Jake Paul Phony Fights Discussion

Benson’s having a mare here. Hearn is seeking over $100m, though the amount he’ll get will likely be much closer to $75,000 if anything at all.

 

Hearns has to pay his fighters somehow - DAZN checks running dry

 

Eddie Hearn will lose this lawsuit

Jake Paul needs to prove that he had reason to believe what he was saying is true or believed by others. Which is easy to do with all the boxing news channels. Even Chisora has made reference to Eddie paying off the judges before so this isn’t a new allegation

with regards to the statement having a negative impact on Eddies reputation, this is extremely difficult to prove now that boxing is out of the ring entertainment which Jake and Eddie are both participants in.

This lawsuit is an absolute waste of time and more of a deterrent against future statements rather then a winnable defamation case.

 

yeah Eddie Hearn gets accused of this all the time
so I assume all those people he hasn't file lawsuit against were correct !

but in this case it was probably a Saudi gambler

 

Benson's stating the facts as I understand them; you can't sue for less than $75k in that jurisdiction so that's what it starts at. In court you can ask for whatever you like, it's ultimately up to the judge.

Lawyers the only winner, as they were in Rooney vs Vardy earlier this year!

 

Following recent comments from Jake Paul alleging that Matchroom Boxing pays bribes to veteran judge Glenn Feldman, promoter Eddie Hearn sued Paul for defamation in the amount of $100 million. Paul criticized Feldman's cards, particularly in the Serrano vs Taylor fights and the most recent Joshua vs Usyk 2, where Feldman favored Matchroom fighters Taylor and Joshua respectively.

 

Joe Joyce!

 

I'm sure this is a copromotional gimmick and they will circle around and be friends in the end however if not it could be a real mistake on Hearn's part.

Suing for libel in US court (and for such an enormous amount) means Paul would get a pretty robust chance to prove what he said. EH and his executives would have to answer all kinds of things under oath about how they select and pay judges.

Could be a real treat for the paranoid fan with lots of time and patience to read legal documents like the IBF racketeering and bribery trial: https://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/12/sports/boxing-prosecutors-at-trial-say-ibf-demanded-bribes.html

 

Hearn needs to be careful with this libel case if he proceeds as it could open up a proper Hornets nest .

 

Strange from Hearn. He is putting the spotlight on an accusation the majority would have paid little attention to. Smells of a publicity stunt which could backfire.

 

I don't know who's British and who isn't here but my understanding is libel works very differently there, it's easier and lower risk to win a case and sometimes British businesspeople and celebrities get themselves in trouble in America that way.

 

Finally get to see Paul in a decent fight.

 

Eddie Hearn had no choice but to get his lawyers on the case. Jake Paul was given the option to apologise and retract his accusations but chose to not do that. Legal route is the only option left for Hearn.

Not sure why anyone would say differently. Every single promoter would be responding with there legal team in the same situation.

 

In a nutshell (as I understand anyway), in the UK Paul would have to prove what he said was true to successfully defend against libel but in the US Hearn needs to prove it was false to successfully prosecute it...

 

Not only that it was false but that Paul knew it was false and said it maliciously. It will be almost impossible to make a case because JP can point to 100,000 YouTube videos, blog posts, and newspaper articles making the same accusation.

All sorts of big names and boxing experts have made the same claim about the AJ fight specifically. It's easy for JP to say "well I may have been mistaken but you can see why I believed this."