Why the Brewing Scandal Involving the St. Louis Rams? Defensive Coordinator Would be a Non-Starter in Professional Boxing
Just a week or two ago, it was professional boxing?s turn again to come under international scrutiny following Dereck (Del Boy) Chisora?s antics both before and after his WBC Heavyweight Title bout with Vitali Klitschko. This week, however, it was the NFL taking the heat following the revelation that Gregg Williams, the new defensive coordinator for the St. Louis Rams, instituted a ?bounty program? while in the employ of the Washington Redskins, the New Orleans Saints, and possibly others which involved financially rewarding defensive players for particularly damaging defensive plays. While the fall-out from the Williams scandal will inevitably lead to certain reforms being instituted within the NFL, such rewards are routine in professional boxing. Indeed, it is not unusual to see a promotional agreement which provides for additional compensation in the event that the boxer scores a knockout in a given bout. In two sports with rich histories of brutality, why is one under a potentially policy changing assault while the other continues on unscathed with its own bounty programs?
A short answer is the respective objectives of each sport. The objective of professional boxing is to either outbox your opponent or render him unconscious, both of which require the intentional striking and hurting of one?s opponent. Professional football?s primary objective is to defeat the other team by scoring more points via touchdowns, field goals, and/or touch backs. The distinctively different end goals are made plain by two lawsuits that helped define the potential liability faced by participants in each. In Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., a lawsuit that arose when a defensive player seriously injured the plaintiff with a right forearm to his head and neck while the plaintiff was kneeling following an interception, it was ultimately determined that because the rules and general customs of football expressly prohibit the intentional striking of a player in the face or from behind, they were intended to curb the intentional infliction of serious injury upon one?s opponent. Thus, a professional football player can sue for damages under tort law. Contrarily, in Hudson v. Croft, a 1949 lawsuit stemming from an illegal boxing match, it was held that consent can be used as a defense to the intentional infliction of harm to someone. What the Hudson decision essentially means is that since boxers compete with one another with the express purpose of either out-boxing each other or knocking each other out, they are effectively consenting to the intentional infliction of harm to themselves. Boxers are thus generally barred from suing one another for damages. Looking at Hackbart and Hudson together, it is apparent that the decisions in each turned on the differing objectives of the sports in question. The plaintiff in Hackbart was a professional football player who was not deemed to have consented to the intentional infliction of serious injury upon himself simply by stepping on the football field since it was outside the general parameters of his chosen sport, while the plaintiff in Hudson was adjudged to have done just that by stepping into a boxing ring.
In sum, Gregg Williams need not worry if he is ultimately exiled from the NFL for instituting bounty programs within the NFL teams that he worked for. Boxing can always use another promoter with some name recognition and a knack for unleashing the beast in his fighters. Williams can rest assured that he will not run into any similar opposition from boxing?s powers-that-be if he does so by paying the boxers a little more on top of their purses for some extra aggression.
***
Excessive Celebration a ?Problem? for Both Boxing and Professional Football: Now that we have discussed the major difference between boxing and football, how about a quick discussion on a similarity that can be costly to participants in both sports: excessive celebration. In the NFL, the penalty for excessive celebration in the end zone after a touchdown is clear: the charging of yardage against the celebrant?s team when it kicks off to its opposing team. In boxing, it depends how the celebrating is done and/or whether it is done in a neutral corner so that the referee can begin his count in a timely manner. Surging super-featherweight contender Adrien (The Problem) Broner, for example, was not penalized for his colorful celebration in the ring when he knocked out Eloy Perez for the WBO Super Featherweight Title in late February. However, countless boxers dating back to Jack Dempsey have hazarded losing their knockout victories over long counts occasioned by their desire to defy the referee and stand over their opponent for a moment to run their mouth or otherwise by parading around the ring to everywhere but a neutral corner in celebration of their anticipated victory. A long count is not a penalty per se, but it certainly can be a deterrent to those wanting to make sure their opponents gets no more than 10 seconds to regain their footing. The lesson here: Both football players and boxers need to keep in mind at all times the famous quote of Yogi Berra of a third sport with a rich history in the United States, baseball, and remember that ?[i]t ain?t over till it?s over.? Curb your celebrations accordingly.
Yuriorkis No-Showa: It was widely reported this week that former featherweight and Olympic champion Yuriorkis Gamboa was a no-show at two press conferences this week concerning his scheduled bout with former lightweight champion Brandon Rios. A question that may have come to mind for some is whether Gamboa can face any backlash from his promoter, Top Rank, or HBO for his failure to participate in the pre-fight hype, so long as he shows up on fight night (which is an open question at present). The answer: probably. Most promotional agreements and bout contracts contain provisions that compel the boxer to participate in the promotion of their fights, which includes press conferences like the two Gamboa stepped out on this week. Given the magnitude of his upcoming fight, a high profile and potentially explosive bout between two of the most exciting boxers in the sport today, Top Rank could quite fairly deem Gamboa?s failures to appear as material breaches of his promotional agreement and terminate him if their agreement so provides.
And Speaking of Material Breaches of a Boxing Contract: It might have been amusing back in the 1980s when the WWF tag team the Killer Bees donned masks for several months so that they can roll under the ring and trade places with each other in order to wreak havoc on an unsuspecting heel. Not quite as funny, given the multitude of potential legal, contractual, and regulatory implications that arise from same, was the bout between featherweight contender Rey (Boom Boom) Bautista and the wrong Genaro Garcia on March 3, 2012. Bautista was supposed to fight long-time contender Genaro (Poblanito) Garcia, but instead wound up facing a heavier, journeyman contender of the same name, but of a different nickname, Genaro (Panterita) Garcia. Initial reports indicate that the promoter of Bautista?s fight intends to sue the agent who sent the wrong Genaro Garcia into the ring, while the WBC announced its intention to launch a full investigation. Standing 8 Court is personally curious to see which, if either, Genaro Garcia actually signed the bout agreement and whether one of them signed it with full awareness of who was expected to be there versus who actually was there. To put it another way, were the two Genaros doing their own take on the Killer Bees? old bait and switch, or were they truly ignorant as to what went wrong until the weigh-in?
Paul Stuart Haberman, Esq. is a New York-based health and sports law attorney. He is also a New York State licensed boxing manager and the Chairman of the Sports Law Committee of the New York County Lawyers Association. Paul can be e-mailed at [email protected]. He can also be followed on Twitter at @Standing8Court.
