|
By Thomas Hauser Secondsout.com: The business of boxing is
generally conducted behind closed doors. But on occasion, the veil of secrecy is lifted and some interesting truths are revealed.
Secondsout has taken a long hard look at the maze of contractual relationships regarding three fighters from the 2000 Olympics
and a fourth who was too young to compete in the games. Francisco Bojado (pictured), Rocky Juarez, Jeff Lacy, and Juan Diaz
turned pro in early 2001 under the promotional banner of Main Events. Many of their early fights were televised by Showtime.
The four boxers have been successful in the pro ranks, but the primary beneficiary of
their careers to date appears to have been Shelly Finkel. Now Finkel has been named as a co-respondent in litigation between
Bojado and Joe Hernandez (one of the fighter's former co-managers). Hernandez alleges that, unbeknownst to him, Finkel received
at least $1,725,000 from Showtime in violation of a fiduciary duty that Finkel assumed when he too became Bojado's co-manager.
For twenty years, Shelly Finkel has been a survivor in the jungle that is professional boxing. The cornerstone of
his career was his role as a manager and advisor to Evander Holyfield, Pernell Whitaker, Mark Breland,
and Meldrick Taylor; the best of America's 1984 Olympic boxing team. In recent years, he has been prominent as the primary
advisor to Mike Tyson.
Finkel is one of the most knowledgeable people in the world with regard
to the business of boxing. He has the ability to relate to television executives, promoters, the media, and fighters. He also
stirs passions (both pro and con) in the manner of Bill Clinton and George Bush.
Finkel's supporters say that he's
trustworthy, tenacious, and tough. They point to his quiet personality and ability to get most jobs done.
Finkel's
detractors say that he's hypocritical and shameless. They talk of "Shelly speak" ("carefully phrased truths that leave a misimpression")
and "Ninety-Percent Finkel" ("Shelly tells you ninety percent of the truth, but not the last ten percent, which is what you
need to know."). Don King has labeled Finkel "Bob Arum in sheep's clothing." Given King's dislike for his rival promoter,
it's unlikely that the remark was intended as a compliment.
Everyone agrees that Finkel is a tireless worker, persistent,
and very smart.
On December 4, 2000, Finkel entered into a contract with 17-year-old Francisco Bojado to serve as
the fighters co-manager. Joe Hernandez and Al Marquez were also signatories to the contract as co-managers.
The
contract (which was re-executed on May 11, 2001, when Bojado turned eighteen) bound the fighter to his co-managers for a period
of five years from his first professional fight (which was on January 13, 2001). In addition, if Bojado were to become a world
champion in any weight division under any world sanctioning body, the managers could extend the term of the contract to cover
eight title defenses from the date that Bojado won his first championship bout. Bojado received a $75,000 signing bonus. Finkel,
Hernandez, and Marquez were to each get ten percent of his purses.
On September 5, 2002, Bojado terminated Hernandez
and Marquez as his co-managers while retaining Finkel. On February 24, 2003, Hernandez and Marquez initiated an arbitration
proceeding against the fighter for breach of contract. Bojado subsequently settled with Marquez for $157,000. Then, as a consequence
of documents produced during discovery, Hernandez amended his claim to add Finkel and Finkel's management company (Shelly
Finkel Management) to the proceeding as co-respondents and charge them with breach of contract and fraud.
The Finkel-Hernandez-Bojado
arbitration offers a fascinating insight into the complicated, and sometimes questionable, finances of big-time boxing. One
network executive likens the case to the masking tape found on the lock of a door at Watergate three decades ago.
The
events that led to the dispute began in early 2000, when Finkel met with Showtime executive vice president Mark Greenberg
and senior vice president Roy Langbord. Senior vice president Jay Larkin and Showtime attorney Ken Hirschman later became
involved. Overall, Finkel had a good relationship with the network. And because of his influence with Mike Tyson, Showtime
wanted to keep Shelly happy to maintain the inside track on Iron Mike. "The idea behind the meetings," one Showtime participant
later recalled, "was to recreate the 1984 Olympians. We wanted Showtime to get a star."
Ultimately, Showtime sent
Finkel shopping with its checkbook at the Sydney Olympics. The original concept was for the network to pay Shelly a set amount
of money to sign certain fighters and deliver a series of fights. Finkel would also designate an approved promoter, who he
would pay out of a predetermined license fee given to him by Showtime to do the nuts and bolts work on the fights. Main Events
and Top Rank were pre-approved as promoters.
The above understanding was reflected in a December 1, 2000, draft contract
between Shelly Finkel Management and Showtime that provided:
(1) Showtime would pay Finkel $2,000,000 to be used as
signing bonuses for management contracts for Rocky Juarez ( $1,400,000) Jeff Lacy ($250,000), Juan Diaz ($150,000), Francisco
Bojado ($100,000), Malik Scott ($50,000), and another fighter to be named later ($50,000).
(2) Finkel would provide
the services of these six fighters to Showtime.
(3) Showtime would pay Finkel an additional $250,000 for expenses
associated with securing the participation of the fighters under the Finkel-Showtime agreement.
(4) Over a four-year
period, Finkel would, as a packager, deliver sixteen shows to Showtime for a total licence fee of $18,950,000. Each of these
telecasts would showcase one or more of the designated fighters and involve at least one "headliner" bout (that is, a fight
featuring "more established, seasoned, and publically recognized fighters" or (when the designated fighters reached that stage)
a world championship bout involving one of them. There would be reductions in the license fees for losses suffered by the
fighters.
Main Events had known that Finkel was working with Showtime and would receive some sort of packaging fee.
It was not aware that the entire contract might run through Finkel and that Main Events could be reduced to the role of a
promoter for hire. That realization came with a crash when Pat English (the attorney for Main Events) saw the December 1st
draft contract, which had been preceded by a half-dozen similar drafts.
Main Events refused to go forward with Finkel
and Showtime within the structure outlined in the December 1st draft. Also, there were concerns that Finkel would be acting
both as manager and de facto promoter for the fighters. That would have constituted a violation of federal law, which states,
"It is unlawful for a manager to have a direct or indirect financial interest in the promotion of a boxer."
Thus,
the December 1, 2000, draft contract was never signed. Instead, Main Events negotiated contracts directly with Bojado, Juarez,
Lacy, and Diaz. Willie Savannah was the primary representative for Diaz (who had been too young to make the Olympic team but
was included in the group). Finkel was the lead negotiator for the other three fighters.
Meanwhile, Main Events was
conducting parallel negotiations with Showtime on a licensing fee deal, but an omnibus contract proved elusive. Thus, the
promoter and network decided to proceed on a show-by-show basis. Bojado, Juarez, and Diaz had their first pro fights on a
January 13, 2001, card featuring a championship match between Zab Judah and Reggie Green. Showtime's license fee for the title
fight was separately negotiated. The license fee paid to Main Events for the three undercard bouts was $600,000.
Finally,
in 2002, a comprehensive contract between Showtime and Main Events was signed. There was no contract between Main Events and
Finkel. The only Main Events contracts were with Showtime and the fighters.
How did Finkel get reimbursed for his
services? He had signed six fighters (Juarez, Bojado, Lacy, Diaz, Scott, and Dominick Guinn) with the "signing bonus" money
he received from Showtime. Ultimately, only the first four of those fighters would be relevant to what followed.
Finkel
was contractually entitled to a twenty percent co-managerial share of Juarez's purses and a ten percent share from Bojado,
Lacy, and Diaz. That money was compensation for guiding their careers and fulfilling a fiduciary duty to them. But instead
of taking his managerial share, Finkel entered into a "packaging fee" deal with Showtime.
There was no reference to
Finkel's packaging fee in the final contract between Showtime and Main Events. Nor does there appear to be any final document
showing a direct contractual relationship between Shelly Finkel Management and Showtime with regard to the packaging fee.
Finkel says that there was never any written contract between Showtime and himself, but rather an oral understanding.
The
bottom line was; each time Juarez, Bojado, Lacy, or Diaz fought on Showtime, the network paid Finkel a packaging fee equal
to twenty-five percent of the licensing fee that it paid to Main Events.
In other words, Bojado received a $10,000
purse for his pro debut on January 13, 2001. Finkel was entitled to ten percent of that purse. And he was also entitled to
a percentage of the purses that Juarez and Diaz earned that night. But he didn't take his managerial share. Instead, he opted
for a "packaging fee" of $150,000. That is, Showtime paid Finkel an amount equal to twenty-five percent of the $600,000 license
fee that it paid to Main Events.
How much did Finkel make pursuant to this packaging fee arrangement?
In a
written answer to interrogatories put to him in his arbitration proceeding against Joe Hernandez, Finkel acknowledged, "Respondent
[Shelly Finkel Management, Inc.] received the following payments from Showtime in connection with boxing cards on which Bojado
was a participant [date of payment precedes the amount listed]:
January 17, 2001 $150,000
May 21, 2001 $150,000
September 4, 2001 $175,000
February 19, 2002 $175,000
October 21, 2002 $200,000
February 3, 2003 $275,000
October 24, 2003 $200,000
Finkel further acknowledged, "Respondent received the following payments from Showtime
in connection with boxing cards on which Bojado was not a participant:
July 12, 2002 $157,500
July 18, 2002 $42,500
July 19, 2003 $200,000
That totals $1,725,000.
According to Finkel's interrogatory answers, he also received
a $15,000 co-managerial fee in conjunction with Bojado's January 24, 2004, fight against Emmanuel Clottey on HBO. And all
of this is in addition to the $2,200,000 that Showtime advanced Finkel to sign the fighters to boxer-manager contracts and
for related "expenses."
Finkel maintains that his conduct was entirely proper. With regard to the current legal arbitration,
he says that Bojado, Hernandez, and Marquez all knew about the packaging fees and that Bojado gave him a waiver of fiduciary
duty with regard to any possible conflict of interest. He concedes that taking a management fee on the fights for which he
received a packaging fee would have been "double-dipping." But he says that no such impropriety occurred (although he acknowledges
that, when it came time to make a deal for Bojado with HBO, he took his percentage as Bojado's co-manager). And he argues,
"If I hadn't taken a packaging fee, the entire amount of that fee would have been retained by Showtime or paid to Main Events.
None of it would have gone to the fighters. There's no merit to any of the claims against me. I got these kids the best deal
that anyone could have gotten them at that time."
There's no doubt that Finkel created a significant opportunity for
the fighters in question. He constructed the parameters of a deal with Showtime and then (before the TV package was finalized)
brought the fighters into the fold. As far as Showtime was concerned, except for Juarez, the boxers were fungible. Lacy was
considered an ordinary fighter. Bojado and Diaz weren't even on the United States Olympic team (Bojado fought under the Mexican
flag). Without Finkel's involvement, it's unlikely that the fighters would have made as much money as they did.
But
(and this is a big "but") according to his interrogatory answers, when Finkel negotiated with Showtime, he represented to
the network that he was Bojado's co-manager. And as a co-manager, he had a fiduciary duty to his fighter.
Jim Thomas
is one of the most respected men in boxing. A partner in a large Atlanta law firm, he represented Evander Holyfield for years
and has counseled numerous other fighters. Thomas declined a request by Finkel to testify as an expert witness on Finkel's
behalf in the current arbitration proceeding.
"Without commenting on the specifics of the case," says Thomas, "I can
give you my view regarding some general principles that should govern situations of this nature. A manager is supposed to
work for the benefit of the fighter at all times. If you're a fighter's representative and have a fiduciary duty to the fighter,
all available money should go to the fighter and then you take your share of that. You don't make your own deal on the side.
You can't properly separate the fighters' financial interests from your own. The key here is fiduciary duty."
Also,
while Finkel says that Bojado, Hernandez, and Marquez all knew about the packaging fees and that Bojado gave him a waiver
of fiduciary duty, he is non-commital on the issue of whether Bojado was advised by legal counsel prior to the waiver and
whether Bojado, Hernandez, and Marquez were advised of the packaging fee arrangement in writing.
Bojado seems like
a nice young man, but one can assume that he's not a world-class economist. Did Finkel sit him down and say, "Francisco; you're
only getting $10,000 for your first fight, so I'll waive my managerial fee. You don't have to pay me anything. I've worked
it out so Showtime will take care of me." Or did he say, "Francisco; you're only getting $10,000 for this fight so, instead
of taking my managerial cut from you and the other fighters, I'll opt for a packaging fee from Showtime that will be $150,000
for this card and ultimately will run well over a million dollars."
Finkel could have avoided this ambiguity by putting
a clause in his managerial contract with Bojado clearly stating that he would receive a packaging fee from Showtime. Shelly
certainly was aware then that he would be getting the fee, but no such clause was included in the contract. Moreover, there's
a public policy issue as to whether a 17-year-old can waive a fiduciary duty that's owed to him.
Then there's Finkel's
contention that, if he hadn't taken a packaging fee, the entire amount of that fee would have been retained by Showtime or
paid to Main Events and that none of it would have filtered down to the fighters. That claim is questionable at best.
Showtime
personnel say that, as a practical matter, they viewed the payments related to this deal as one license fee broken up into
two checks; not as a licensing fee plus a packaging fee. Indeed, the attachments to checks sent to Finkel by Showtime bore
notations such as "license fee" and "add'l lic fee." And while Main Events negotiated the highest license fee that it could
for itself, it was handicapped by the fact that Showtime was holding back a portion of available funds to pay Finkel.
Most
likely, if Finkel's twenty-five percent premium had gone to Main Events, some portion of it would have been added to the fighters'
purses. The contracts that Main Events negotiated with the fighters were based in significant part on the amount of money
that Main Events was receiving from Showtime. One can only begin to imagine Shelly Finkel sitting down at the bargaining table
with representatives of Main Events.
"I'd like more money for my fighters," Shelly might have said.
"We'll
be happy to give your fighters more money," he might have been told. "Put your million-dollar-plus packaging fee on the table,
and we'll divide it equitably between Main Events and the fighters you represent."
The Finkel-Hernandez-Bojado arbitration
is scheduled to begin on August 31st. There's no way to know how it will play out.
Hernandez is asking for enforcement
of his managerial contract with Bojado and the "disgorgement" of all packaging fees paid to Finkel. Bojado, for the moment,
seems more concerned with defending himself against Hernandez than with cross-claiming against Finkel. There are technical
issues in the arbitration that might supercede questions regarding the propriety of Finkel's packaging fee arrangement. And
litigation is capricious. If Finkel wins, it won't necessarily mean that what he did was right. And if he loses, it won't
necessarily mean that his conduct was wrong.
What is clear, however, is that this is another example of the blurred
line between promoters and managers and the role that the television networks play in boxing. It points to the need for full
disclosure to fighters and government authorities regarding license fee payments and related expenditures. And it leads to
questions regarding other issues.
For example, Shelly Finkel is now the person most responsible for Mike Tyson's career.
In recent years, he has functioned as Tyson's de facto manager and (by power of designation) de facto promoter. Yet he is
not required to be licensed in those capacities. Also, as one of the primary creditors in Tyson's bankruptcy proceeding, he
had input into a settlement that envisions keeping Iron Mike in the ring until age forty-one. Finkel says that there has been
no conflict of interest with regard to Tyson. "I was not involved with Mike when he declared bankruptcy," he states. "I resigned
from the creditors committee when I started working again with Mike. I give no financial advice to Mike other than how much
money he can make from a given fight. Other than that, I have nothing to do with Mike's finances or bankruptcy."
The Tangled Web
|
On August 18th, I posted an article on this website entitled
Shelly Finkel's packaging fee. The article outlined the complex contractual relationship between Finkel, Showtime, Main Events,
and a group of young fighters that led to Shelly receiving a "packaging fee" of $1,725,000 from Showtime. This fee was paid
to Finkel in conjunction with appearances by the fighters on Showtime at the same time that Shelly was managing or co-managing
the fighters and thus had a fiduciary duty to them.
The $1,725,000 figure came in part from information provided by
Finkel under oath in an arbitration proceeding brought against him by Joe Hernandez (his co-manager in guiding the career
of Francisco Bojado). In a written response to interrogatories posed in that litigation, Finkel listed ten payments on ten
specific dates. There now appears to have been an eleventh packaging fee payment in the amount of $200,000 for a fight card
that took place on April 27, 2002. That payment raises the packaging fee paid to Finkel by Showtime to $1,925,000.
Finkel's
interrogatory answers also acknowledge that he received an additional $2,200,000 from Showtime as reimbursement for signing
bonuses and expenses. The best available information is that $200,000 of this amount was for reimbursement of expenses incurred
by Finkel in signing the fighters, although a Showtime executive involved with the deal now says that the expenses weren't
fully documented for the network and might have been designed to "give a little something extra to Shelly." Hernandez also
received $50,000 as an expense reimbursement. The remaining $2,000,000 is believed to have been intended by Showtime to fund
signing bonuses for managerial contracts between the fighters and Finkel as follows: Rocky Juarez ($1,400,000), Jeff Lacy
($250,000), Juan Diaz ($150,000), Francisco Bojado ($100,000), Malik Scott ($50,000), and Dominick Guinn ($50,000).
It
now appears that Finkel paid a signing bonus of $150,000 to Jeff Lacy (not $250,000); $100,000 to Juan Diaz (not $150,000);
$75,000 to Francisco Bojado (not $100,000); and $20,000 to Dominick Guinn (not $50,000). The amount of the signing bonuses
paid to Rocky Juarez and Malik Scott is unclear at the present time.
Finkel has said that the numbers quoted above
are incorrect; that the fighters received everything they were entitled to; and that no impropriety occurred. But he refuses
to say what the correct numbers are and, when asked, responds, "Please quote my entire response in your article. All the moneys
received by me from Showtime for the reimbursement of expenses and for signing bonuses of certain fighters, including certain
2000 U.S.Olympic boxers, were disbursed as per the contracts with these fighters and the agreement with Showtime."
So
let's recap what happened here.
Some promoters spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money developing
fighters and then beg for television dates. Showtime gave Finkel $2,200,000 so he could sign fighters to managerial contracts
and cover his expenses. It gave Finkel a series of television dates for his fighters and a $1,925,000 packaging fee.
On top of that, it paid Main Events a substantial licensing fee for the fights. And it did all of this without having a formal
written contract with Finkel. Isn't that strange, even for boxing?
"I know it's unusual that
we gave Shelly $2,200,000 without a signed contract," says a Showtime executive who was involved in the transaction. "But
that's the sort of relationship we had with Shelly."
Meanwhile, a high-ranking HBO executive says, "We learned a lot
about the way Showtime does business when we did Lewis-Tyson two years ago. We got to look behind the curtain, so this doesn't
surprise me."
In the days after 'Shelly Finkel's Packaging Fee' was posted, I received numerous telephone calls offering
information of interest. One caller pointed out that, in addition to his dealings with Showtime, Finkel has also enjoyed a
profitable relationship with HBO.
TVKO was once the pay-per-view arm of HBO. In 1991, it planned on televising a pay-per-view
card each month, with Top Rank and Main Events as the promoters. For about a year, TVKO paid Mike Malitz a consulting fee
on each Top Rank show. Malitz worked for Top Rank and was an expert on the technical side of the pay-per-view business.
At
the time, Finkel was actively involved in the management of a number of fighters who were under contract to Main Events and
appeared on TVKO. Unlike Malitz (who worked for a promoter), Finkel had a fiduciary duty to his fighters. It has now been
confirmed with present and former HBO executives that, each time Main Events promoted a TVKO show during that period, Finkel
received a $25,000 consulting fee from TVKO.
But the most intriguing message received in response to Shelly Finkel's
Packaging Fee consisted of five words: "Follow the money in Louisville."
"What?"
"You heard me. Follow the
money in Louisville. Who paid Danny Williams? How did Williams get paid? How much did he get paid? How was the money divided?"
As most boxing fans know, Finkel has served as an advisor to Mike Tyson for nine fights beginning with Tyson versus
Frans Botha in 1999. When Danny Williams knocked out Iron Mike on July 30th, I watched the fight on television but didn't
pay much attention to the business end of things. Then, on August 20th, an Associated Press report caught my eye.
The
gist of the AP article was that Chris Webb and Straight Out Promotions (Webb's promotional company and the promoter of record
for Tyson-Williams) are suing Frank Warren, Sports Network (Warren's promotional company), and several other entities involved
in Tyson-Williams. Webb claims that he has an interest in the promotion of future Danny Williams fights and is owed money
from the sale of international rights to the July 30th bout.
Warren claims that Webb and Straight Out Promotions failed
to fulfill their financial obligations prior to the fight. He further says that, as a result of this alleged breach of contract,
he maintains exclusive rights to promote Williams's future fights.
I don't know where the equities lie in the dispute
between Webb and Warren. But a sentence in the Associated Press article peaked my interest: "Minutes before the bout, the
(Webb) suit says, a Sports Network official demanded that Straight-Out pay everything immediately -- $125,000 for future promotional
rights, plus $125,000 owed to Sports Network for Williams's participation in the fight and $100,000 for a brokering fee."
A $100,000 "brokering fee" ?
Intrigued, I telephoned Michael Tigue, the attorney for Chris Webb. Tigue seems
like a capable attorney who's getting a crash course in boxing ethics. He told me that Straight Out had a $350,000 contractual
obligation to the Williams camp that was broken down as follows:
(1) $125,000 due to Sports Network for Williams to
participate in the fight;
(2) $125,000 due to Sports Network for an option to co-promote future Williams fights; and
(3) A $100,000 "arrangement fee."
More specifically, Webb's complaint against Warren and Sports Network states,
"Straight Out was to pay Sports Network an arrangement fee of $100,000 upon conclusion of the boxing match by wire transfer
to a United States bank account to be designated by Sports Network."
This is confirmed by a June 24, 2004, letter
agreement signed by Webb and Stephen Heath (the in-house solicitor for Sports Network), which states that the $100,000 "will
be wired to Sports Network or, at its election, deposited in the US account of Sports Network Inc." The letter, which was
written by Heath, adds, "This sum is in addition to the provision of services fee set out in the separate agreement."
Tigue
says that, ultimately, Sports Network demanded that the $350,000 be paid as follows:
(1) $100,000 to Danny Williams
in the form of $50,000 in cash, a $20,000 check, and an Internal Revenue Service certificate guaranteeing that Straight Out
will pay $30,000 in taxes owed by Williams on income he received from the fight.
(2) $150,000 to Sports Network. Warren
says that this $150,000 will be generously shared with Williams.
(3) That leaves the $100,000 arrangement fee. Webb's
complaint states that, on the night of the fight, Sports Network, "demanded that Straight Out issue a check in the amount
of $100,000 made payable to Sterling McPherson of Sterling Productions in full satisfaction of the Arrangement Agreement .
. . Straight Out then issued a check made payable to Sterling McPherson in the amount of $100,000."
Then came another
twist. On August 2nd, Straight Out learned that Warren was disavowing its future promotional rights and stopped payment on
the check.
Frank Warren confirms that he instructed Straight Out to make the $100,000 check payable to McPherson.
"Sterling was my representative," he says. "He told me that the money would have to be paid for Danny Williams to have the
opportunity to fight Mike Tyson. I can't say for certain where the money was to have gone after he received it."
No
suggestion is made here that Frank Warren or any of his companies or anyone else did anything improper. But one does wonder
why it was intended that $100,000 be paid to Sterling McPherson (a small promoter who has served as an American representative
for Sports Network and an interface with the Tyson camp on Tyson-Williams). One also wonders what was supposed to happen to
the $100,000 once McPherson got it.
McPherson's explanation in the first instance was as follows. "Sports Network
called me and asked me to work out something with Shelly Finkel to make the fight. My job was offering Danny Williams to Shelly
and getting him to accept Williams as an opponent. After Shelly accepted the fight, my job was done. Then it was up to Sports
Network to work out their own deal and Danny's purse."
Later, McPherson elaborated upon his remarks, saying that Chris
Webb wanted to substitute Williams for Kevin McBride because Webb thought he could get Williams for less money than McBride
and foreign rights would be more valuable with Williams as the opponent. It's not completely clear who first asked McPherson
to act as a go-between on the fight.
What about the $100,000?
"That's what Sports Network offered me," McPherson
says. "I've heard the talk that the money was going back to Shelly Finkel, but that's untrue. I did a job; I got a check;
and the check bounced. I'm owed $100,000, and all the other stuff means nothing to me. All this talk about a kickback muddies
the waters. I delivered a service to Sports Network. I got Shelly Finkel to accept Danny Williams as an opponent. So now Sports
Network owes me $100,000."
Finkel says that none of the $100,000 "arrangement fee" was intended for him. SecondsOut
is unaware of any evidence that contradicts him on this point. But the arrangement fee is illustrative of the strange manner
in which large sums of money are distributed and redistributed in boxing. And given Finkel's packaging fee arrangement with
Showtime, one can be forgiven for asking questions regarding his overall relationship with Tyson.
One person who has
asked questions is Dan Goossen. Goossen was the CEO at America Presents when the now-defunct promotional company crafted a
six-fight deal to become Mike Tyson's promoter of record. The first two fights pursuant to that contract were Tyson versus
Frans Botha and Tyson against Orlin Norris.
"We were the promoter of record," says Goossen. "But virtually all of
the negotiations ran through Finkel. Finkel was in control. It was Finkel who made most of the deals with the venues and suppliers
and on foreign rights, and he kept most of the paperwork on those deals away from us. I never saw most of those contracts,"
Goossen continues. "That's one of the reasons I decided after Tyson-Norris to distance myself from future Tyson fights. I
didn't have an understanding of what was going on behind-the-scenes. That made me uncomfortable, and I didn't feel it was
in the best interests of Mike or myself for me to stay actively involved."
Goossen did not attend Tyson versus Julius
Francis in London or Tyson against Lou Savarese in Scotland. In his words, he "boycotted" those bouts. He was at Tyson-Golota
in Michigan, but not as the promoter of record. By the time Tyson fought Brian Nielsen in Denmark, Goossen had left America
Presents.
"It would be interesting," says Goossen, "if the Tyson-Finkel relationship were to be audited as aggressively
as the relationship between Tyson and Don King."
Stephen Espinoza (who has served as Tyson's attorney) says that there
was an extensive audit of Tyson's finances by the trustee in bankruptcy in Tyson's bankruptcy proceeding and that this audit
satisfied the creditors committee in the proceeding. Of course, Finkel was on the creditors committee from its formation on
August 22, 2003, through his resignation on May 4, 2004.
Finkel says that he produced thousands of pages of documents
from his files in the bankruptcy proceeding and that his deposition was taken for several hours. The transcript of his deposition
has been sealed and is not available to the public. But given its brevity, one might assume that it dealt mostly with Finkel's
claims as a creditor; not with a thorough study of each and every deal he made regarding the nine fights on which he served
Tyson as an advisor. Also, one wonders how much the attorney who took the deposition knew about the intricacies of the business
of boxing.
Finkel vigorously defends his conduct as Tyson's advisor. "Every day of my life since I've been involved
with Mike, people have taken shots at me," he says. "I've been accused of all sorts of things, and the accusations are totally
false."
Why does Finkel stay with Tyson given the headaches involved?
"One, I enjoy it. Two, it gives me a
lot of strength in the business. Three, Mike winning the heavyweight title back under me would be an incredible thrill. And
four, I like Mike. I like him a lot and I care about him a lot."
What about the financial rewards?
"My present
contract with Mike began with the Williams fight," Finkel answers. "It calls for me to receive a small percentage of what
Mike gets on each fight. For the fights before that when I was with Mike, I got a flat fee on each fight. Beyond that fee,
I got nothing, zero, from anyone in any way, shape, or manner or in any capacity in connection with Mike. And I took less
from Mike than I was entitled to because Mike needed money. That's why I'm a creditor."
"I know who I am," Finkel
says, summing up. "I do what I feel is right. I live with myself. I sleep well at night. I know that I've done nothing wrong."
Finkel also requested that SecondsOut submit any questions it might have concerning his involvement with Tyson to
him in writing. He says he will then answer those questions.
SecondsOut will submit a list of questions to Finkel
later this month and post them along with written answers that we receive from Finkel on this website.
It's possible
that Shelly Finkel has been a model of financial propriety in his dealings with Mike Tyson. But the truth is, it's easier
to cross ethical boundaries in the business of boxing than in any other sport. The way the business works and the culture
that has taken root afford ample opportunity for misconduct.
And more significantly, the tangled web of contractual
relationships involving Finkel, Showtime, and others demonstrates the inadequate nature of current (and proposed) regulations
for the governance of professional boxing. Whether there is wrongdoing or not, fighters will always be at risk of exploitation
unless ironclad mechanisms are put in place to allow all participants and government regulators to follow every dollar generated
by every fight. | |
