The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a decision by a California District Court on Thursday that spectators of a boxing match could not sue based on an undisclosed injury to one of the boxers that occurred prior to the event.

The boxing match between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquiao in May 2015 was one of the most widely anticipated sporting events of the year, with tickets priced up to $7,500 and the cost of commercial pay-per-view packages exceeding $10,000. After the conclusion of the fight, it was revealed that Pacquiao had torn a rotator cuff in his shoulder a month before during a training session. Despite numerous assurances prior to the bout that he was fully fit and that the injury did not affect the outcome of the match, a group of aggrieved attendees and pay-per-view viewers sued both boxers and Home Box Office, the broadcaster of the match, saying that they would would not have purchased tickets and television broadcasts of the event if they had been informed of the injury beforehand and that they had been defrauded by the promotion for the match. The district court dismissed the claim, saying that disappointment with the quality of a sporting event was not a legal claim that could be brought in court.

The appeals court agreed with the conclusion of the lower court. In her opinion, Judge Jacqueline Nguyen said that purchasing a ticket to a sporting event or broadcast package only gave the customer a license to attend or view an event, not a guarantee of its quality. Since the tickets only guaranteed entry to watch the boxing match and nothing further, the plaintiffs “have not suffered a cognizable legal injury because in short, they got what they paid for.” She continued that:

Plaintiffs in this case paid to see a boxing match between two of the top fighters in the world, Mayweather and Pacquiao. … And although the match may have lacked the drama worthy of the pre-fight hype, Pacquiao’s shoulder condition did not prevent him from going the full twelve rounds, the maximum number permitted for professional boxing contests. Plaintiffs therefore essentially got what they paid for—a full-length regulation fight between these two boxing legends.

Because of the inherent random nature of sporting events, it would be improper for the courts to entertain suits by consumers displeased with the quality or outcome of an event. Nguyen ended by saying that the District Court was “correct to knock out Plaintiffs’ complaints.”