MPO has obtained the lawsuit filed by Paradigm Sports against Manny Pacquiao in Orange County Superior Court this past Friday. The lawsuit and exhibits paint an interesting picture into the management of one of the most popular fighters in boxing.
Audie Attar’s company based in Orange County, California attempted to pursue Pacquiao for management purposes. The lawsuit admits that it was a novice in the boxing industry but not in combat sports and other sports figures as it touts representing Conor McGregor. But, Pacquiao is notorious for having several different advisors that do not always act in lockstep with the others.
The Original Contract was signed in February 2020 as Attar traveled to the Philippines to meet with Pacquiao and close the deal for representation. The Original deal was far-ranging for Pacquiao’s career including exclusive rights to Pacquiao’s Marketing Contracts, Commercial Opportunities and Entertainment Opportunities. Notably, the contracts did not give Paradigm exclusive rights in Asia or the Middle East regions. The Original Agreement attempted to address Pacquiao’s ‘hanger-ons’ with an agreement that he agreed “not to engage” any person or entity to act on his behalf. Paradigm would receive 10% of the Total Income Received from all Fight Contracts and 20% of the Total Income Received from its outside work.
After the agreement was signed, Paradigm negotiated with John Skipper of DAZN and Eddie Hearn of Matchroom Boxing on a 4-fight deal worth at least $100 million which included a $20 million signing bonus. Two fights would be held in Saudi Arabia with the first being Mikey Garcia in June or July 2020. According to the lawsuit, Conor McGregor was to be the first fight with Pacquiao but that was postponed due to a McGregor injury and then his fight with Dustin Poirier in January 2021. McGregor had intimated on social media prior to the setup of the Poirier fight that he would box Pacquiao. But, before the deal was consummated, Pacquiao’s brokers attempted to interfere with Paradigm according to the lawsuit. Per Paradigm’s filing, Sean Gibbons, Winchell Campos and attorney Tom Falgui negotiated a separate fight with Hearn and Saudi Arabia.
In February 2020, Paradigm issued cease and desist letters to Pacquiao’s associates telling them to stop interfering in Pacquiao’s boxing negotiations.
Due to the interference, according to Paradigm, the deal with Hearn and Saudi Arabia went down to a two-fight deal worth $50 million at $25 million per fight and a $10 million signing bonus.
A month later, Pacquiao sought to have the Original Contract with Paradigm altered to consent to having his associates negotiate a $50 million fight with Hearn, DAZN and Saudi Arabia. Whether a good or bad strategy, Paradigm agreed to the alteration of the original contract. They did require that it ‘delete the condition requiring Paradigm to negotiate and close a fight deal within 60 days of execution’, Pac make it public that he was repped by Paradigm and it would be the sole rep for him after the next immediate fight.
Of course, Paradigm did not know that Pac would attempt to broker his own fight deal with Saudi Arabia.
The Amended Contract was outlined to Pac in late March with the expectation that a fight with Mikey Garcia would happen in June or July 2020. Yet, the changes did not prevent other Pac reps to step up and say that they were working on Pacquiao’s next fight including long-time confidant Michael Koncz. In July 2021, a cease and desist was sent to Koncz.
On July 27, 2020, an attorney for O’Melveny & Myers, LLP advised Paradigm that Pacquiao was terminating the Original Agreement. OMM advised Paradigm that it was representing Pacquiao and notified Auttar that his client was terminating their Original Contract. At this time, Pacquiao had not signed the amended contract. Paradigm contends that neither Pac or his other associates confirmed that the attorney from O’Melveny represented Pac.
Paradigm claims that on October 11, 2020, Pac and Paradigm entered into an Amended Agreement. On October 23, 2020, they executed a Supplemental Partnership Agreement. Notably, it was note witnessed by a notary public and Authorization was incorrectly spelled. Yet, Paradigm pledges that the Supplemental Partnership Agreement was signed by Pac. The Supplemental Agreement Paradigm advanced Pacquiao $3.3 million of a $4 million Purse Advance. The advance would be reimbursed after a Pac fight brokered by Paradigm or forfeited if Paradigm could not offer him a fight by August 1, 2021.
Payout Perspective:
There appears to be many missteps by both sides in this litigation. But this is the reputation of dealing with Pacquiao. One had to know through social media that the Paradigm-Pacquiao relationship was going to be rocky due in part to Pac’s multiple advisors. He has many representatives that have authority but no one really knows who is the real head. While Paradigm attempted to control the situation through cease-and-desist letters and amendments to contracts, it was Pacquiao that still took advantage of his leverage. Certainly, the $3.3 million is something that Paradigm will want to recoup. Also, what of the O’Melveny letter? If this was Pac’s attorney, then one would wonder how and why his client would re-sign a new agreement with Paradigm unless it was just for the advance.
We may make some inferences here. It would seem that Paradigm had been in discussions with DAZN about a deal to bring Pacquiao to the the network. All it needed was Pacquiao. Of course, Pac’s representatives, seeing their importance likely diminishing with this, attempted to leverage their contacts (perhaps with PBC) to broker their own deal. In the middle is Pacquiao who probably had some semblance of knowledge of the situation. While his new suitors at Paradigm would be enticing, he still had his old companions with him. Hence, the request for his advisors to negotiate the one-time deal for a Saudi fight. Obviously, Paradigm enticed Pacquiao with a big-time fight with McGregor (probably selling him on how well McGregor-Mayweather did) and an advance. But, Pac looks to have played both/all angles here.
From a legal standpoint, the big question is whether there was a real contract between the parties. The lawsuit omits as to details on how an amended agreement was signed notwithstanding a previous termination of the original contract.
MPO will continue to follow.
Leave a Reply