Mike Tyson and his wife have been accused of making “mountains out of molehills” when they refused to have the boxer interviewed by a giant talking pigeon to promote a gambling brand, the High Court has been told. Gambling promoter Medier is suing Tyson and his sponsorship company Tyrannic for around £1.5 million, saying he breached a sponsorship agreement with them in order to attend a fight with YouTuber Jake Paul.
Alleged breach of sponsorship agreement
Tyson, the former undisputed heavyweight boxing champion of the world, is said to have cancelled an agreed appearance at a conference in Amsterdam in order to fight Paul on July 20 2024. The Jake Paul fight in Texas was due to be livestreamed on Netflix but was rescheduled to November 2024 when Tyson became seriously ill.
Lawyers for Tyson deny the cancellation was related to the Jake Paul fight, and say disagreements arose when Tyson was given a script for a “goofy” livestream where he would be interviewed by a talking pigeon. Medier, a Cyprus-based company which promotes and manages online gambling brand Rabona, say they paid Tyson $833,334 (£633,827) for the sponsorship which was organised through Tyson’s sponsorship company Tyrannic, run by his wife Lakiha Tyson.
Court arguments over 'Talking Pigeon' livestream
In closing submissions, Ali Reza Sinai, representing Medier, said Tyson and Tyrannic created “mountains out of molehills” to get out of the contract because they signed the more lucrative deal with Netflix. He said Tyrannic did not want Tyson to appear on the “Talking Pigeon” livestream because he would be asked questions about the Jake Paul fight.
Mr Sinai said whatever Tyrannic’s view was of the “appropriateness” of the script for the Talking Pigeons show, they had a duty to respond and try to improve it, saying: “If it’s corny it can be edited”. Mr Sinai said Medier had put out a photo on social media which suggested Tyson would be fighting two pigeons and Tyrannic did not raise objections.
He said the idea of “trash talking with pigeons” suited Tyson’s brand “because he is an unpredictable person and people like watching him because of what he brings to the conversation: it’s not like watching stars at night”. He said Mrs Tyson was “perfectly charming” in court but had “moulded” her evidence to fit her case, saying she had not been “deliberately dishonest” but her evidence was “combative and argumentative”.
Defence and trial conclusion
Amanda Hadkiss, representing Tyson and Tyrannic, said in her closing submissions that witnesses including Mrs Tyson had flown from the US to attend the trial but only one witness from Medier gave evidence and they were not in a senior role. She said: “It would be expected where a company is making a seven figure claim for financial losses that company be expected to offer up a director or senior management to support that claim.”
Ms Hadkiss said Medier only had the right to use Tyson’s likeness in certain countries but they failed to be able to “georestrict” the livestream to make it unavailable in other countries. She said use of Tyson’s brand in countries where Rabona was not licensed for gambling could have serious consequences for Tyson.
Ms Hadkiss said Tyson has a “brand to protect” which meant all contracts he entered into had strict requirements for Tyrannic to approve all materials featuring his name and likeness. She said being interviewed by a talking pigeon was a “ridiculous proposal that would cause any company responsible for managing Tyson’s brand to stop in its tracks”.
The trial before Mr Justice Richards is expected to conclude on Thursday with a decision expected at a later date.
