Mike Tyson’s comeback sparked a storm of legal battles as his representatives respond to $1.5 million lawsuit for alleged breach of contract

Mike Tyson’s return to the boxing ring ended in defeat but also sparked a storm of legal battles and controversies. On November 15, the former heavyweight champion faced YouTuber-turned-boxer Jake Paul in an eight-round special-rules bout at Cowboys Stadium.

Despite being 57 years old and far removed from his prime, Tyson took on the 27-year-old social media star in a highly publicized showdown that headlined the MVP-Netflix card.

The event was a commercial success, reportedly breaking records for gate revenue and viewership. However, it also became a lightning rod for criticism and legal disputes.

Questions about the fight’s legitimacy and accusations of unfair play circulated online. In the aftermath, Tyson found himself embroiled in a $1.5 million (£1.25 million) lawsuit filed by Medier, a United Kingdom-based promotional partner for the online sports betting platform Rabona.
Medier’s lawsuit

The lawsuit, filed in London’s High Court, accuses Mike Tyson and his promotional company, Tyrannic, of breaching a promotional agreement.

According to Medier, Tyson unlawfully terminated the contract on the same day his fight with Jake Paul was announced. The company claims Tyson pulled out of the deal to prioritize his commitment to the Netflix-sponsored Paul fight, causing Medier to incur financial losses amounting to approximately $1.59 million (1.5 million).

“The true reason for Mr. Tyson and Tyrannic’s hasty and unlawful termination was because Mr. Tyson had agreed [to] a deal, sponsored by Netflix, to fight the influencer Jake Paul,” Medier’s legal counsel stated.

The suit alleges that Tyson prioritized a lucrative opportunity with Netflix, thereby violating the terms of his pre-existing agreement with Medier.

Tyson’s legal team has not yet filed a formal defense in court, but they have refuted the allegations. In a statement, Tyson’s representatives claimed that Medier had “materially breached the terms of its license agreement on multiple occasions and in various ways.”