10.08.04 – Promoter Art Pelullo and Banner Promotions won their appeal of a District Court’s ruling in a promotional contract dispute with super middleweight contender Antwun Echols. The ruling was made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In Echols’ complaint, he alleged that his promotional agreement with Banner Promotions was unenforcable for “indefiniteness.”
Attorneys George Bochetto of Philadelphia and Harry Marquis of Las Vegas represented Banner in the appelate court. Mr. Bochetto, who had previously served as Chairman of the Pennsylvania Commission for seven years, said, “I don’t want to overstate it, but it’s close to a landmark decision in boxing. We were thrilled that we prevailed.
“The central issue that the court addressed was whether a clause or a series of clauses in a promotional agreement was enforceable as a matter of law. The court said, ‘Yes, it is.’
“And that clause is as follows: Many, many promotional agreements in effect today with boxers are normally for terms for between three years and five years, and they say, for example, ‘If you fight on ESPN, we’ll give you a minimum of X-amount of dollars. If you fight on HBO, we’ll give you a minimum of X-amount of dollars,’ and so on and so forth. Various minimums, and different minimums depending on how many rounds they fight. These contracts also provide that if the boxer loses a boxing match, that the promoter then has the right to renegotiate the minimums, because the boxer might not be as marketable or able to garner the kinds of prices that he would have garnered had he won.
“Antwun Echols filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court here in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, challenging that provision, saying that because it meant that the prices and payments that he was to get could change and change at the disgression of the promoter, that the contract was void for lack of definiteness. The District Court entered a ruling in his favor and wrote a whole long opinion as to why.
“Because the District Court ruled the way it did, had the Circuit Court agreed with it, it would have invalidated probably half the promotional agreements that are out there.
“We then took the appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that also sits in Philadelphia. We went through extensive briefing and depositions, and after considering everything, the Court wrote an 18-page opinion on why the District Court was wrong, why we were right, and why this contract and those kinds of renegotiation provisions are enforceable as a matter of law.
“This is the opinion of the Third Circuit United States Court of Appeals. And because it’s by the Court of Appeals, it’s probably the highest court in the country to ever rule on this crucial issue, which affects not just Banner’s case, but has a very broad base effect on all of boxing.”
Art Pelullo said today, “This a major victory for all promoters.
“The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that my contract is not invalid and exclusivity still exists. Echols claimed that because there’s a paragraph in my contract that says, ‘If you lose a fight, all purses are subject to renegotiation,’ that it wasn’t an exclusive contract, that it was being dealt with on an individual basis.
“The Court of Appeals overturned the Circuit Court judge and ruled in my favor that it is an exclusive contract. It helps every promoter that has in their contract that all purses are subject to renegotiation if a boxer loses a bout.
“The judges said that this is a ‘precedential’ opinion, and can be used in other cases.”