Court Opinion

ID: 9461809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:25:19.645357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:16.674985
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in both the result and the reasoning of the majority opinion. However, I cannot join with my Brothers in adopting that part of the reasoning of the district court which results in holding that Foreman Associates provided “services” to Foreman, within the meaning of Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 18674(c), when it advanced money to him. Thus, the district court concluded, because Foreman Associates was entitled to receive more than ten percent of the gross purse, it was an unlicensed “manager” within the jurisdiction of the California State Athletic Commission.
Foreman Associates was certainly not a manager in the ordinary sense. Nor can I agree that members of á syndicate who merely invest funds necessary to advance a boxer’s career are “managers” within the meaning of Cal.Bus. & Prof. Code § 18674. They are not managers but financial backers, a distinction which must have been apparent to the drafters of section 18674. The section is very specific: “The commission may license professional boxers, professional wrestlers, and booking agents, managers, trainers, and seconds of each.” I cannot extend this specific language to entities, like Foreman Associates, that are only indirectly associated with professional boxing.
I concur in the result, however, because Foreman Associates did not waive its contractual right to approve new managers. This power falls within the definition of a manager in section 18674(b) as one who “[d]irects or controls the professional boxing activities of any professional boxer.”