Opinion ID: 4522401
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Crawford’s Share of the Gate Revenues

Text: We must next decide which forms of compensation are included in Crawford’s “purse” for purposes of calculating the fee that Top Rank owes Middendorf. Middendorf argues that Crawford’s purse is the “total remuneration” he receives for a fight. This would include Crawford’s share of the gate revenues. Top Rank, by contrast, argues that the term purse has a more limited definition established by usage and custom in the boxing industry and between the parties. It contends that this usage excludes a boxer’s share of gate revenues. The district court adopted Middendorf’s interpretation. The court was troubled by Top Rank’s failure to provide it with the parties’ individual “bout agreements,” which “might have been illuminating on this point.” In the absence of record evidence “distinguish[ing] the word ‘purse’ here from its long-established relevant meaning,” the district court turned to a dictionary definition stating that a “purse” is a “sum of money . . . offered as a prize.” See Webster’s New Int’l Dictionary of the English Language (1919). Applying this definition, the district court concluded that “Middendorf was to get eight percent of whatever Crawford did for a title defense.” It was appropriate for the district court to use a dictionary definition to inform its interpretation of the contract. See Reno Club, 182 P.2d at 1015 (using a dictionary definition to ascertain “the ordinary, plain and usual meaning” of a contract term). But we do not find that definition to be conclusive. Because the dictionary simply defines a purse as a “sum of money” a fighter receives for a bout, and not “all money” a fighter receives for a bout, it is consistent with both parties’ arguments. -11- Although the record is lacking in some respects, it indicates that the parties thought of Crawford’s share of the gate revenues as “additional compensation” that was separate from his purse. Crawford was not guaranteed a share of the gate revenues in the 2011 Promotional Rights Agreement. Crawford’s manager testified that, before Crawford’s title defense on June 28, 2014, he negotiated a separate agreement for Crawford to receive “a piece of the gate because [h]e believed it was going to be good.” Top Rank’s president, Todd duBoef, testified that this agreement was negotiated on a “per-bout basis” and was separate from the purse amount that would have been listed on a form submitted to the state boxing commission. When Top Rank and Crawford renegotiated their promotional rights agreement in 2014, Top Rank agreed to guarantee Crawford a share of the gate revenues for certain fights. Paragraph 3(a) of the Exclusive Restated Promotional Rights Agreement sets forth “[t]he purses to be paid to [Crawford] for each bout featured as a main event.” Paragraph 3(b) states that, “[a]s additional compensation for [Crawford]’s participation in bouts featured as main events in Omaha, Nebraska,” Crawford will receive a share of the gate revenues. Crawford testified that he does not consider this “additional compensation” to be “part of [his] purse” and that he “does not divide the gate participation moneys out between [his] manager and trainer” as he does with his purse. Although the evidence is not overwhelming, we are persuaded that the term purse, as used in the Agreement and Release, does not include a boxer’s share of gate revenues. See Galardi v. Naples Polaris, LLC, 301 P.3d 364, 367 (Nev. 2013) (ambiguity is not required to consider usage and custom evidence). We conclude that the district court’s contrary ruling was in error. -12-