Are we about to see Gonzalez get ripped off/options

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 13 Jan 2004, 10:44

Quote from Erdei

"I feel obliged to defeat Gonzalez and regain the world title for my promoter Universum," Erdei said. "I felt inside me that I would get that chance to fight for the title when I witnessed how Dariusz lost to Gonzalez in October. When I face Gonzalez I have to avoid making the same mistakes. But I’m very confident of my victory, also because Fritz Sdunek will be in my corner. To me he is more than just a coach. Fritz is my friend."

How often do you hear of a fighter outside of Germany talking about regaining the title 'for their promoter' I find this all rather worrying, I get the feeling that Gonzalez is about to get jobbed.

I understand that Kohl purchased an option on Gonzalez' contract, which I assume was a pre-requisite to the previous fight being made. Now it would appear that Gonzalez has no choice but to defend his title against Erdei, why else would he be defending the title so soon after winning it.

Does anyone have any details on this.

I have to confess that options on contracts are a bit of a mystery to me. They don't however sound like a good thing, it sounds like an insurance policy which can backfire on a fighter who wins a title.

Can anyone explain to me the mysteries of the contract option, I would like to have a fuller understanding.

Lugh · Post by **Lugh** » 13 Jan 2004, 10:51

THe only bunch that can make allegedly look good are the Huns! They are incredible!

Freiheit · Post by **Freiheit** » 13 Jan 2004, 11:22

I think it depends on how much Erdei is worth, how popular he is in Germany ect. I think there will be much more money for Universum in a Michalczewski rematch than having Erdei as champ.

bigynzing · Post by **bigynzing** » 13 Jan 2004, 11:38

Freiheit wrote:I think it depends on how much Erdei is worth, how popular he is in Germany ect. I think there will be much more money for Universum in a Michalczewski rematch than having Erdei as champ.

What about..Erdei v Michalczewski...im sure the German public would rather see that fight for the belt`s

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 13 Jan 2004, 11:40

The thing is, Dariusz is now injured, and may never fight again at his age. Perhaps Universum realised Dariusz was coming to the end of the line, and they are looking for a replacement, I don't know anything about this new guy, or how popular he is.

I do find is suspicious however when a fighter seems to be only able to get a fight if their management agrees to selling an option on their fight, which I think is what happened here.

If anyone can tell me any more about this situation please do.

knockout · Post by **knockout** » 13 Jan 2004, 11:48

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The thing is, Dariusz is now injured, and may never fight again at his age. Perhaps Universum realised Dariusz was coming to the end of the line, and they are looking for a replacement, I don't know anything about this new guy, or how popular he is.

I do find is suspicious however when a fighter seems to be only able to get a fight if their management agrees to selling an option on their fight, which I think is what happened here.

If anyone can tell me any more about this situation please do.

the "option" is very common in european boxing and is one of the reasons good americans seldom fight in europe.

I think the Muhammed Ali act outlawed the practice in USA though.

Universum work it well, remember Byrd was kept inactive after beating Vitali and thrown straight back in with Wlad...
it is also the reason we havent seen Corrie Saunders

Universum also seem to be working on a new trick where by the universum fighter pulls out the day of the championship fight and is replaced by a stablemate who fights completely differently!!!

see Branco v Ulrich/Drews or Velazco v Schenk/Sturm

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 13 Jan 2004, 11:51

Right, thanks, so basically the option, is the option to promote their next fight or a series of fights by the sounds of things, am I right?

Maybe I should ask John Shep this.

Surely this should be outlawed in the UK too, and the rest of Europe, it seems extremely unfair, it's one step away from a rematch clause, which was outlawed, but then again still seems to be in evidence....

It enables a promoter another chance to get a fighter to regain the title if one of their fighters loses their title in the ring...

Can a fighter pull out of an optioned fight? Or would they be breaking the terms of their contract?

Loynesy · Post by **Loynesy** » 13 Jan 2004, 11:55

James - "options" are , sadly, commonplace in the sport and in particular our Frank and Universum are the most notorious in the business for them.

Broadly speaking, Fighter A, the challenger is offered the chance to fight Fighter B, the champion. If A wins, then the promotor of the fight will may have one of two options (i) an option to promote a re-match between A and B, with A receiving a guaranteed minimum, normally by a specified date or (ii) an option to match Fighter A with another fighter (some contracts have specified names, most are open leaving it entirely in the discretion of the promoter - again for a guaranteed minimum.) Sometimes the option will be for more than one fight, whereby the promotor now effectively controls Fighter A.

Promoters try and argue that they are good for fighters like Fighter A in that they have a guaranteed minimum for their next fight, but to me, they look like a way of ensuring the promoter continues to have the belt tied up.

knockout · Post by **knockout** » 13 Jan 2004, 11:59

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Right, thanks, so basically the option, is the option to promote their next fight or a series of fights by the sounds of things, am I right?

Maybe I should ask John Shep this.

Surely this should be outlawed in the UK too, and the rest of Europe, it seems extremely unfair, it's one step away from a rematch clause, which was outlawed, but then again still seems to be in evidence....

It enables a promoter another chance to get a fighter to regain the title if one of their fighters loses their title in the ring...

Can a fighter pull out of an optioned fight? Or would they be breaking the terms of their contract?

thats exactly what it is an option to promote the next "x" number of fights in exchange for granting you a title shot.... i guess it is timebound though so you could perhaps sit out the option (like saunders has done). You are in breach of contract if dont fulfill the option.

The funniest example is that of the Benn v Eubank 2.
King co-promoted it and in return had options on Benn (win or lose) and Eubank (win or lose).....basically he won either way..... or so it seemed. When the draw was announced, king tried to argue his way around it but the fact was a draw wasnt mentioned in the contract so he lost options on both fighters.

A lot of people suggest Hearn made the fight a draw to keep the fighters under contract to him (all hearsay of course)

Loynesy · Post by **Loynesy** » 13 Jan 2004, 11:59

I see that Knockout answered while I was typing in my answer!!

Under English law, if a fighter signs a valid contract with an options clause in it there is very little he can do subsequently (he could try a restraint of trade case but unless the terms of the options were manifestly unfair, I doubt he would succeed under English law).

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 13 Jan 2004, 12:01

Thanks for clearing that up. It appears that I actually did know what an option was, but as I had never had it clarified, I was always worried about talking about options in an article, in case I made myself look like a complete arse.

Options are indeed a very bad thing for the sport, but unless they are made outright illegal, how on earth do you stop it happening.

Loynesy · Post by **Loynesy** » 13 Jan 2004, 12:03

Incidentally, re-match clauses are not unlawful as a matter of English law - the BBBC and other sanctioning bodies may try and circumvent it by saying they may not sanction a re-match between those fighters as being for that particular belt.

knockout · Post by **knockout** » 13 Jan 2004, 12:04

Loynesy wrote:I see that Knockout answered while I was typing in my answer!!

Under English law, if a fighter signs a valid contract with an options clause in it there is very little he can do subsequently (he could try a restraint of trade case but unless the terms of the options were manifestly unfair, I doubt he would succeed under English law).

your interpretation was much easier on the eye my friend!!
either way options are bad for the game.. like you suggested earlier it allows the bigger promoters to keep the belt in their stable.

Loynesy · Post by **Loynesy** » 13 Jan 2004, 12:07

Most boxing contracts I have seen are hopelessly biased against the "little man", solely because he doesn't have the cash or perhaps the confidence to get independent legal advice.

Have thought about offering my services on a pro bono basis to any fighters that may want free legal advice - in particular amateurs who may be about to sign their first pro contract.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 13 Jan 2004, 12:08

Don King kept hold of the heavyweight championship through the 80's with his use of options. It was only when Douglas beat Tyson that his grip was broken, then passed onto the Duva's after Holyfield beat Douglas.

Not sure how Douglas managed to avoid King's options - did Don think he had no chance, so didn't bother? Or was it overturned after King tried to get his win reversed through his usual "trickerations"?

And yes Gonzalez could be in for a royal screwing this weekend.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 13 Jan 2004, 12:10

Loynsey are you a lawyer? And do you have a good knowledge of the legal practices employed by promoters? I am always keen to learn more about the business/legal aspects of the sport, as they are not the sort of thing you can pick up easily.

It seems that business practices in boxing are among the most arcane in any business, the general fan of the sport, and often even pundits have little or no understanding of how business is done in boxing. Promoters are notoriously unwilling to discuss their financial dealings to the point of stonewalling.

I would like to have a chat to you some time about some of these issues....

Loynesy · Post by **Loynesy** » 13 Jan 2004, 12:16

JamesM - yes I am a lawyer. I practice corporate law for one of the big City firms (effectively takovers, that sort of thing) so I understand commercial contracts even if I have never advised a boxer or promoter. I have seen copies of a few fight contracts in my capacity as a boxing fan.

Promoters use the law to their advantage over boxers who in most cases know nothing about contractual matters (would be a bit like asking most promoters to don a pair of gloves).

Happy to chat with you or anyone about the legal aspects of anything in the sport.

knockout · Post by **knockout** » 13 Jan 2004, 12:20

Loynesy wrote:JamesM - yes I am a lawyer. I practice corporate law for one of the big City firms (effectively takovers, that sort of thing) so I understand commercial contracts even if I have never advised a boxer or promoter. I have seen copies of a few fight contracts in my capacity as a boxing fan.

Promoters use the law to their advantage over boxers who in most cases know nothing about contractual matters (would be a bit like asking most promoters to don a pair of gloves).

Happy to chat with you or anyone about the legal aspects of anything in the sport.

loynsey!!!
you fancy York Hall for Skelton V francis on 7th Feb??? Or are you jet setting??? Brick lane for a curry afterwards???
Get Goz and Kilburn along too!!

Loynesy · Post by **Loynesy** » 13 Jan 2004, 12:23

Knockout - definitely on for it but need to get bird approval first - I am going up to Sheffield the night before to watch the Woods fight, but if the rest of the boys are on for it, should be able to bribe her sufficiently...

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 13 Jan 2004, 12:23

If I don't make it up to Sheffield for Feb 7th, I might go for some of that.

There was someone here who was driving to sheffield who offered me a lift, but I'm buggered if I can remember who it is.....

knockout · Post by **knockout** » 13 Jan 2004, 12:25

Woods is the Friday night is it?? No excuses then either of you

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 13 Jan 2004, 12:29

If I go up to Sheffield, I'll be staying the weekend with a friend, too long of a round trip....

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 13 Jan 2004, 14:00

knockout wrote:
Loynesy wrote:JamesM - yes I am a lawyer. I practice corporate law for one of the big City firms (effectively takovers, that sort of thing) so I understand commercial contracts even if I have never advised a boxer or promoter. I have seen copies of a few fight contracts in my capacity as a boxing fan.

Promoters use the law to their advantage over boxers who in most cases know nothing about contractual matters (would be a bit like asking most promoters to don a pair of gloves).

Happy to chat with you or anyone about the legal aspects of anything in the sport.
loynsey!!!
you fancy York Hall for Skelton V francis on 7th Feb??? Or are you jet setting??? Brick lane for a curry afterwards???
Get Goz and Kilburn along too!!

With those two boring us with legal chat? No chance

Feb 7th might be ok actually, speak nearer the time....

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 13 Jan 2004, 15:19

I am going with gonzalez, not listening to dutch, look where he is in the league

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 13 Jan 2004, 15:27

One of the reasons Corrie Sanders came out and blitzed Wladimir Klitschko the way he did was because the Germans had really messed him about contractually. Sanders was incensed by their behaviour, and took it out on their man. You all know of course, that Sanders has since given up his WBO title rather than honour the ludicrous options placed on him if he won.