Mike Tyson and Wife Sued for £1.5M in High Court Over Rabona Gambling Contract Dispute

Former heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson and his wife, Lakiha Spicer, are being sued for £1.5m ($2m) in London’s High Court over a broken sponsorship deal with online gambling brand Rabona.

Medier Ltd, the promotional outfit behind the Rabona brand, launched the legal action claiming Tyson and his promotional business Tyrannic LLC, which Spicer runs, broke a contract from January 2024 by unlawfully walking away from a marketing campaign. The dispute concerns Tyson’s refusal to appear in a livestream event with a “giant talking pigeon” and a mannequin bearing the face of his former rival, Evander Holyfield.

Medier Ltd, the company behind the Rabona gambling brand, is suing Mike Tyson and his wife, Lakiha Spic,r for 1.5 million in the High Court in London. The company says Tyson broke a sponsorship deal from January 2024 by refusing to participate in a weird campaign called “Talking Pigeons” that was going to be streamed online. Tyson’s legal team says the company first breached the agreement by asking for performances outside of the original scope of playing casino games.

The lawsuit stems from a sponsorship agreement signed in January 2024, under which Tyson agreed to promote “gaming services” for the Rabona brand. According to court filings, the contract was worth £1.5 million to Tyrannic LLC, payable in installments. Tyson took home some £145,000 before the partnership collapsed.

Medier Ltd says Tyson terminated the contract without notice and did not carry out the agreed livestreaming events. They claim Tyson and his company “lost interest” in the Rabona campaign after a much more lucrative opportunity arose — a $15 million exhibition boxing match against YouTuber Jake Paul that streamed worldwide on Netflix in November 2024.

“Inconvenient” Barrister Ali Reza Sinai, representing Medier, told the court Tyson’s Netflix deal was the “elephant in the room”, saying the boxer dropped the Rabona obligations because they became “inconvenient” when the high-profile fight was confirmed.

Medier says Tyson walked away from the Netflix fight deal. Tyson’s lawyers say Medier was the first to breach the contract by making significant changes to what it required.

Barrister Amanda Hadkiss, for Tyson and Tyrannic, said the first contract had “strict limitations” on Tyson’s obligation to be filmed playing “casino games” such as “slots, poker, roulette, etc.” or to appear at other “approved” events on Rabona’s website.

However, Medier allegedly asked Tyson to participate in an entertainment show format called “Talking Pigeons.” The proposed livestream would require Tyson to:

This “performance” was “far beyond the scope of what could reasonably have been thought to have even been required” by the contract, Hadhiss said. Tyrannic did not breach the agreement by refusing to attend an event outside the contract’s scope, she said.

The deal also obligated Tyson to appear at a PR event at a major gambling conference in Amsterdam from July 16 to July 19, 2024. Medier claims Tyson bailed on the appearance because he feared that taking part in non-fight-related promotions would breach the exclusivity clauses of his upcoming Netflix deal.

The High Court heard starkly contrasting views of the contractual obligations from both legal teams.

Ali Reza Sinai, Barrister for Medier Ltd, said: “So, once the more lucrative exhibition fight was firmly agreed, the defendants simply lost interest in the service agreement. Mr. Tyson and Tyrannic found the service agreement inconvenient to perform.

Amanda Hadkiss, barrister for Mike Tyson and Tyrannic LLC, said: “The type of performance Medier wanted Tyson to deliver in that stream was very different from, and went beyond, the type of performance [the contract] required Tyson to deliver. “Therefore, Tyrannic did not breach [the contract] by stating in advance that Tyson would not be attending such an event.”

The High Court fight offers a look into the tangled web of celebrity endorsements, exclusive broadcasting rights, and influencer marketing. High-profile figures often sign multiple overlapping contracts, such as brand sponsorships and exclusive media rights, which can create conflicts over exclusivity and scope of work. The case also underscores the legal peril companies encounter when trying to turn marketing campaigns into viral entertainment formats absent explicit contractual changes from the talent involved.

The hearing before Mr. Justice Richards is under way. The court will consider the January 2024 contract, the correspondence between Medier and Tyrannic about the “Talking Pigeons” concept, and the implications of the Netflix exclusivity clauses. Once the trial ends, the court will deliver a final judgment on the £1.5 million claim and any counterclaims.