Is it unusual that GBP is protecting Mayweather when they are Pac's promoters?

Top Rank promotes Manny Pacquiao, not Golden Boy. The undisclosed percentage that Golden Boy earns from Manny's fights stems back to when Manny accepted a bonus signing fee with GBP, then was later determined through court battle that Manny was Top Ranks property. The money that GBP gets from Manny is compensation from damages caused by Manny's confusion in thinking he was free from Top Rank, when he was not.

 

There are a few different points in dispute here, so I will separately number my responses in order to keep them clearly distinguished.

1. Despite Mayweather not wanting to trumpet this fact, it is widely acknowledged that GBP holds his promotional rights and does pretty much all of the legwork in negotiating, promoting, and staging his fights. Here is an article, quoted in the first post, from ESPN about what is said to be a 5 fight deal: http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=142913

2. Your next point then addresses the hypothetical, which I think is factually correct (see above), where GBP has a larger interest in Mayweather and a smaller one in Pacquiao. Let's assume that this requires GBP to act on behalf of the interest of both fighters, which I will argue below is likely not the case. Even so, that does not mean they cannot take this stance on drug testing. While it certainly comes off as favoritism to Mayweather, one can argue that they are doing it to help clear up any suspicion, no matter how misguided and baseless many think it is, about Pacquiao's potential use of PEDs. It's not like they are trying to get only Pacquiao tested; both fighters would undergo the procedure. While it is practically in Mayweather's interest, it is not "logically" or necessarily so.

3. I don't think you give enough, or any, credence to the plausible notion that the arbitration that settled GBP and Top Rank's dispute over promotional rights concerning Pacquiao left the former with a financial interest but no fiduciary duty. When have we ever heard about GBP being consulted or their consent being required for any move relevant to Pacquiao's career? Unless I seriously miss my guess, it is because that is not necessary.

4. The Pacquiao/Cotto analogy is not apt, to my mind. First of all, I don't see why it is more impartial for a promoter who has an interest in both fighters to secure a fairly large purse disparity in favor of one than to seek the drug testing protocol that one prefers. Each one favors one man over the other, apparently. You say that Pacquiao "rightfully" received the lion's share in that bout. I agree, because Pacquiao produces more revenue than Cotto and thus was in a position to demand it. However, I think the same reasoning can be applied to Mayweather here, i.e., he makes enough money in this showdown that he can attempt to secure certain conditions that are abnormal.

Second, and more intuitive, is that Arum is the primary promoter for both Pacquiao and Cotto. This means not only does he have a financial stake in each, but he controls their business in a way not at all the case with GBP and Pacquiao. It reeks of bad business if he comes across favoring one over the other (though I can almost guarantee he wanted Pacquiao to win). The same is not the case for GBP. I think what you're seeing here is not a contravention of legal norms but rather the absence of extra-legal, read: market, incentives to prevent an investor from favoring a venture, in this case a fighter, he has a lesser interest in.

Sorry if that was too long-winded.

 

I stand corrected. Thanks pejevan for clearing that up.

This content is protected

This content is protected

Damn, that costs Pac alot having 2 promotional companies.

 

you obviously havent been paying attention. there guilty be association they may not hav actually said manny is a steriod user but they certainly hav implied he is.

1 example is dhl in his recent blog for ring magazine he now says pacman hit him as hard as vargas and mosley but after the pac fight he said pac has no power and he wished he did so he couldve just finished him off quicker.

another is richard shaffers many contradictions 1 is all this **** about the usada needng to be involved because of the magnitude of the fight its like the superbowl of boxing. but howcome neither he nor floyd asked for this in the other super bowl of boxing and biggest grocing fight ever dhl vs mayweather fight ??? why not then ???

and ofcourse we hav the whole judah mosley thing were zab asked for the same kind of testing on mosley who as we all now is an admitted user of peds so there was some reason for the tests to be done but ofcourse schaffer said no shane isnt a cheater why should he be treated like one ?let the nsac handle it however they want too. ok so why should manny take these tests and be treated like a cheater ? its not like he ever failed a drug test or admitted to usin banned substances like shane


you see all the ****ing contradictions the hav accused him of cheating if you cant see it your ****ing blind

 

GBP would like to see Pac vs Mosley or Mosley/Mayweather I believe that is the reason. Their take on those PPV matches would be alot more than 5 or 20% which makes good business sense.

 

Yeah Schaefer blabbed that out the other day. Didn't Arum do a deal with GBP to resolve the issue of Pac having signed two contracts? It's probably 20% of whatever Top Rank's stake in Pac is.

 

I see a ton of miss information here. Mayweather is a fighter for Mayweather Promotions, his own promotion company which mainly handles minor league type fighters Wes Ferguson and the like in local non-Las Vegas Shows, his Nevada business is handled by Golden Boy Promotions, they are his promoters in Nevada based events, they get about the same amount I would imagine that they would get if they were his full time promoters.