. Once the teams moved, the Plaintiffs cited to the reliance on the teams claims that they were staying. The court allowed those cases to go forward indicating that they were deprived of a choice to not purchase season tickets with the news that the team was leaving.
But, the Ninth Circuit was not persuaded by the disgruntled season ticket holder line of cases as those cases were not premised on an athlete’s performance. Rather, they were based on a fan’s belief that a game would be held in a certain location or that they would be able to renew their tickets for the upcoming season.
The Court did offer a recourse for disgruntled fans as in footnote 10 of the opinion, the Court stated that, “Plaintiffs are free not to support the NSAC, Mayweather, Pacquiao, their promotional teams, or HBO.” Of course, this boycott of these associations are seen by most, if not all fans as toothless.
Payout Perspective:
The decision is not surprising as the bulk of cases sided with the license approach and a lack of identified injury by the fans. While the policy implications of litigation is a viable claim to prevent such lawsuits as those filed by angry Saints fans last year, I would argue that the Pacquiao case differs in the sense that the defendants knew of a recognizable injury by Pacquiao (whether or not Mayweather actually knew with his boasting of a ‘mole’ in Pacquiao’s camp is laughable on many levels including the fact he was pulled into the lawsuit by his own ego) and failed to disclose it. If you were to go back and look at the NAC form, it was signed by adviser Michael Koncz and not Pacquiao. Failing to disclose an injury of this significance is a reason why professional leagues especially the NFL are so detailed in making sure that teams disclose an injury report during the week so the public is made privy to these types of injuries for sports and betting reasons.
Leave a Reply