Kevin Jairaj-Imagn Images

NFL Legend Claims Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson Fight 'Rigged' Due to 2-Word Contract Clause

Originally posted on Athlon Sports | By Nathan Dougherty | Last updated Nov 20, 2024 9:12 AM ET

The hype that preceded the fight between Jake Paul and Mike Tyson is now being matched by the controversy in its aftermath, with a new allegation from a former NFL legend that the fight may have been "rigged."

Paul defeated Tyson in a unanimous decision after a fight many described as boring, with Paul appearing to hold back in later rounds as the 58-year-old Tyson tired. Paul admitted after the match that he didn't want to hurt Tyson.

"There was a point where I was like ‘OK, he’s not really engaging back.’ And so I don’t know if he is tired or hurt or whatever, and I could just tell that his age was showing a little bit and I just have so much respect for him and that violence, war thing between us … kind of went away as the rounds went on," Paul said, via the New York Post.

Paul's reluctance to hurt Tyson, combined with his remarks after the fight, led to allegations that the fight's outcome may have been predetermined. Former NFL legend Michael Irvin was more direct, saying in an appearance on "The Herd" podcast that Tyson seemed to be holding back as well.

"I was looking for that patent 'one in the body, one on the uppercut,' " Irvin told host Colin Cowherd.

Irvin went on to claim that he heard Tyson was not allowed to throw uppercuts, one of his most devastating punches from his days as heavyweight champion. Irvin referred to an apparent two-word clause in Tyson's contract barring the punch.

"When he hits that it's boom boom, boom. I want to see that," Irvin said. "But we didn't get that, not a one. And I saw someone else say that it was in the contract - 'no uppercuts'. They had it in the contract. Come on guys, why wouldn't Mike Tyson throw an uppercut?"

There was no direct evidence of such a clause in the contract for the fight, and Irvin offered no evidence to back his statement. But there are others raising concerns about the validity of the fight. Dan Lust, a sports attorney and law professor at New York Law School, told the New York Post that Paul's comments about intentionally backing off could open the door to a lawsuit from those wagering on the fight and expecting a true outcome.

This article first appeared on Athlon Sports and was syndicated with permission.

More must-reads: