Edward Hearn vs Stephen Espinoza, 25th Feb 2019, Twitter PPV

https://www.sho.com/sports/fights
Btw, I would take my shot at Espinoza and point out how weak their 2019 thus far has been.
January - Pacquiao vs Broner PPV
February - Davis vs Ruiz(originally Mares)
March - Lara vs Castano

And they have nothing else scheduled. SHO boxing is ****ed!
Last year Espinoza talked big about how SHO was going to increase it's boxing programming, but they haven't done so at all
https://www.ringtv.com/542753-steph...year-deal-with-pbc-means-for-showtime-boxing/
And they signed a 3 year deal with PBC.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianm...n-to-shine-in-the-united-states/#50ab94607b81
And supposedly it's 60mil USD a year. Where is all that money going? Lara vs Castano? Wtf is going on here?

 

I'm sure there is a standard boilerplate rematch clause for fight contracts & that they would have used it.

Unfortunately for Showtime, it would have related to a situation where Fury won the WBC belt from Wilder.

The problem with using the boilerplate clause is that it wouldn't have taken into account Fury's lineal championship status & the fact that he would retain that status with a draw.

So what they actually needed was a bespoke rematch clause that covered off that circumstance rather than the boilerplate provision that didn't.

The lawyers probably wouldn't have been much help in this situation either. You would have needed a lawyer who understood Fury's lineal championship status & its broader implications in order for it to have even been raised as an issue.

I guess there weren't any lawyers in the room who knew their boxing history.

That's too bad for Showtime b/c it's going to cost them dearly.

Their investment in putting the first fight together is down the toilet & it's difficult to see how they can possibly deal themselves back in from here.

 

Sorry I was unclear in that last post. I meant a standard clause which incorporated what would happen in the event of a draw? Arguable if it could be enforced on a guy that then has other options but I was thinking along these lines:

I don't think they've given one second's thought to Tyson's lineal status by the way. The marketing guys can make use of it to try and make the fight bigger and so if Fury had lost before a rematch there could be a penalty clause but otherwise I don't think its of commercial interest because there's not that much awareness of it outside of hardcore fans. They don't need a clause for that but a draw provision sure would've come in handy Dec 2nd..

 

Given how much AJ Wilder could potentially make you would think it will have to be on Showtime PPV rather than DAZN, at least that's always been the assumption in the past. Given that Wilder stays with ST and eventually a deal is signed it's going to be funny watching Hearn and Espinoza row all this back and play happy families again. Because at present it's fair to say that Espinoza is giving every impression tha he despises Eddie with a passion

 

That's what I had always assumed too, that it would be PPV showtime, but with the money that streaming services like ESPN and DAZN has been throwing around that might not be the case.

I mean sure they could go the PPV route and maybe it does 1 mill PPV's in the US, or maybe it goes on DAZN and DAZN basically hope those 1 mill or more sign up for 1 month of DAZN and gamble that enough will keep subscribing to make up for what they paid for the fight.

It's clear whatever happens now that Hearn won't be dealing with Showtime and vice versa. This unfortunately only makes the chances of Joshua/Wilder less likely. Wilder or Joshua would need to break away from their respective platforms to make it happen, which is technically possible as neither are exclusively signed to Showtime and DAZN but it's very unlikely.

 

I think Fury's lineal status is key. It's the reason Wilder & Showtime pursued a fight with him in the first place.

You wouldn't need a rematch clause in the event of a draw if all that mattered was the WBC belt b/c Wilder still holds it.

That kind of thinking is where Showtime (and its lawyers) went wrong (imo).

Fury has a legitimate claim to championship status & that's what has enabled him to obtain the deal that he has with ESPN (again, imo).

His performance against Wilder has legitimized that claim.

 

Probably depends on how big they think it goes. Beyond a certain size PPV is the natural home and Showtime is less of a direct competitor to DAZN so surely the preferred outlet for Hearn. I'd say neither him nor Espinoza at that point let personal antipathy get in the way of half a billion in revenue.

Ok, to me I don't think they went for lineal status, they went for Fury because he was a big scalp, with significant UK interest who looked extremely vulnerable. They wanted to raise Wilder's profile, establish him in AJ's market and lay a greater claim to revenue from their eventual fight. All at very little risk because Fury was recovering from 2 years out of the life. Cherry pick gone wrong. The lineal stuff came from Frank's side, looking to inflate Fury's worth in the absence of a title and to ride on AJ's fame due to Fury having held those belts.

 

Hearn absolutely dominated him. Whoa.

 

Hearn absolutely showed up Espinoza.

 

Eddie won. The WBC should create a special belt for this occasion and present it to him.

 

Hearn has still said the Joshua v Wilder fight can go on
Showtime PPV. Wilder is a Haymon Fighter. He can only fight on FOX or Showtime. So he won’t be going anywhere.

I think Showtime need to urgently request Haymon to put on some stong championship cards and get the momentum rolling again by getting hold of some of those fighters who’ve gone on to headline on FOX.

Thurman, Spence, Porter, Mikey and Danny Garcia, Charlo’s etc Get a couple of them back on to SHO. Then Showtime will have another Pacquiao PPV, a possible Wilder v Breazeale, Broner (who’s a big draw) and could end the year with Joshua v Wilder in late 2019 if the domino’s fall into place

 

People here, and Eddie Hearn, dont understand a contract isnt only some big legal document. A contract can be one line, it can be a verbal agreement, there is no defined length or structure.

@CutThroatFade is a legal representative and can confirm this

 

Eddie Hearn banging on about it being from "Wilders personal email" exposes Hearn as being clueless, show me somewhere in contract law that forbids Deontay Wilder offering a contract to Joshua via a personal email?

 

Reaching dude, reaching