Pacquiao reportedly sued by Paradigm Sports for breach of contract

Published June 27, 2021, 3:15 PM

by Carlo Anolin

Manny Pacquiao is now in hot water after Paradigm Sports Management reportedly sued him for breach of contract.

Manny Pacquiao (Top Rank)

Lance Pugmire of The Athletic reported that Audie Attar, CEO of Paradigm, has filed the lawsuit against the fighting senator “seeking to recoup a $3.3 million advance and requesting an injunction” to stop his scheduled fight against unified WBC and IBF welterweight champion Errol Spence Jr. on Aug. 21 in Las Vegas, Nevada.

READ: Manny Pacquiao wants 70,000-seater Allegiant Stadium for comeback fight vs Errol Spence

Per the report, Attar claimed in the lawsuit filed in Orange County, California that he was negotiating for the eight-division world boxing champion to face American welterweight contender Mikey Garcia.

The lawsuit, however, stated that Sean Gibbons, the president of Manny Pacquiao Promotions, and Winchell Campos, “veered Pacquiao back to powerful boxing manager Al Haymon’s Premier Boxing Champions” which paved the way for the Spence bout at T-Mobile Arena.

READ: Sean Gibbons: Pacquiao out to prove why he’s 8-division world boxing champ

“In addition to the millions of dollars in straightforward economic loss that Paradigm stands to suffer, the damage to its reputation resulting from Pacquiao’s breaches is incalculable,” wrote Paradigm attorney Judd Burstein in the lawsuit. “Just when Paradigm was at the cusp of establishing itself as a major player in professional boxing, Pacquiao has left its reputation as a boxing representative in tatters.”

The lawsuit also claims that Pacquiao, 42, “was never in obligation to fight again for PBC (Premier Boxing Champions) unless the opponent was Floyd Mayweather Jr.” The two clashed during the “Fight of the Century” in May 2015 where Mayweather emerged as the winner by unanimous decision.

According to the claims, Pacquiao and Paradigm joined forces in February 2020 and “originally pursued a four-fight deal with DAZN” with Garcia serving as his first opponent as part of “a two-fight appearance in Saudi Arabia.”

It also alleges that the Pacquiao-Spence announcement on May 27 “came just hours after Paradigm believed Pacquiao would sign to fight Mikey Garcia, resulting in Garcia ending his brief union with Paradigm, as well.”

READ: Mikey Garcia: If not Manny, I’ll find someone else

“Pacquiao’s breaches of the agreement therefore entitle Paradigm to monetary damages (and) costs associated with this proceeding, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees and … injunctive relief,” wrote Burstein.

Aside from the issue surrounding the Pacquiao-Spence mega-bout, Attar is reportedly planning to pursue a boxing match for Pacquiao against UFC star Conor McGregor but was taken out of the picture due to the Irish fighter’s loss to Dustin Poirier last January.

It would be recalled that Paradigm issued a statement last February, warning the public of “false rumors” linked to Pacquiao’s future plans with some “shady characters” involved who allegedly spread certain claims without the authority of the management and the Filipino icon himself.

At that time, there was a huge question mark on who’s going to be Pacquiao’s next opponent with WBC interim lightweight champion Ryan Garcia as one of the frontrunners.

In response, Pacquiao’s attorney Dale Kinsella said in a statement that the filed complaint by Paradigm “is a frivolous effort to interfere with Manny Pacquiao’s upcoming mega-fight, and it can and will fail for numerous reasons.”

“Moreover, had Manny Pacquiao known that Paradigm Sports appears to have had no intention of fulfilling its contractual obligations, he never would have entered into any relationship with them. Should this matter actually proceed beyond Friday’s filing in a court of law, Mr. Pacquiao will vigorously defend this action, assert his own claims against Paradigm Sports, and seek to recover his attorney’s fees as well,” Kinsella furthered.

READ: Pacquiao responds to Mayweather: ‘Hindi ako pera pera lang’