Mike Tyson’s wife told the High Court that the boxing icon abandoned a £1.5 million advertising deal because it would have been “ridiculous” for him to appear on screen speaking to a giant pigeon shortly before his fight with Jake Paul.
The former heavyweight champion, 60, is being sued in London by Medier Ltd, the promoters behind online gaming brand Rabona.
Medier alleges that Tyson and his company, Tyrannic LLC, breached a sponsorship agreement signed in January 2024. The business is controlled by Tyson’s wife, Lakiha Tyson.
According to the claim, Tyson unlawfully withdrew from the campaign after agreeing to face YouTube personality-turned-boxer Jake Paul in a £15 million exhibition bout.
The planned advertisement would have featured Tyson being interviewed by a performer in a giant pigeon costume before he taught the talking bird how to box.
Lawyers for Medier argue that Tyson and Tyrannic “simply lost interest” in the project once the more lucrative exhibition fight had been secured.
Tyson and Tyrannic deny breaking the agreement. Instead, they claim Medier breached the deal first by insisting that the boxer appear in an online entertainment programme called Talking Pigeons, which they described as “ridiculous”.
Mike Tyson and his wife Lakiha Spicer are being sued for £1.5 million over his withdrawal from an advertising campaign
Tyson was ultimately beaten by Paul, then 27, in the globally streamed bout, which was shown on Netflix. He later said he had “no regrets” about returning to the ring for one final fight.
The court heard that the Netflix fight was initially scheduled for July 20, 2024, but was postponed until November.
The proposed Rabona programme would have required Tyson to deliver scripted lines alongside four presenters, including one dressed as a pigeon. He was also expected to share stories from his childhood and teach the presenters to box using a mannequin bearing the face of his former rival, Evander Holyfield.
Tyson’s lawyers say the live-stream “performance” went “far beyond the scope” of the contract. They maintain that the agreement only required him to be filmed playing casino games, or other games approved by the company, on its website.
While Mrs Tyson was giving evidence, Medier barrister Ali Reza Sinai told the court that the programme had to be understood in the context of “artistic creation”.
He said: “If you do a show, you want it to be popular. You don’t want people to say, ‘Oh, Mr Tyson is such a boring person online.’”
He added: “It would not have been possible for Mr Tyson to be in Amsterdam without breaching his Netflix agreement.”
“The defendants simply lost interest in the service agreement once the more rewarding exhibition fight was firmly agreed.”
Amanda Hadkiss, representing Tyson and Tyrannic, rejected that account. She previously told the court that the role demanded of Tyson during the live-stream event went “far beyond the scope of what might reasonably be considered to have even been required” under Tyrannic’s obligations.
“Medier was requiring Mr Tyson to participate in an entertainment show format named ‘Talking Pigeons’,” she said.
“The show was to involve four other — unspecified — presenters. One of them was to be dressed as a giant pigeon.”
She said the format involved a scripted role-play performance in which Tyson would deliver prepared lines and interact with the presenters and the pigeon after being “beamed in” to their studio via video link.
‘Mr Tyson was then to be required to be asked a series of questions; to share childhood stories; to teach the presenters how to box using a mannequin containing the face of his former boxing opponent, Evander Holyfield, which the presenters were to punch – and then to play casino games on the Rabona website while interacting with the presenters.
‘The defendants’ position is that the nature of the performance which it was agreed that Mr Tyson would give and which Tyrannic was therefore contractually obliged to provide, is clear.
‘It was agreed that the activities Mr Tyson would be filmed whilst carrying out were ‘playing in casino games’ such as ‘slots, poker, roulette etc’.
‘It was agreed that Mr Tyson would alternatively be filmed playing in ‘other games and events’ but so long as these other games and events were ‘included in Rabona’s website’ and so long as they had been ‘approved’.
‘The nature of the performance Medier was requiring Mr Tyson to give within that stream was both of a very different nature to and exceeded the scope of the performance [the contract] required that Mr Tyson would provide.
‘Tyrannic did not therefore breach [the contract] as a result of indicating in advance that Mr Tyson would not be attending such an event and/or because of Mr Tyson’s non-attendance at the event.’
Mr Sinai added that the Tysons had been told in prior discussions ‘that the channel has a mascot of a pigeon which will always be present’ and that ‘we hope you see the need for this type of viral content’.
‘The name of the channel is “Talking Pigeons”. Doesn’t that suggest to you that the pigeon would speak?’ said the barrister.
The campaign would have seen the boxing legend interviewed on screen by a person dressed as a giant talking pigeon, before teaching the bird to box.
Mrs Tyson told the court: ‘We wanted to go viral, but in a way that makes him and his brand proud, not a way that makes him look ridiculous.
‘It’s comical that I’m reading this [proposal] now because of the ridiculousness of it, putting Mike in a position where he is the butt of the joke, instead of controlling his brand and how he wants to be represented.
‘It was crazy.’
Mrs Tyson said that she and the boxer have been married for 17 years and that she has been running Tyrannic for 17 years and organising what projects he puts his name to.
‘I make sure that anything that Mike is asked to do is in his style, in his verbiage…then we’ll approve it,’ she said.
‘No talking pigeons…no talking trash to pigeons. We had to push back on the theme of pigeons and punching.
‘[The channel] is “Talking Pigeons”, not fighting pigeons, not literally talking to a pigeon…it’s just the name of the show.
‘What we objected to was the interaction in the way they wanted with the mascot pigeon.
‘He agreed to take part in playing games, but not in the format of these ridiculous plots. Not with big puppets and things which are disrespectful to his brand.
‘Mike didn’t sign up to do a show with stuffed animals…Mike didn’t sign up for this goofy show.’
The barrister argued that the Tysons had three days to disagree with the proposal and discuss the pigeon suit, but said they ‘didn’t do that’.
Mrs Tyson said her team ‘needed a moment’ to get their ‘ducks in a row’, and criticised the firm for their professionalism.
She added: ‘This was us dealing with a company which, to be honest, was amateur hour in the way they wanted to use Mike’s name.’
The barrister responded: ‘The problem for you, you say, was the goofiness of the show, the fact you didn’t like the context of it,’ before putting to her that in fact, ‘you didn’t want him to do the show because you didn’t want him answering questions about the [Jake Paul] fight.
‘It was not consistent with the PR of the Jake Paul fight.’
‘The two things were totally separate things,’ she replied. ‘They weren’t conflicting in any way. We had several other sponsors at the time too.’
The boxer is accused of unlawfully pulling out of the campaign after learning he would fight YouTuber-turned-boxer Jake Paul in a £15million exhibition match (pictured)
Tyson became the youngest heavyweight champion ever at age 20 in 1986, finally quitting top-tier boxing with 50 wins and seven losses.
Tyson’s fondness for racing pigeons has been well documented over the years.
In his autobiography, he detailed how his love for the birds helped him deal with a troubled childhood in New York.
He has also previously admitted having been terrified of confrontation and only got into fighting after beating up a man who killed his pet pigeon.
Mr Justice Richards was told the boxer had agreed to promote ‘gaming services’ under the Rabona brand, doing so at live streaming events and also attending a major gambling conference.
The contract with Medier involved an instalment-based $2million fee for Mr Tyson – payable to Tyrannic – out of which he was paid nearly $190,000 before they parted company.
Mr Sinai, for Medier, claimed Mr Tyson and Tyrannic LLC subsequently broke the contract by failing to perform agreed live streaming events and by ‘terminating’ the contract without proper notice.
Mr Sinai labelled Tyson’s Netflix deal to fight Jake Paul the ‘elephant in the room’, arguing that the boxer ‘simply lost interest’ in his Rabona deal.
The court heard Tyson’s bout with Jake Paul was originally slated to happen on July 20, 2024, although it ultimately took place in November, with Tyson beaten by the YouTuber-turned-boxer.
But the deal agreed with Medier envisaged that Tyson would attend a ‘PR event’ for Rabona at the high-profile gambling conference in Amsterdam between July 16-19 2024.
Medier’s barrister claimed the right ‘inference’ was that Tyson and Tyrannic feared that participating in the Amsterdam event would conflict with the terms of his Netflix deal, which curtailed non-fight-related sponsorship in the build-up to the Jake Paul clash.
Tyson’s fondness for pigeons has been well documented over the years (pictured in 2005)
Mr Sinai said: ‘Being in Amsterdam in July was agreed…that was extremely important to Medier
‘The defendants simply lost interest in the service agreement once the more rewarding exhibition fight was firmly agreed.’
Denying the allegation on behalf of the boxer and Tyrannic, barrister Amanda Hadkiss had earlier told the court the ‘performance’ demanded of Tyson in the live stream event went ‘far beyond the scope of what might reasonably be considered to have even been required in order to comply with Tyrannic’s obligations’.
‘The nature of the performance Medier was requiring Mr Tyson to give within that stream was both of a very different nature to and exceeded the scope of the performance [the contract] required that Mr Tyson would provide.
‘Tyrannic did not therefore breach [the contract] as a result of indicating in advance that Mr Tyson would not be attending such an event and/or because of Mr Tyson’s non-attendance at the event.’