Home / Arts and Entertainment / Tyson's £1.5M Pigeon Video Lawsuit
Tyson's £1.5M Pigeon Video Lawsuit
14 Oct
Summary
- Tyson faces £1.5M lawsuit over cancelled marketing campaign.
- Promotional video featured a giant talking pigeon.
- Tyson's team claims demands exceeded the contract.
Mike Tyson is currently involved in a £1.5 million High Court legal battle in London. The lawsuit stems from allegations that the former heavyweight boxing champion unlawfully withdrew from a lucrative marketing campaign. The dispute involves an online gambling brand, Rabona, and its parent company, Medier Ltd, which is suing Tyson and his business, Tyrannic.
Medier Ltd claims that Tyson and Tyrannic breached a sponsorship agreement signed in January 2024. The contract reportedly stipulated a $2 million fee for Tyson's promotion of Rabona's gaming services. Nearly $190,000 was paid before the relationship soured.
The core of the disagreement is a proposed promotional video titled 'Talking Pigeons'. Tyson's legal team asserts that this concept, which included interacting with presenters and a giant pigeon costume, significantly exceeded the contractual obligations. They argue the demands were unreasonable and outside the scope of the agreement.
Tyson's defence contends that the contracted activities were limited to playing casino games on Rabona's website, subject to approval. They maintain that the 'Talking Pigeons' concept was fundamentally different from what was agreed upon. Therefore, Tyson and Tyrannic were not in breach by withdrawing.
Medier's legal team also suggested that Tyson's withdrawal might have been influenced by a more lucrative deal to fight YouTuber-turned-boxer Jake Paul, a Netflix-backed exhibition bout. They argued that fulfilling the sponsorship obligations became inconvenient, especially with potential conflicts with the Jake Paul fight contract.
Further complicating the matter was Tyson's scheduled appearance at a gambling conference in Amsterdam from July 16 to 19, 2024, which also preceded the Jake Paul fight. Medier's barrister suggested this appearance could have conflicted with restrictions under the Netflix agreement. The High Court is currently hearing the case, with no findings of liability yet made.