BackMike Tyson is known for his love of pigeons almost as much as he’s known for biting a chunk out of Evander Holyfield’s ear. So marketers must have thought they were on to something when they pitched an advertising campaign to Tyson that involved a giant pigeon and a dummy bearing the face of Holyfield.
14h ago
Though a sponsorship deal had previously been signed, it’s now being alleged that Tyson didn’t follow through with the finer details. The subsequent breakdown could cost the 60-year-old £1.5 million ($2 million).
Tyson is being sued alongside his promotional company, Tyrannic, by Medier Ltd, the operator of online gambling platform Rabona, following the collapse of that 2024 sponsorship agreement.
The former world heavyweight champion's representatives argue that the proposed commercial went considerably beyond what the boxer had agreed to do.
The advertisement, part of a campaign entitled "Talking Pigeons", would have required Tyson, among other things, to interact with someone dressed as a giant pigeon and showcase his boxing skills on a dummy that bore the likeness of Holyfield.
According to Tyson's legal team, the contract covered appearances in which he would play casino games or participate in other approved activities connected to the gambling website. They contend that the proposed commercial was outside those terms.
Medier sees things differently, suggesting that Tyson “simply lost interest” after the opportunity arose to face Jake Paul in 2024.
Among the disputed commitments was an appearance at a gambling industry conference in Amsterdam between July 16 and 19, 2024.
Tyson was originally set to clash with Paul on July 20, only for the fight to be postponed until November. He would lose on points after eight rounds while pocketing a reported $20 million.
The sponsorship agreement was reportedly worth $2 million, payable in instalments to Tyrannic. Tyson's company had received almost $190,000 before the relationship ended.
Both sides accuse the other of breaching the contract, with Tyson's defence maintaining that Medier was responsible for the initial breach.