A long-running dispute between former Tennis Channel CEO and chair Ken Solomon and the outlet’s owner, Sinclair Inc., has exploded into a lawsuit.
Solomon sued Sinclair and several related parties in Los Angeles Superior Court on Friday, alleging the company is seeking to avoid paying the executive what could have been an undisclosed eight-figure sum in options and bonuses from a sale of the network and separation payments.
Sinclair fired Solomon nearly a year ago, with sources telling Front Office Sports the company was upset with the amount of time he was spending as a board member and adviser of Merit Street Media, a separate entity founded and led by television personality Dr. Phil McGraw. Solomon contends that those outside actions were preapproved by Sinclair in writing. Merit Street Media is now embroiled in its own legal and financial issues.
The Tennis Channel, meanwhile, has been for sale for 18 months—as originally reported by FOS. No deal has emerged yet, but Sinclair has since expanded that consideration to include potential transactions involving its entire broadcast business, which primarily consists of local, over-the-air stations, as well as a possible spin-off or separation of its ventures unit that currently includes the Tennis Channel.
Details of the Suit
Solomon, who played a key role in growing the Tennis Channel to more than 37 million U.S. subscribers, is making nine separate legal claims: wrongful termination, three breach of contract actions, a breach of implied convent of good faith and fair dealing, two related to an alleged failure to pay wages upon employee discharge, one related to vested vacation time, and a final one claiming defamation by several Sinclair executives, including company CEO Chris Ripley.
“[Solomon’s] results for Sinclair speak for themselves and represent a bright spot in what was otherwise a distressed period for Sinclair and the industry,” the lawsuit reads in part. “In the last five years, Tennis Channel’s ratings doubled, despite a contracting market and the interference and failures by Sinclair. Moreover, if not for plaintiff’s business acumen and singular vision, Tennis Channel would have lost valuable rights and distribution deals, such as the WTA and Roland-Garros French Open, impacting its revenue, visibility, credibility, and ability to maintain top on-air talent.”
The filing also cites a substantial increase in Tennis Channel’s adjusted earnings from $17.5 million in 2016 to more than $135 million last year.
In the action, Solomon is seeking unspecified general, compensatory, and punitive damages, as well as statutory penalties against Sinclair and attorney’s fees. Solomon said in the suit that in early 2022, he signed a modified employment agreement that included a series of equity options. Sinclair cashed out half of those options for $3.86 million. The rest was to be paid out over a three-year period and was predicated on the expectation that a network sale would occur, in turn yielding a substantial financial reward for Solomon.
A subsequent revision to that agreement would yield an additional $1 million to Solomon should a sale happen with a valuation of $1 billion or more. In the complaint, Solomon says he generated multiple offers above that figure, only to have them rejected by Sinclair executive chairman David Smith.
“Faced with having to make good on its commitment to reward [Solomon], Sinclair apparently decided [he] would be too expensive to retain,” the lawsuit reads. “The paradox is, of course, that it was only through plaintiff’s efforts, according to Smith himself, that the price Tennis Channel would command was now of such elevated value that paying [him] what was owed was a material number.”
Sinclair, which has owned the Tennis Channel since 2016, did not respond to a request for comment. In April, Sinclair filled Solomon’s role at the Tennis Channel, appointing former Amazon Prime Video executive Jeff Blackburn to the post.
