Contracts

by Adam D Mon 20 Feb 2012, 1:46 pm

After another victory for the Brothers K this weekend, quite a few posters have been highlighting the Klits contracts as the stumbling block to a fight with David Haye amongst others.

The term "slave contract" has been bandied about and the general feel was that the contracts were heavily favoured towards the champs.

On another thread discussing Samuel Peter, a poster mentioned about after his first loss, he went away and got a few wins to make himself the mandatory challenger again. Something that David Haye doesnt want to do.

So my question is, how much power do the champions have in the contract negotiations when facing a mandatory?

If Chisora had been a mandatory, what would have been the difference in purse and contract details for example.

by Rowley Mon 20 Feb 2012, 1:49 pm

I may be wrong here but I believe in a mandatory contract the challenger is guaranteed a certain percentage, have 35% in my head but may be way off. I also think you cannot put rematch clauses in them. To be honest though am not 100% certain. You could ask nicely if Maloney will give us a masterclass as I was having the same conversation with someone else the other day.

by manos de piedra Mon 20 Feb 2012, 2:02 pm

I always thought it was roughly 25%-75% split to the champion but contracts are so complicated these days with so many different revenue streams that Im sure the nitty gritty is more complex. 75/25 was always what I thought it was roughly though.

by azania Mon 20 Feb 2012, 2:20 pm

The Ks give 95-5 and include future promotional rights, rematches and options. They tie their opponent down. A common clause is a rematch with either brother and a rematch with another immediately after. The boxer is tied to fighting them, plus they dictate future purses in the rematches and comand the lion's share.

Why on earth Haye gave them 50% of PPV only he knows. I believe that is the reason why they will give Haye a fight because it is probably inserted into the contract and Breonte is trying to worm away from.

by manos de piedra Mon 20 Feb 2012, 2:22 pm

azania wrote:The Ks give 95-5 and include future promotional rights, rematches and options. They tie their opponent down. A common clause is a rematch with either brother and a rematch with another immediately after. The boxer is tied to fighting them, plus they dictate future purses in the rematches and comand the lion's share.

Why on earth Haye gave them 50% of PPV only he knows. I believe that is the reason why they will give Haye a fight because it is probably inserted into the contract and Breonte is trying to worm away from.

Not for mandatories

by azania Mon 20 Feb 2012, 2:31 pm

True.

Was referring to the slave contracts they give others.

by Rowley Mon 20 Feb 2012, 2:38 pm

Have any of actually read one of the contracts the brothers offer opponents?

by Mind the windows Tino. Mon 20 Feb 2012, 2:43 pm

rowley wrote:Have any of actually read one of the contracts the brothers offer opponents?

Yeah, me. Didn't fancy it much though. I wasn't allowed Saturday Night by Whigfield as my entrance music.

by azania Mon 20 Feb 2012, 2:46 pm

rowley wrote:Have any of actually read one of the contracts the brothers offer opponents?

Not the brother's contract, but I have spoken to people who have seen one.

by Mind the windows Tino. Mon 20 Feb 2012, 2:50 pm

My answer was far more credible.

by Rowley Mon 20 Feb 2012, 2:53 pm

azania wrote:
rowley wrote:Have any of actually read one of the contracts the brothers offer opponents?

Not the brother's contract, but I have spoken to people who have seen one.

No then.

by azania Mon 20 Feb 2012, 2:57 pm

Does that make a difference? What i've said is nothing new in boxing. Its just that the Ks take it to another level because there's 2 of them and they are looking out for their promotional company. Good business men in a sharkish way.

by Rowley Mon 20 Feb 2012, 3:00 pm

Well given the brothers have been accused of being evil, charlatans and tying people up to slave contracts in the last few days I personally think it is pretty relevant to establish whether anyone has actually any evidence to support these claims beyond hearsay and rumour.

by **ShahenshahG** Mon 20 Feb 2012, 3:14 pm

So they give slave contracts to people they offer free shots to? People who havent or are unwilling to earn their shots? Fair enough.

by manos de piedra Mon 20 Feb 2012, 3:17 pm

Also some of the stuff with the Klitschko contracts is getting a bit over exaggerated. If your someone like Chisora, with no fanbase, no financial clout, no reputation and are bringing little if any money to the table then something like 90/10 split is a reflection of where the money is coming from. This always the case. Below are some of the reported fight splits which nearly all earned the opponent over 1 million dollars minimum. Also if you go down the mandatory route you get a minimum 25% split.

Rahman: 65/35
Povetkin 75/25 (rejected career high 2millon dollars)
Arreola: 70/30
Chambers: 80/20
Haye: 50/50
Ibragimov: 50/50
Solis: 70/30

If you are a Chisora, Briggs, Mormeck with little or no credentials other than making yourself available when theres noone else around then yes, the split is going to be stingy. The Klitschkos are holding all the cards. But pretending every fighter that faces them earns 300k or less is rubbish. If you are a top ten ranked opponent then the earnings will usually exceed 1million and the split will be 80/20 or better. Given the Klitschkos status and the fact they sell the greater portion of the fight the splits are not unfathamoble.

by Steffan Mon 20 Feb 2012, 3:18 pm

Its not about how big your slice is...but how big is the pie

by **Seanusarrilius** Mon 20 Feb 2012, 3:28 pm

Good question Adam, Mandatory is definitely the way to go with the K brothers if you are good enough. The percentage is set and the K don't seem to fear anyone so them vacating wont happen. I have 65-35 split in my head too Rowley

by azania Mon 20 Feb 2012, 3:29 pm

I read that Chis for £100k. I doubt Vit was paid £1m for that fight. More like he got upwards of £4m.

by davidemore Mon 20 Feb 2012, 3:30 pm

K's and their contracts, very tricky, even more so when they hold all the belts. But yes, a mandatory is good, Derek wasn't though, right?

What a night that was, ha!

by azania Mon 20 Feb 2012, 3:33 pm

I'll add its not just the purse they offer but the numerous rematches they have written into the contracts. In short they have to fight and beat the brothers 3 times before you can fight anyone else and further options tie you with their promotion company. Slave contract. Yes they hold all the cards but why include a fight with one of the brothers? Surely a simple rematch is enough.

by Rowley Mon 20 Feb 2012, 3:34 pm

azania wrote:I'll add its not just the purse they offer but the numerous rematches they have written into the contracts. In short they have to fight and beat the brothers 3 times before you can fight anyone else and further options tie you with their promotion company. Slave contract. Yes they hold all the cards but why include a fight with one of the brothers? Surely a simple rematch is enough.

But you know all this without, by your own admission having ever read one.

by The Galveston Giant Mon 20 Feb 2012, 3:36 pm

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
rowley wrote:Have any of actually read one of the contracts the brothers offer opponents?

Yeah, me. Didn't fancy it much though. I wasn't allowed Saturday Night by Whigfield as my entrance music.

I like the way you move.

by azania Mon 20 Feb 2012, 3:39 pm

rowley wrote:
azania wrote:I'll add its not just the purse they offer but the numerous rematches they have written into the contracts. In short they have to fight and beat the brothers 3 times before you can fight anyone else and further options tie you with their promotion company. Slave contract. Yes they hold all the cards but why include a fight with one of the brothers? Surely a simple rematch is enough.

But you know all this without, by your own admission having ever read one.

Sigh!

Haye was stupulated to fight Vit were he to beat Wlad. In the event he beat VIt he would have to fight Wlad again. Because Hayw held a major belt, had Sky Box office with him and had his own promotion company he didn't give out any options although he was asked.

Now a lesser name fighter. What choice will they have? You dont have to see the contract to join the dots, especially when options are pretty standard in many fights between a dominant champ and a no name.

by manos de piedra Mon 20 Feb 2012, 3:41 pm

I bet Haye is wishing he signed one of those rematch contracts right now.

by JabMachineMK2 Mon 20 Feb 2012, 3:42 pm

From what I understand the Mandatory is 35% of the purse which is raised to 50% if they win

by bhb001 Mon 20 Feb 2012, 3:42 pm

[quote="The Galveston Giant"]

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
rowley wrote:Have any of actually read one of the contracts the brothers offer opponents?

Yeah, me. Didn't fancy it much though. I wasn't allowed Saturday Night by Whigfield as my entrance music.

Have you moved on from Barbie Girl, then?

by Rowley Mon 20 Feb 2012, 3:47 pm

azania wrote:

Now a lesser name fighter. What choice will they have? You dont have to see the contract to join the dots, especially when options are pretty standard in many fights between a dominant champ and a no name.

So by your own admission these type of options are pretty common, odd then that it is only the brothers get slaughtered for putting them in contracts, in fact golden boy got slaughtered recently for NOT putting options in a contract.

by manos de piedra Mon 20 Feb 2012, 3:51 pm

According to the WBO, the split is 75/25 if the champion defends the title on home soil and 80/20 if he defends it on foreign soil. Not sure if this is consistent with the other sanctioning bodies though.

by azania Mon 20 Feb 2012, 3:59 pm

rowley wrote:
azania wrote:

Now a lesser name fighter. What choice will they have? You dont have to see the contract to join the dots, especially when options are pretty standard in many fights between a dominant champ and a no name.

So by your own admission these type of options are pretty common, odd then that it is only the brothers get slaughtered for putting them in contracts, in fact golden boy got slaughtered recently for NOT putting options in a contract.

If Haye had beaten Wlad, I would not have an issue with a rematch clause to fight Wlad. But the clause was to fight Vit next, then Wlad in the rematch before he could fight anyone else.

Haye agreed. Pity (as manos alluded) he didn't insert a match with Vit were he to lose to Wlad. Over-confidence is a dangerous game. No way could Haye be offered and agree to a slave contract because he had a belt and PPV behind him. He controlled his destiny.

by **ShahenshahG** Mon 20 Feb 2012, 4:08 pm

he could still control his destiny by becoming a mandatory but he wont.

by Rowley Mon 20 Feb 2012, 4:10 pm

Again you do seem intimately familiar with a contract you have not read. Even if you have read it you would also need to have read the contracts offered by Warren, Golden Boy, Arum and King amongst others to know if your claims they are slave contracts are justified. Only guessing but my instinct tells me you have done none of these things.

by azania Mon 20 Feb 2012, 4:21 pm

rowley wrote:Again you do seem intimately familiar with a contract you have not read. Even if you have read it you would also need to have read the contracts offered by Warren, Golden Boy, Arum and King amongst others to know if your claims they are slave contracts are justified. Only guessing but my instinct tells me you have done none of these things.

I've seen many contracts in many fields. In business contracts are largely similar depending on the nature of the business.

Boxing is a business. I've seen boxing comntracts. Its more detailed and more clauses than in many other businesses. I've seen boxing contracts withj options, rematches and more. I can also read believe it or not. I read what boxers and their managers say when dealing with Breonte and what he insists in having in contracts. I also saw the sky interview with him and Booth in which Broente went very ashen, no crimson, when Booth revealed alleged details of the contract they wanted Haye to sign. Breonte did not deny it but instead changed the subject and refused to discuss the matter further even when prompted by the host interviewer claiming such things should be discussed in private (correct I'll add). But he could have denied it if they were lies. Lies are usually denied when they are made.

But carry on though. No one has seen the Chis/Vit contract so no one should comment unless they have read it.

by Guest Mon 20 Feb 2012, 4:27 pm

azania wrote:
rowley wrote:Again you do seem intimately familiar with a contract you have not read. Even if you have read it you would also need to have read the contracts offered by Warren, Golden Boy, Arum and King amongst others to know if your claims they are slave contracts are justified. Only guessing but my instinct tells me you have done none of these things.

I've seen many contracts in many fields. In business contracts are largely similar depending on the nature of the business.

Boxing is a business. I've seen boxing comntracts. Its more detailed and more clauses than in many other businesses. I've seen boxing contracts withj options, rematches and more. I can also read believe it or not. I read what boxers and their managers say when dealing with Breonte and what he insists in having in contracts. I also saw the sky interview with him and Booth in which Broente went very ashen, no crimson, when Booth revealed alleged details of the contract they wanted Haye to sign. Breonte did not deny it but instead changed the subject and refused to discuss the matter further even when prompted by the host interviewer claiming such things should be discussed in private (correct I'll add). But he could have denied it if they were lies. Lies are usually denied when they are made.

But carry on though. No one has seen the Chis/Vit contract so no one should comment unless they have read it.

Personally, I think the issue would be put to rest if an actual copy of one of these contracts was put up here, then we could all read it (someone could explain the big words to me) and then we could stop pretending we know what's what.

by Rowley Mon 20 Feb 2012, 4:27 pm

Am not saying noone should comment but have seen terms like slave contracts thrown round here pretty much non stop in the last couple of days. To use such emotive terms would like to think people would have a little more to go on than the word of Adam Booth.

Personally my view on this is pretty simple, there are four belts in the world and most agree the division outside the brothers is as weak as it has ever been as such becoming mandatory challenger should not be too taxing a process for any fighter of ambition or ability, if you do this all arguments about purse splits or options become moot. End of the day if you bring nothing to the table and are being offered a chance you have not yet earned is kind of inevitable you ain't going to get too many favours, this is the greatest prize of all after all.

by Nico the gman Mon 20 Feb 2012, 4:46 pm

Valuev when he was champion said the Kbros and their management team were a nightmare to deal with so refused to sign for a unification fight.

by manos de piedra Mon 20 Feb 2012, 4:48 pm

Not really azania. You come across as someone with some kind of agenda against them. You say the Klitschkos dont travel. Its easily shown that they do. Then you say they dont travel for big challenges insinuating Chisora was more of a recognised challenge than top ten rated heavyweights like Adamek or Arreola or Ibragimov. You disputed the obvious point that fighting in front of their own fans where they can guarantee sell outs makes better financial sense. Now you say thy offer 95-5 contracts as if thats the only contract they offer when in fact it isnt and for both Wlads unification fights he only got 50/50 despite being seen as the more established champion. Now you say the Klitschkos are trying to worm out of some clause inserted despite there being no supporting evidence to this and all evidence to the contrary. Not even Haye has claimed that there was a clause in their previous contract. Hes claiming he agreed to terms they sent him in December.

The Klitshkos arent everyones cup of tea. But it seems like any and all reasons are being found or invented now as to criticise them. They arent beyond criticism but some people seem to ignore anything that doesnt fit with their view that they are any of liars, average, duckers, frauds, phoneys, stay at homes, disgrace to boxing, unworthy of any respect and all the rest of it.

If one wants to argue that the contract offered to Chisora was unfair, by all means. But lets not pretend that there was no reason for this, that Chisora had earned anything better, that there are no other options available or that this is the only contract the Klitschkos engage in.

by Guest Mon 20 Feb 2012, 4:52 pm

Tends to get a little more difficult when the boxing bodies themselves start creating spurious titles allowing the likes of Marco Huck the chance to call himself HW Champion.

You mention fighters of ambition and ability and yet there seems to be precious little ambition in the chasing pack. Most seem keen NOT to lose their chance to earn a pay packet by fight one of their contemporaries.

Until the boxing bodies can all agree who the top ten HW actually are, we will never see any change in the staus quo

here's a brief example....

THE RING Rankings

Champ - Wlad
1 Vitali
2 Povetkin
3 Adamek
4 Chambers
5 Dimitrenko
6 Helenius
7 Boystov
8 Chagaev
9 Arreola
10 Pulev(?)

WBA Rankings
Super Champ - Wlad
Champ - Povetkin
1. HASIM RAHMAN
2. ROBERT HELENIUS
3. ALEXANDER USTINOV
4. DENIS BOYTOV
5. LUIS ORTIZ
6. DAVID HAYE
7. ALEXANDER DIMITRENKO
8. RUSLAN CHAGAEV
9. CHRIS ARREOLA
10. JEAN MARC MORMECK
11. MANUEL CHARR
12. ANDRZEJ WAWRZYK
13. JOVO PUDAR
14. KALI MEEHAN
15. MAGOMED ABDUSALAMOV
VITALI - not even listed

How in God's name are we supposed to sort out a mandatory challenger when each body seems to operate on a plane of existence even the writers of LOST would consider confusing?

by Nico the gman Mon 20 Feb 2012, 4:58 pm

Super champion and champion its laughable,how about universal champion, super duper champion,super champion and champion that way someone who ain't that good can call himself heavyweight champ.

Some right clowns in charge of these boxing organisations.

by azania Mon 20 Feb 2012, 5:57 pm

I have no issue with rematch clauses installed in contracts. They're pretty redundant if the fight is one sided and are generally waved away. But to fight a brother then rematch the other brother ties up the division, other boxers and the opponent. Furthermore I dont like the issue of options regardless of who does it. Many fights have stalled because King used to insist on it.

I have no agenda against the brothers personally. I just thing their aloof attitude is a charade and they offer slave contracts. I'll go back to the Haye fight. That fight would not have happened unless Haye gave them 50% of PPV payments. Haye needn't have done that. Do you think the brothers give 25% of their TV money to the opponent? Appaently TV paid Vit £3m for his fight with Chisora (flat rate). Do you think Chis got a chunk of that?

Without Haye insisting on that fight, it would not have happened. Why? Because he wanted the fight and the brothers were prepared to defend against the likes of Mormeck, Huck and the assortments of eastern euro plumbers masquerading as HW boxers. They were prepared to let the biggest HW fight go because of their issue with money. Credit to Haye for giving them 50% of PPV when he could have said no to that.

Now thisleads me to the issue of Booth calling Breonte a disgrace to boxing. He specifically said Breonte and gave credit to the Ks. Many here because of their dislike of Haye claim Booth was mouthing off. I tend to believe him. Immediately after the fight, Haye said they had agreed purse figures and everything else bar the date and venue. I tend to believe him because he has no reason to lie. Then during the press confrence Broente said something else. His track record indicates to me that he is less than honourable. No disgrace to boxing as Booth said. Its common in boxing. No contract signed = nothing official. Talk is cheap.

As for home fighting, as I have said, money is not from the audience at the event, but from TV rights. Its like when Arum said he wanted the Floyd/Paq fight in a 40k seater arena as opposed to a 15k one. Utter nonsense. TV rights and the Hotels paying for the fights to bring in high rollers is what matters. And most of the good seats are given away by the hotels to attract gamblers. The capacity is irrelevant to a point.

Slave contracts. I'd like to se Wlad get knocked off his perch and the same applied to him and see his reaction.

by Rowley Mon 20 Feb 2012, 5:59 pm

azania wrote:

Without Haye insisting on that fight, it would not have happened. Why?

Was signed for prior to Haye's agreement to give up 50% of the PPV money, June 2009, Haye didn't turn up.

by azania Mon 20 Feb 2012, 6:03 pm

rowley wrote:
azania wrote:

Without Haye insisting on that fight, it would not have happened. Why?

Was signed for prior to Haye's agreement to give up 50% of the PPV money, June 2009, Haye didn't turn up.

He was injured. Wlad signed to fight Chisora and he bailed out twice.

by manos de piedra Mon 20 Feb 2012, 6:27 pm

Do you really think Haye and his ppv deal was based solely on him selling the fight? The ppv figures were significantly effected by the fact it was Klitschko as the opponent. They agreed to split everything down the middle, no rematches, no options. Even Booth and Haye said the deal was fair. Haye was a beltholder with a ppv deal that had become exhausted due to his inabilty to put on an entertaining fight and putting on fights against jokes like Audley Harrison. Its laughable that Wlad gets accused of fighting trash but Haye fights Barret, Ruiz, Valuev and Audley Harrison. Lets look at the reality for a change. Since Haye moved to heavyweight Wlad had fought:

Ibragimov - top ten rated, world champion
Thompson - WBO mandatory challenger
Rahman - late replacement for Povetkin (top ten rated) who withdrew
Chagaev - late replacement for Haye who withdrew. Also top ten.
Chambers - top ten rated
Peter - Povetkin withdraws again

Without Haye insisting on the fight it would not happen? Without Haye pulling out of the fight in the first place it would have happened 3 years ago.

Distort the truth if you want. Wlad signed to fight Haye after Haye had one heavyweight fight. He signed a 50/50 deal with Haye to fight him a second time when Haye had upped his value.

Continue to distort the facts and take Hayes word though. Haye has no reason to lie? Of course he does. To make people like you believe that Vitali is ducking him and to put pressure on Vitali to fight him. To drum up self interest in him and try and cover up the fact his last peformance was a misfiring loss and he couldnt be bothered to fight his way back into contention. But wait, Haye said he was retired. He insisted no more fights after his 31st birthday......How can this be? How could he be negotiating with Vitali when he is retired?

by azania Mon 20 Feb 2012, 6:37 pm

No distortion of any facts. K2 held firm on a 50/50 split on PPV figures. Haye could have offered 60/40 but they refused. In the UK haye was the bigger name so by K2 logic applied here, he deserved the lion's share of the PPV split. On the interview on Sky Breonte insisted on 50/50 or no fight. Its all there. I#ll see if its on you tube.

As for Haye withdrawing, Setanta were about to go under. His money ould have come from there. Logical to withdraw when you're getting a pittance for the biggest fight. Plus winning the WBA title gave him greater bargainiing power.

The Harrison fight wasnt a joke on paper. He was Euro champ. Sosnowski bailed out to fight Vit and recently drew against some club fighter. No criticism there. No criticism for fighting Mormeck who Haye beat up.

Haye is not an entertaining fighter at HW. I wont argue that point. Neither is Wlad. Brilliant technical boxer though. I'm not going to criticise his ability because I rate him very highly. I criticise their management team for offering slave contracts and being greedy. Yes they take the licks. But so does the other guy.

Credit Haye for making that fight happen. If he had adopted K2 business skills, that fight would not have happened. They conceded to the K2 demands.

by Rowley Mon 20 Feb 2012, 6:50 pm

azania wrote:

The Harrison fight wasnt a joke on paper.

You're just being silly now at the time of the fight Harrison was ranked sixth in Britain by the Boxing Monthly, doesn't matter whether you look at it on paper, on parchment or on acid Harrison is rubbish, has always been rubbish and was as poor an opponent as anyone the brothers have ever faced.

by azania Mon 20 Feb 2012, 6:53 pm

rowley wrote:
azania wrote:

The Harrison fight wasnt a joke on paper.

You're just being silly now at the time of the fight Harrison was ranked sixth in Britain by the Boxing Monthly, doesn't matter whether you look at it on paper, on parchment or on acid Harrison is rubbish, has always been rubbish and was as poor an opponent as anyone the brothers have ever faced.

He was the euro champion. Favourite to beat Sosnowski who bailed out and was considered a legit challenge for Vit.

by Dass Mon 20 Feb 2012, 6:53 pm

manos de piedra wrote:To make people like you believe that Vitali is ducking him and to put pressure on Vitali to fight him.

So he's lying to us about wanting to fight Vitali so he can put pressure on Vitali to fight him, doesn't really make sense. The only reason to lie would be for publicity and nothing else, with no desire to fight Vitali at all.

For all the supposed attacks on the Klits and their reputations there's just as many who seem to let their personal opinion of Haye cloud their judgement when discussion him.

by Rowley Mon 20 Feb 2012, 6:54 pm

Favourite with who to beat Sosnowski, any chance you could provide any evidence to support this claim.

by azania Mon 20 Feb 2012, 6:59 pm

rowley wrote:Favourite with who to beat Sosnowski, any chance you could provide any evidence to support this claim.

Bookmakers.

That cannard again. First you say I haven't seen contracts. Now this. No I cant show proof. I'm going from memory.

by Rowley Mon 20 Feb 2012, 7:00 pm

I didn't say you hadn't seen contracts I asked you if you had seen a Klitschko contract you admitted you hadn't.

by azania Mon 20 Feb 2012, 7:03 pm

Continue to distort the facts and take Hayes word though. Haye has no reason to lie? Of course he does. To make people like you believe that Vitali is ducking him and to put pressure on Vitali to fight him. To drum up self interest in him and try and cover up the fact his last peformance was a misfiring loss and he couldnt be bothered to fight his way back into contention. But wait, Haye said he was retired. He insisted no more fights after his 31st birthday......How can this be? How could he be negotiating with Vitali when he is retired?

People like me? Vitali has been calling Haye out since Wlad schooled him. I dont for one second believe Vit is in any way ducking him. Vit, or more accurately, Breonte is playing games. Bait and switch trying to get a better deal for the brothers.

Also Vit has been calling him out (bait) and now they have Haye's interest, shifted the goal posts (switch).

by Sponsored content