Golden Boy Promotions breaks The Muhammad Ali Act….Again

http://thecruelestsport.com/2010/12/09/golden-boy-promotions-and-the-muhammad-ali-act-again/
looks like oscar is turning more into don king

 

Golden Boy Promotions and The Muhammad Ali Act….Again?
An interesting tidbit appeared in ***********.com recently (imagine that!) concerning the forthcoming Victor Ortiz-Lamont Peterson bout, one that is alarming for anyone who cares about the rights of boxers:
***********.com was advised by Golden Boy matchmaker Eric Gomez that Golden Boy has options on Peterson should he pull off the upset. “We have a deal in place. If Peterson wins we have options on him.”
This sounds like a violation of the Muhammad Ali Act, but that suspicion is nothing new for Richard Schaefer & co. Five months ago, Golden Boy Promotions was suspended by the New York State Athletic Commission for what GBP called an oversight, but for what the NYSAC explicitly stated was a violation of the Muhammad Ali Act. From The Cruelest Sport, July 22, 2010:
Unfortunately, Lem Satterfield of Fanhouse quoted Melvina Lathan, Chairwoman of the NYSAC, directly regarding violation of the Muhammad Ali Act: “They are suspended 90 days from the time that they’ve given us what we’re requesting. The clock doesn’t start until we get the necessary documents,” said Lathan, who is in her second year as commission chairwoman and dealing with Golden Boy for the first time. “They know what it is. And any promoter that promotes fights knows what it is according to the Muhammad Ali Act and our unconsolidated laws.” (Emphasis added.) So the NYSAC chairperson makes it absolutely clear that Golden Boy Promotions violated the Muhammad Ali Act. Did she misspeak?
Now one of its own employees, Eric Gomez, is actually on record saying that Golden Boy Promotions has “options” on Peterson “if Peterson wins.” Options are a direct violation of the Muhammad Ali Act, as stated in § 6307b. Protection from coercive contracts:
(a) General rule
(1)
(A) A contract provision shall be considered to be in restraint of trade, contrary to public policy, and unenforceable against any boxer to the extent that it—
(i) is a coercive provision described in subparagraph (B) and is for a period greater than 12 months; or
(ii) is a coercive provision described in subparagraph (B) and the other boxer under contract to the promoter came under that contract pursuant to a coercive provision described in subparagraph (B).
(B) A coercive provision described in this subparagraph is a contract provision that grants any rights between a boxer and a promoter, or between promoters with respect to a boxer, if the boxer is required to grant such rights, or a boxer’s promoter is required to grant such rights with respect to a boxer to another promoter, as a condition precedent to the boxer’s participation in a professional boxing match against another boxer who is under contract to the promoter. (Emphasis added.)
As usual in boxing, questions immediately come to mind whenever anything is said, written, done, or undone.
What on earth does section (ii) mean?
Was Team Peterson “coerced?” Or did they willingly agree to sign some sort of options contract in order to land a major fight on HBO?
And is there really a difference between the two? After all, Peterson has already seen some of the darker aspects of the boxing business, and may be merely giving in to the status quo.
And do these options, should they exist, supersede a period of 12 months as outlined–strangely, since exploitation for any length of time is exploitation nonetheless–in the Muhammad Ali Act?
Is, ultimately, signing Peterson to an options clause, as Eric Gomez detailed, a violation of Federal law?
Finally–perhaps the easiest question to answer–does anyone care?
Nothing is funnier than the “tough journalist” pose put on by so many boxing writers, but maybe one of these Twitter Monsters can actually try to do a little investigative reporting and answer some of these questions.
Or maybe they will just keep on running press releases