Ernie Shavers was scheduled to fight Muhammad Ali on 9/29/77. Both Madison Square Garden and Top Rank, Inc. each claimed to have a promotional contract with Shavers in which they wanted to promote the event.
In this case the court had the ability to make the ultimate decision yet chose to not get involved with the decision of the Association of Boxing Commissions. It can be noted that the creditability of each of the parties factored into the courts conclusions.
1) The court was unwilling to disturb the finding of the boxing commission --
although it acknowledged that it had the authority to do so. This deference to the
expertise of a lower, non-judicial authority is a recurrent theme in the text and sports
jurisprudence generally. See Chapters 3, 13, 14, 15, and 16.
2) The parties' credibility had a great deal to do with the court's ultimate conclusions.
Here, students should be reminded of the idiosyncracies of the industry involved and how
they may form the predilections and inform the judgment of adjudicating bodies. The
public's perception is that the boxing business has not been peopled by persons of
unimpeachable character and integrity. Doubtless, as reputations are formed, and
reinforced by the decisionmakers' observations of testimony, the outcome of a case can be
dramatically affected.
3) Footnote 11, referred to in N&Q 5, seems to have far-ranging consequences,
suggesting not only that negative covenants can be implied and inferred from the fact of
an athlete's unique talents, but also that professional athletes are unique per se. In N&Q
