Ali sells marketing rights for $50M


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/business/media/12champ.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

$50 Million Puts Ali in Ring With Elvis and 'American Idol'
By JULIE BOSMAN
Published: April 12, 2006

The media entrepreneur who controls the rights to Elvis Presley, "American Idol" and the soccer star David Beckham has added another star to his roster: Muhammad Ali.

Robert F. X. Sillerman, the chief executive of the entertainment company CKX, announced yesterday that his company had paid $50 million for an 80 percent stake in Mr. Ali's name, image and likeness. The other 20 percent will be retained by Mr. Ali and his company, GOAT (short for the "greatest of all time").

Marketers said CKX could reap a fortune in advertising and marketing deals with Mr. Ali. His famous boxing opponent, George Foreman, has been successful as a celebrity product endorser. (George Foreman grills were so popular that the company manufacturing them, Salton, decided to buy Mr. Foreman out for $137.5 million in 1999 rather than keep paying him royalties from sales.)

Mr. Sillerman said it would be premature to discuss how the company would use Mr. Ali's name and likeness, but whatever his company did would be "respectful, methodical and impactful."

"It is not our plan to involve him in any way personally," Mr. Sillerman said of Mr. Ali, who is suffering from Parkinson's disease.

Mr. Ali, 64, joins other names under Mr. Sillerman's control that have one thing in common: they are instantly recognized around the world. But CKX also has an eye for big names that are not making big money. When CKX acquired a controlling interest in Mr. Presley's name in 2005, the company that controlled the estate, Elvis Presley Enterprises, had brought in about $40 million in annual revenue in the previous five years.

Mr. Sillerman says he believes that, like Mr. Presley, Mr. Ali is an underused brand. In the last five years, Mr. Ali's name, image and likeness have generated approximately $7 million in revenue, CKX said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

After five years, Mr. Ali has the right to force CKX to buy the remaining 20 percent share of the company at fair market value, according to the S.E.C. filing.

"When we created CKX and came up with the idea for it, we came up with three things that we thought had the greatest impact on American culture," Mr. Sillerman said in an interview yesterday. He has now acquired all three: Mr. Presley, "American Idol" and Mr. Ali.

But it is not yet clear how Mr. Sillerman will sell the name of Mr. Ali, who in his postboxing career has publicly turned his attention to the loftier matters of religious reflection and world peace. This is the man whose autobiography in 2004 was titled "The Soul of a Butterfly: Reflections on Life's Journey," and whose Web site describes the Muhammad Ali Center in Louisville, Ky., as a place that "reaches beyond its physical walls to promote respect, hope and understanding."

"When you have the name, image and likeness of the most-recognized person on the planet, that's the most important thing to have," Mr. Sillerman said.

Dan Migala, the publisher of the Migala Report, a Chicago-based sports marketing trade publication, said that Mr. Ali was one of the most commercially underused figures in sports.

"There are sports endorsers and then there's the next level, which is really cultural endorsers," Mr. Migala said. "He's more of a cultural icon than a sports icon, which makes him much more attractive to advertisers."

It was more than a year ago that CKX first contacted Mr. Ali and his wife, Lonnie Ali, to discuss a possible deal. Mr. Sillerman said the Alis had resisted affiliating the name with commercial causes and instead had focused on the creation of the Ali Center in Louisville, Ky., which took more than 20 years to plan and build.

But Mr. Ali has not avoided the commercial spotlight entirely. He has a line of sports apparel and accessories, Ali by Adidas, that was introduced in 2005. (Among the items in the collection is a pair of boxing shoes emblazoned with an image of Mr. Ali's face.)

He also has a licensing deal with EA Sports and was the subject of a Hollywood film starring Will Smith in 2001. The Ali Center's Web site, www.alicenter.org, sells merchandise like boxing glove key rings and sweatshirts bearing the Ali Center logo.

Mr. Sillerman said he would not change the Ali Center, a project that drew 600 visitors when it was officially opened to the public last November. The complex contains a six-story museum and visitors' center. One floor of the center is divided into pavilions representing what Mr. Ali calls the six primary values of his evolution: respect, confidence, conviction, dedication, giving and spirituality.

When CKX acquired the rights to Graceland in 2005, Mr. Sillerman unveiled grand plans for the estate a year later. He paid $100 million for 85 percent of the Presley estate and a 90-year lease on Graceland in Memphis. He plans eventually to demolish the Heartbreak Hotel, which stands across the street from Graceland, and put two 400-room hotels in its place. The complex is to eventually include restaurants, shops, convention space, an entertainment complex, an outdoor amphitheater and a spa. He also plans to open a museum exhibit and Elvis theme show in Las Vegas.

Mr. Sillerman is keeping quiet on whether his plan for Mr. Ali is as sweeping as his Elvis strategy, but the parallel between them is clear.

"You don't need to introduce who he is," Mr. Sillerman said, "And you don't need to explain who he is."
 
George Foreman grills were so popular that the company manufacturing them, Salton, decided to buy Mr. Foreman out for $137.5 million in 1999 rather than keep paying him royalties from sales.

I confess I don't have a lot of business sense. Thats why I ask, why would Foreman sell his royalties? I would think overtime, not only would he make much more than this ($137.5) for royalties but his children's children would be well taken care of. Business savvy folks break it down for a Bru......,
 

BulldogM.Ed.23 said:
I confess I don't have a lot of business sense. Thats why I ask, why would Foreman sell his royalties? I would think overtime, not only would he make much more than this ($137.5) for royalties but his children's children would be well taken care of. Business savvy folks break it down for a Bru......,

$137.5 million a lot of money.
 
BulldogM.Ed.23 said:
I confess I don't have a lot of business sense. Thats why I ask, why would Foreman sell his royalties? I would think overtime, not only would he make much more than this ($137.5) for royalties but his children's children would be well taken care of. Business savvy folks break it down for a Bru......,

BM.Ed, to be honest, that kind of money is hard to turn down, and if invested right, his children's children still can be well taken care of, and who's to say if Salton would've kept using his image for their grills say 10 years from now. The way technology keeps changing, George Foreman's Lean Mean Grilling Machine's will soon be a thing of the past, and those royalties won't be as much, if anything at all.

That 137.5 million dollar bird in his hand, beats the 2 in the bush.

NICE
 
D-NICE said:
The way technology keeps changing, George Foreman's Lean Mean Grilling Machine's will soon be a thing of the past, and those royalties won't be as much, if anything at all.

That 137.5 million dollar bird in his hand, beats the 2 in the bush.

NICE
alright:tup:
 
BulldogM.Ed.23 said:
I confess I don't have a lot of business sense. Thats why I ask, why would Foreman sell his royalties? I would think overtime, not only would he make much more than this ($137.5) for royalties but his children's children would be well taken care of. Business savvy folks break it down for a Bru......,

It's probably a lump sum that was derived from a Net Present Value calculation based on his name generating X million of dollars a year at some interest rate for infinity; A "pay me now or pay me later" type of thing. In theory, the lump sum payment can be invested in an account as principle at the interest rate the NPV calculation is based on and the interest generated each year would be the same as the annual payments that he would have received. Thus, the kids could be taken care of that way and the principle would never be touched.

In that scenario, he and his family would be protected from reduced royalties when the product's profits go down, but they would also not share in any profits should the product's profits increase over that which the NPV calculations were based on.

Regards.
 
Back
Top