Arum urges Manny to take 50-50 as Hatton-Pacquiao situation worsens

by SC on Jan 13, 2009 6:07 PM EST in News Comment 14 comments

Well, this is getting interesting.

Top Rank chief Bob Arum, promoter of Manny Pacquiao, is urging his fighter to drop his 60-40 purse split demands and go with a 50-50 split, according to the Los Angeles Times:

"There's no way he's getting the 60-40," Arum told The Times Tuesday. "Unless he comes to his senses and his people start acting intelligently . . . we'll see if we can keep it together, but the split is supposed to be 50-50. We've all agreed to it. Now, people are whispering in Pacquiao's ear. If they keep pushing for 60-40, Hatton and Schaefer are pulling the plug."

This is the second time in as many fights that the Pacquiao team has pulled something like this in the latter stages of an agreement. They tried to milk as much as possible out of the Oscar de la Hoya fight, too, but that was a different situation. Oscar had essentially no other options that he was willing to take, or that would sell. Ricky Hatton might have other options, and even if he doesn't, he's acting like he does.

Hatton's lawyer, Gareth Williams, is warning the Pacquiao camp that he could take legal action if they renege on a "binding verbal" deal for a 50-50 split:

"We had all this before Christmas when they [the Pacquiao camp] were talking about different figures and we agreed a 50-50 split with them," Williams said. "So having agreed that with them, we're not going to change our mind."

Again, never assume any boxer, even a likable, fan-friendly, wonderful fighter like Pacquiao, is not going to be out for the most money. I do think this -- like almost all of these instances -- falls more in line with, as Arum calls them, the whisperers, the guys talking for Pacquiao in negotiations.

But do you not suspect that with newfound mass fame for Pacquiao comes a bit of a swelled head? Hatton is a gate attraction, his fans will travel big for this fight, and outside of a Mayweather comeback, this is THE BIGGEST fight to be made in boxing. And like I said before, I don't suspect either of them would enough money to fight Mayweather to equal a 50-50 split with each other. If this fight falls apart, they're both taking less money next time out, no matter who they fight.

I just hope this all gets resolved and we get firm word that this fight is on and crackin', because it's such a great fight in every way and is so good for the sport of boxing.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don't know much about UK law

But I highly doubt there’s any kind of enforceable deal here if it was all done orally and they haven’t started promoting yet.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 13, 2009 6:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

doesn't seem too square to me, either

And I know F-all about the law past copyright laws and the fact that you shouldn’t steal things from people.

Bad Left Hook
Camden Chat

"I decided to become a basketball fan this year and it’s not working out so well because the Wizards SUUUCK. So then I shifted to hockey. That’s pretty fun except there are a lot of flashing lights and horns and shit at the game."

by SC on Jan 13, 2009 6:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

could be totally legit, good luck proving it though

an oral agreement can be enforceable so long as there is an offer, acceptance and consideration. Here, there very well may be all the elements. However, in an oral agreement the obvious defense is ‘we never had an agreement’, a defense called the Statute of Frauds. For Hatton’s camp to win with absolutely no documents, they’d have to show action irrefutably referable to the existence of a contract. It’s a heavy and expensive burden. It would be like if I sued SC for breach of K, claiming we had a deal where I would install a candy cane roof on his house. He says we never had a deal and there’s no documents. If I have a stockpile of candy cane roofing material that I just ordered, I may pass the statute of frauds…doesn’t mean I’ll win, but it does mean we’ll sit in court for the next 5 years.

Hatton’s camp could also raise a promissory estoppel claim, arguing that they relied on Pac’s reasonable promise to their detriment(like not signing to fight someone else they now can’t) and the only remedy is restitution.

All this shit would take years and I think functions well only as threats to cost everyone time and money. Because a main portion of the alleged agreement (the fight), would happen in the US, our laws would likely dictate.

by lcollins1 on Jan 13, 2009 7:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm a corporate lawyer

I know what goes into a contract. I was just simplifying. It doesn’t sound like Manny agreed to anything firmly. Statute of frauds doesn’t apply to agreements for services.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 13, 2009 8:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Then again

I might be wrong about that last part, just my recollection. Realistically, Hatton’s camp would bring the case in UK court and they would make their own decision as to governing law, but a lot of UK law would leak into it even if they decide that US law governs. Hard case to prove one way or the other, and it’s not like they can enjoin Pacquiao from fighting someone else (what’s the irreparable harm if he fights Floyd first? None, unless he loses, and they can’t prove that he’s likely to lose. Plus, that whole 14th amendment thing.)

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 13, 2009 8:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm just a law student but

I do believe statute of frauds applies to contracts for services. The UCC dictates for sales of goods over $500 while common law(Restatement or whatever the jx subscribes to) dictates for services. The burden is higher, for the case to be tried on its merits, under common law than UCC but it’s my understanding that it certainly exists for services.

by lcollins1 on Jan 13, 2009 8:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Cool beans

It had been a while. Almost never comes up in real life.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 14, 2009 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

14th Amendment

meaning Hatton would have to be served in the US in order for any case to be made? If he came here to fight anybody he could be served. That could be a dicey problem if he signed to fight Floyd in Vegas and got served at the airport. In any event I think it works best as a threat. But, I am just a a student…

by lcollins1 on Jan 13, 2009 8:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

What I meant

Is that a (US) court generally won’t prevent a person from taking work elsewhere. I have no idea whether a British court might enjoin him, but I doubt he would give a turd. Pacquiao has no prospects of ever fighting in the UK.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 14, 2009 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

correction: "Pac", not Hatton

by lcollins1 on Jan 13, 2009 8:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

So unprecedented

This is BY FAR the most sophisticated discussion of British contract law in the history of boxing blogging.

by Tim Starks on Jan 13, 2009 11:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Manny needs to come to reality

Manny needs to stop this crap and figth Ricky because even if he fights Marquez 2 more times he wont even make as much money – I hope this fight doesnt collapse – i wanna see Ricky defeat Manny –
Even if Rickys camp doesnt admitt it they need to figth Manny because Ricky needs to show everyone here in the states that he is the real P4P – I am an american in the Army and he is by far my favorite figther and here there are still doubters about Ricky – Please Ricky figth Manny even if you have to lower your portion – maybe 45 – 55 for Manny
I too think it is a hard case for Ricky lawyers to defend – i hope it gets resolved – or maybe Ricky could fight Marquez and beat him (of course if Marquez would accept) – by then maybe Manny would figth Floyd and loose so then Ricky could still get a figth with Floyd

by in4lycon22 on Jan 14, 2009 12:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs