_2020_10_28_175832.jpg)
Dines & English, the lawyers for former undisputed cruiserweight champion Oleksandr Usyk, have issued a legal to enforce the boxer’s mandatory shot at the WBO heavyweight title, which is currently held by Anthony Joshua.
Usyk became the mandatory challenger in 2019, after vacating all four of his cruiserweight titles and making an official move to the heavyweight limit.
Joshua, who also holds the IBF, WBA and IBO titles, was hoping to fight WBC champion Tyson Fury in a full division unification on August 14 in Saudi Arabia.
That fight suffered a big blow on Monday, when an arbitrator ruled that Fury must honor a contractual clause to face Deontay Wilder in a trilogy fight – with the third encounter ordered to take place by September.
Usyk was negotiating a possible fight with WBO number two ranked Joe Joyce. The winner of their fight would have been awarded the WBO’s interim-title.
The fight with Joyce was never finalized as both sides were unable to reach a deal on the financial terms.
On Tuesday, Usyk’s legal team sent letters to the WBO, Team Fury, Top Rank, Eddie Hearn and Team Wilder – advising all parties that Usyk is demanding his mandatory shot or potential litigation will erupt.
A copy of the letter can be found below:
Please be advised that we have been retained to represent Oleksandr Usyk, along with my colleague John Hornewer. This office will handle litigation should the need arise. Unfortunately it appears more and more likely we are heading in that direction by the day.
Mr. Usyk has been the mandatory WBO contender since June of 2019, approaching two full years. The last WBO mandatory was in September 2018 . Yet Mssrs. Fury, Joshua, Wilder (perhaps) and those associated with them along with the WBO are simply ignoring Mr. Usyk’s rights.
Mr. Fury and Mr. Wilder have been in arbitration for a very extended period. The arbitrator has now ruled, granting injunctive relief and requiring that the Fury side honor a contractual commitment to Wilder. While the Fury side professes surprise at this, the result follows the principles laid down in in a case I was intimately involved in, to wit Lewis v. Rachman, 147 F. Supp. 2nd 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) so it should be no surprise. Now we read that the Fury side is attempting to “buy off “ Wilder, a result which in our view would be a slap in the face to the Arbitrator who found there to be irrepairable harm.
There are things we know about the evidence and things we do not. We believe that the contract which was upheld by the Arbitrator did not require that the WBO belt be at stake. This takes us directly to the rights of Mr. Usyk.
You cannot have a mandatory lay fallow for years on end. We refer you to a seminal case, Duva v. WBA 548 F.Supp 710 (D.N.J. 1982), a case which I handled at the Circuit Court level and which changed the playing field entirely with respect to the mandatory rights of Boxers. Wrote the Honorable Herb Stern:
There is no question that a professional boxer like Ayala is entitled to rely on his ranking and on the benefits that go with it under the WBA Regulations. Nothing can obscure the fact that Ayala’s position as the third-ranked fighter in his weight class was earned only after a grueling struggle. No court can be oblivious to the kind of day in and day out punishment to which boxers subject themselves in order to become champions. Demonstrating the most demanding kind of physical discipline, they literally pound away, at great physical danger, in a single-minded effort to move up in the rankings. The WBA’s ranking of plaintiff as the Number Three contender is its recognition of his dedication and success in advancing within the ranks. In the truest sense, Ayala has earned his ranking by sweat and blood.
Regulation 6 of the WBA Regulations is a means of guaranteeing that the ranking that a fighter has struggled to achieve means something. Regulation 6 is the WBA’s commitment to the athletes it oversees that the road to the top will be fair; that, under the circumstances under which Moore holds his title, mandatory title defenses will go to fighters in the order in which they are ranked. This reading of Regulation 6 can come as no surprise to anyone, and least of all to the WBA. The preamble to its Regulations dedicates itself to ensuring that “all those boxers” who “by *719 their contributions of time, effort, risk and resources sustain the profession in existence” have the benefit of a “firm, intelligent and objectively administered control of the World Championships of boxing.” Regulations, Preamble, ¶¶ 3, 4.
The language of Regulation 6 is clear and unambiguous: it means that plaintiff Ayala should be able to rely on the fact that as the third-ranked contender, two and only two men now stand between him and his turn for the title. This Court has no doubt that Ayala has a protectible property interest, as created by the WBA in Regulation 6, in having the opportunity to fight for the championship before any lower-ranked boxer.[1]
Judge Stern focused on the rights of boxers to their rankings and the rights which come with those rankings. Just as Ayala earned his ranking by “sweat and blood”, so too has Oleksandr Usyk.
We also refer to Schultz v. Botha, IBF, et. al. 105 F3rd 127 (1997). This case involved the rights of a mandatory contender where a Champion has taken steroids in the prior bout. That case held that there was a common law right through the law of private associations for Fighters to be treated fairly by ranking organizations.[2]
As a result of these two cases numerous fighters got their title opportunities when Courts (or arbitrators) upheld their rights including Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, Michael Moorer and many others.
This brings us to the WBO’s enforcement of its mandatory. Through numerous letters and emails my colleague John Hornewer has been attempting to get Mr. Usyk’s mandatory rights observed. I was told by the WBO President that if a binding contract for a Fury / Joshua bout was not produced by the end of last week (Thursday), the WBO would Order the Joshua Fury mandatory. We did not write this letter prior because we never expected there to be a binding contract so its existence was relevant only in the sense that when not produced the threat of litigation would be moot. However, it is apparently not moot as clearly no binding contract exists and as yet the WBO has not directed the Joshua / Usyk mandatory.[3]
We do not care if Mr. Fury fights Anthony Joshua[4]. We do not care if he fights Deontay Wilder. We do care if either fight impairs in any way the right of Oleksandr Usyk to the next WBO title bout.
We therefore demand that the WBO respect the rights of Oleksandr Usyk and immediately direct Joshua to fulfill his mandatory obligation or to give up the title. We demand that the promoters and managers of Mr. Fury, Mr. Joshua, and Mr. Wilder cease immediately in any actions which could further delay Mr. Usyk’s mandatory title opportunity.
This letter shall also serve as a “retention letter” directed to all recipients and their clients. This requires that all documents in whatever form (included but not limited to both paper and electronic formats relating in any way to a Joshua / Wilder bout, a Joshua / Usyk bout, a Fury/Wilder bout, communications with any person or entity ( including but not limited to WBO Officials regarding same), and relating to the designation of Mr. Usyk as mandatory not be altered erased or otherwise destroyed for use should there be litigation.
To the extent that the recipients of this document represent Mr. Fury, Mr. Joshua, and Mr. Wilder I ask that the contents be conveyed to them
All of Mr. Usyk’s rights and arguments are reserved.
Kindly be guided accordingly.
Very truly yours,
DINES AND ENGLISH, L.L.C.