Faulks Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 By Thomas Hauser Let’s start with some basic facts: (1) On May 15, 2010, HBO televised a Boxing After Dark doubleheader pairing Amir Khan against Paulie Malignaggi and Victor Ortiz vs. Nate Campbell. (2) HBO paid a US$1,500,000 license fee for Khan-Malignaggi and a $750,000 license fee for Ortiz-Campbell. (3) New York State Athletic Commission records state that Victor Ortiz received a $100,000 purse and Nate Campbell received a $125,000 purse. These numbers have been confirmed by secondary sources. Campbell received an additional $25,000 for training expenses. (4) DiBella Entertainment (Malignaggi’s promoter) and Golden Boy Promotions (which promotes Khan, Ortiz, and Campbell) had a contract which provided that the HBO license fee for Khan-Malignaggi would be split 60 percent to Golden Boy and 40 percent to DiBella Entertainment. Golden Boy was to receive the entire license fee for Ortiz-Campbell. Now some questions: (1) Why did HBO pay an inflated $750,000 license fee for Ortiz-Campbell? That number is clearly out of line with the value of the fight. (2) If the license fee for Ortiz-Campbell was really $750,000, why did the fighters get only $250,000? Here, Golden Boy can point to the fact that it had to pay $150,000 to Don King Productions as part of a buyout deal for Nate Campbell’s contract and approximately $125,000 to Top Rank as part of a litigation settlement regarding Victor Ortiz’s contract. Now we come to the heart of the matter. (3) Was money shifted from the license fee for Khan-Malignaggi to the license fee for Ortiz-Campbell to deny DiBella Entertainment 40 percent of the amount that was shifted? Ortiz-Campbell was the opening bout on a Boxing After Dark telecast. A $400,000 license fee would have been generous payment for that match-up. Indeed, it’s highly unlikely that another television network would have paid anything close to $400,000 for Ortiz-Campbell. Why the extra $350,000? Golden Boy CEO Richard Schaefer says, “HBO wanted that particular fight. If HBO didn’t pay what it did, Ortiz-Campbell wouldn’t have happened.” But there’s an alternative theory. Suppose HBO and Golden Boy shifted $350,000 from the license fee for Khan-Malignaggi to the license fee for Ortiz-Campbell? That would have deprived DiBella Entertainment of $140,000 (DBE’s 40 percent share of the $350,000) and put that money in Golden Boy’s pocket to help pay Amir Khan’s purse. Since DiBella and Malignaggi had a 75-25 split in Paulie’s favor, that would have cost DiBella $35,000 and Malignaggi $105,000. Bob Arum says that he’s entitled to 30 percent of Golden Boy’s profits on Ortiz-Campbell; not a flat number. The $125,000 payment to Arum referenced above is based on Golden Boy’s estimate of what the profit from Ortiz-Campbell will be. In that regard, it wouldn’t make sense for Golden Boy to move license-fee money from Khan-Malignaggi (where it’s paying 40 percent to DiBella) to Ortiz-Campbell (where 30 percent of the overage goes to Arum). That would be a minimal saving to Golden Boy. The $150,000 payment by Golden Boy to Don King Productions is another matter. King says that the $150,000 that he’s entitled to from Ortiz-Campbell is a flat number, not percentage-based. It would make a lot of sense economically for Golden Boy to move money from Khan-Malignaggi (where it’s paying 40 percent to DiBella) to Ortiz-Campbell to pay King. During the past few years, there have been complaints throughout the boxing industry of improprieties in the relationship between HBO and Golden Boy. Is this an example? If so, the legal ramifications could be significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheelchair Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Dodgy deals have gone on since the dawn of time. Who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamasadlittleboy Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 HBO suck on Schaefer like a Glaswegian hooker on a friday night tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapevine241 Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Dodgy deals have gone on since the dawn of time. Who cares? my thoughts exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemurphy Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 What sport has Hauser been covering all these years? It took him this long to figure out Fighters are getting screwed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WelshDevilRob Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 I like how the old masters (or crooks) Bob Arum and Don King still get paid regardless - that is shrewd! I think with this we are also seeing it in the UK. Barry Hearn is the promoter of Audley Harrison. Hearn brings quite alot of sport to SKY TV (who have deep pockets) including Darts and Prizefighter. I believe its the relationship between Sky and Hearn that is pushing for this Haye vs Harrison fight. Hearn knows Audley can not be relied apon to keep winning for too long, so would rather cash in now rather than go via a Dimitchenko European title fight. (Which Audley would be underdog or 50/50) From Sky's point of view it makes sense financially and its one more fight before Haye fights a Klitschko (80% of fans think Haye will lose). Sky and Hearn sell the British public the fight and I believe it will be a money spinner. Haye and Harrison are known to the casual fan and while hardcore fans will complain - a good few will watch just to see Audley sparked out. (Or Haye). The fight would likely sell out a 20,000 seat arena at least and Hearn will have his hand in the promotion. Already, its been mentioned that different promoters have options on Haye - Sauerland (possibly King) but definately Goldenboy. Sauerland/King is for 3 fights - John Ruiz was one. Haye and Goldenboy may prefer for him to get Harrison and say Chagaev out of the way before the blockbuster fight against a Klitschko or both so that when a Klitschko fight happens the fingers of Sauerland and King are no longer in the pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mofo2 Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 HBO suck on Schaefer like a Glaswegian hooker on a friday night tbh Now thats funny lol// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheelchair Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 HBO suck on Schaefer like a Glaswegian hooker on a friday night tbh You talkin' from personal experience of Glasgow's ladies of the night? mlol/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mofo2 Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 HBO suck on Schaefer like a Glaswegian hooker on a friday night tbh You talkin' from personal experience of Glasgow's ladies of the night? mlol/ and thats funnier lol// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamasadlittleboy Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 HBO suck on Schaefer like a Glaswegian hooker on a friday night tbh You talkin' from personal experience of Glasgow's ladies of the night? mlol/ and thats funnier lol// I used to live in Paisley...sadly I know it all too well>_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mofo2 Posted June 9, 2010 Share Posted June 9, 2010 HBO suck on Schaefer like a Glaswegian hooker on a friday night tbh You talkin' from personal experience of Glasgow's ladies of the night? mlol/ and thats funnier lol// I used to live in Paisley...sadly I know it all too well>_> Thats as near to an admission that you are going to give I assume mate lol// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now