Apparently it was in response to Ruiz being unwilling to honour his contractual obligation to rematch Joshua in the UK.
Well, the purse is rumored to be $80 or even $90 million. DAZN would have to pay it. Are they crazy enough to pay this amount of money for one fight? Maybe. Or, theoretically, if it's a PPV (outside of DAZN) the amount of buys should exceed 1 million. So, if you were Eddie Hearn, what would you choose? Easy $90 million from Saudi Arabia or other options?
It's not ridiculous at all. It would be unfair and wrong to force it on a mandatory challenger, but if it's just a voluntary defense, it's more than OK.
1. The contract wasn't coercive. 2. He's not being forced to fight Joshua (or any other fighter), he's being forced to adhere to the original contract which spelled out purses, venue and which side is the granted the decision to choose, which both sides agreed to in good faith. 3. Ruiz is not being exploited, he already willingly agreed to the terms of the contract to have the "privilege" of fighting for the titles, nor is he signing away future rights to Hearn. (as many fighters have done with Don King for example). The Ali act as I understand it and which King was spanked for is "promoter will only allow boxer b to fight boxer a if boxer b allows promoter to benefit from future earnings and future control over boxer b's career for a certain duration of time" That is coercion and this ain't that. Has nothing to do with decision of venue or an already agreed upon purse figure in the case of a rematch. IMO
I agree but Haymon is not going to allow Ruiz to be tied into DAZN. Not a chance in hell. He’s running out of PPV fights to keep Showtime afloat as it is. He will sell him on a Wilder PPV. Would be very interesting though if DAZN offered him some kind of $5m 2 fight deal if he loses or the deal Wilder turned down $100m for 3 fights if he wins. Providing the last two of those are with Fury/Wilder winner. Be very difficult for Ruiz to turn down plus would be almost impossible for PBC to compete with those purses. At the end of the day they are his advisors and not his promoter. If they had Ruiz locked in to that deal and forced Wilder onto DAZN to unify then DAZN would be flying
I have a strong feeling this is the reason the Wilder fight is being delayed. If Ruiz wins The fury fight will not happen. It will be a Ruiz and Wilder tune up on Showtime and Fox and then a Ruiz vs Wilder fight in Summer 2020
The original contract was coercive, in that to fight Joshua he had to give up a future fight, if he won. Which appears to be what the section rules against. If so it's a coercive contract, therefore breaching the rules of the Ali act and unenforceable as a result. He has seemingly signed away rights for 1 fight, which again POTENTIALLY violates the act. Surely could be argued he's being taken advantage of if he is set to get 9m from a total purse value of over 40m? The fact a contract was signed doesn't make it enforceable if it's an illegal contract. The Ali act doesn't apply in most other countries, allowing the Klitschko's for example to do their me, my bro, me again contracts
How does he have to give up a future fight though? Where is the breach? He's not giving up promotional rights which I thought was at the foundation of the Ali act. This was a meeting of the minds contract (from what we both can figure outwardly) was it not? And $9 million of a $40 million purse is no different than a mandatory champ/challenger split if a bid is unsuccessful. should that also be considered exploitative as well now? I agree a signed contract is unenforceable if it's an illegal contract but I haven't heard or seen anything yet that says that this was an illegal or unenforceable contract. I personally know from insurance contracts (what I personally deal with) that concerning gray areas in a contract, most courts will rule for the party that "did not" write the contract. But again, I don't see where there are any. Very interesting topic though.
That clause states the boxer can’t be bound to another promoter via a fight contract. The contract is a rematch clause. Not the same thing. Agreeing to fight someone has nothing to do with Ruiz being bound to Matchroom.
That the rematch is even a coercive provision which you are attempting to claim. Ruiz himself isn't even claiming what you attempt to, that this is coercive, he is simply attempting to alter a standing contract. This does not meet illegal, coercive or unethical business practices IMO, however oddly, Ruiz attempting to alter a contract agreed upon in good faith potentially does. I've read the text of the Act just as I'm sure you did.
Surely the rematch being promoted by Matchroom ties him to it for a fight (along with the original fight), unless Haymon is also able to promote the rematch (which no one has suggested is possible). By no means am I saying rematch clauses are outlawed by the act, but it does seem weird how confident Ruiz is that he calls the shots. If this was as water tight as a basic contract with no challenge I can't imagine him being such a billy big balls (even if it is just to wind up Hearn-which in it's self is ****ing genius and hilarious)
