Janet Jackson could get as much as $200 million from her divorce

Milan Fashion Week - Versace Show

Janet Jackson and Wissam Al Mana are no more. We learned over the weekend that they had split just months after Janet had given birth to their son. While there still is no official announcement, everyone’s going with the story because “Jackson family sources” are leaking all over the place. According to People Mag’s sources, Janet and Wissam split “shortly after their son Eissa was born in January” because:

“They separated shortly after the baby was born. The cultural differences between her and Wissam became even more obvious [after Eissa arrived]. They come from very different worlds. For years, Janet tried to adapt to his culture. Since it’s not a culture she grew up with, it’s been challenging for her. She often felt she disappointed Wissam.”

[From People]

I can understand that. I can understand how you fall in love with a guy, it’s all romance and money and parties and you end up getting married and then… the pregnancy and baby changes everything. Suddenly there are all of these rules and you feel like your husband and his religion are setting you up to fail. As for the money… I said yesterday that I didn’t think money would be some big issue between them. She’s rich, he’s rich, what do they have to fight about? Well, it seems like there was a prenup… and now that she made it to the five-year mark, she gets a huge pay-day??

She’s in control — and in the money. Janet Jackson’s split from filthy rich Qatari businessman Wissam Al Mana could net her up to $200 million under terms of their prenup, multiple family sources said. She was entitled to $100 million if they stayed married for at least five years, family sources told The Post. Jackson and Al Mana announced their marriage in January 2012 but might have been secretly married as early as December 2011.

The prenup also calls for that $100 million payment to be doubled if they have a child — which became so three months ago with the birth of their son Eissa.

“It looks like a money grab but it’s not about money,” a relative of the “Control” singer Jackson said. “She’s never in a relationship too long. Her longest was [musician] Rene [Elizonda] and that was for [nearly] 10 years [1991-2000]. Marriage doesn’t agree with her. She doesn’t agree with marriage.”

A long-time security guard for the Jackson family agreed, saying money isn’t the driving force here — and that Janet didn’t like Al Mana’s conservative ways.

“She loves to be in control,” the family confidante said. “She ceded that control [in marriage] and she was not happy about it. She wants to get back to being Janet Jackson and not Mrs. Wissam Al Mana or being the obedient Muslim wife.”

A $200 million payout would be a brutal — but far from crushing — bottom-line blow to Al Mana, who is worth $1 billion, according to an estimate by money-and-celeb site The Richest. The hubby’s Al Mana Group has vast holdings in cars, real estate, retail, tech and other ventures. Jackson is worth a mere $150 million, The Richest estimated.

[From Page Six]

$200 million for five years and a baby? Hm… I mean, what I have even done in the past five years that I couldn’t have done while also waiting out that $200 million pay-day??? Now, I doubt Wissam will end up cutting Janet a check for $200 million. It will be negotiated down to something more manageable, especially if Wissam agrees to some terms about how the baby will be raised. Also: yeah, I don’t think Janet is meant to be married.

Milan Fashion Week - Versace Show

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

47 Responses to “Janet Jackson could get as much as $200 million from her divorce”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Hazel says:

    $40 million per year. Nice!

    I don’t really know if it’s all for money though. Who knows?

  2. Aims says:

    I agree that Janet isn’t meant to be married. I think after the second marriage and divorce , I would call it a day. Marriage isn’t for everyone . I might be wrong to assume this, but I’m going to believe Janet got help getting pregnant at 50. From what I understand fertility treatment is brutal, it just seems a shame to go through all that just to get divorced a few months after you give birth. I suspect there’s going to be more coming out in the next few weeks .

    • notasugarhere says:

      IVF is a logical assumption. She announced the postponement of her tour April 6 with the reason “planning our family”. Baby was born on January 3. If she had been 8 weeks pregnant April 6 when she made that announcement, their son would have been born in November.

      At her age, they may have gone through months of egg harvest, egg fertilization attempts, genetic screening of embryos to end up with one healthy embryo. They picked the weird time of part-way through her tour to try implanting. If she wanted the embryo to have a chance of taking hold at that point, she had to stop the tour immediately.

    • skyblue says:

      I’m the same age as Janet and share her name…all I gotta say is this Janet isn’t meant for marriage either! Ba ha ha. That said, I can imagine the religious differences were difficult.

  3. Dtab says:

    I doubt this is ever about the money, I imagine she saw that her husband was going to be as controlling to their child as her father was with her and she didn’t want that. Sometimes it takes a big change in your life (like having a baby) to open your eyes fully to what is going on.

    • notasugarhere says:

      He is still the father of their son, and they are going to have to agree on how to raise their son. The father’s wishes don’t get eliminated upon divorce, especially a father who comes from a wealthy and powerful family.

      • Dtab says:

        I never meant that they were going to get eliminated but if they are not together then there can be more of a balance as maybe she felt that she lost her voice as his wife, now that they are divorcing she may feel that she gets more of a say then just having to please him.

      • notasugarhere says:

        According to the “sources” (which we don’t know if we can believe) they aren’t getting divorced at this point. They are “separating not divorcing” but that might just be until financial agreements are settled.

  4. MissMerry says:

    sounds like she knew what she was doing. she found a hot, rich guy she liked around the time she started to want a family, so she got married and stuck it out until she had the time under her belt to get some compensation with a divorce and still have her family (the baby).

    She may not have married and stayed with this guy for the money as the #1 reason, but post-divorce, she’ll benefit monetarily and benefit by having her child (and with the prenup, she knew that was her future from the get-go)…so trying to say ‘oh its not about the money…’…isn’t it though, among other things?

    If she said no thanks to the money the prenup promises her, then I’d change my tune about it.

    Again, no judgement, I really hope he doesn’t give her a hard time like Uma Thurman’s baby daddy seems to give her.

    • Wiffie says:

      You can not be in it for the money and still take what you are owed from the prenuptial agreement.

      It was agreed upon and signed by both parties before marriage, so she doesn’t need to walk away empty handed to prove a point. She has every right to it, whether it was for the money or actual love.

      • ash says:

        Wiffie dont that… MissMerry is completely 100% and she already said no shade or judgement. Lets be adults and call a spade a spade.

  5. Whatabout says:

    I think it’s slightly interesting that we seem to be getting mostly pro Janet articles. Doesn’t seem like he’s getting into the pr angle of this.

    • notasugarhere says:

      What is very interesting is that we’re getting this amount of information. If this is coming from her side, and not just hangers-on talking to the press to make money? It is the first time in decades that she’s gone public full-court press about her private life.

      • Babs says:

        As a fan, I think she is doing that because the tour cancelation last year costed her a lot of fan-credit; there was something fishy with the timeline and all the refund wasn’t done. And divorcing right after having a baby is also not a good look. Maybe she feels she somehow owe an explanation this time. From a PR angle, I think she probably is right, but she should be very careful with this if it’s only a PR angle because it will backfire in a minute.

        On another note, I never get tired of seeing her face. She is just stunning. Little Eissa must be a gorgeous little boy. I hope whatever happens they’ll manage to co-parent in peace.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Looking at the timeline, it is strange that they (likely) choose to implant an embryo mid-tour. Did she think she’d be able to do a physically demanding performance for months AND carry to term at 49-50? Weird choice of time to do that.

      • Babs says:

        Exactly. So, was this a hurrily decided band-aid baby meant to somehow save the couple? Was the whole come-back thing a little bit of a scam? Or was it something else? We shall wait and see. Or not, because this is Janet we’re talking about :)

      • notasugarhere says:

        With what they probably had to go through to have a healthy baby with her being 50? It could have been 1-2 years of IVF. Doesn’t mean having a child wasn’t an attempt to keep them together, just that it would have taken a lot of time to end up with a healthy baby. You’re right – we’ll likely only know what she wants us to know!

      • Babs says:

        Would it make a difference in the timing (i.e ending up with a healthy baby) if she froze eggs some time ago, when she was younger? I know very little about IVF, but I think that’s what she did.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Caveat: It is wildly different for everyone. If she froze eggs years before, they don’t all survive the thawing process. Those that do thaw will not all fertilize successfully or become healthy embryos. And not all embyros implant successfully. But those “younger” eggs would likely have lower odds of genetic abnormalities than ones harvested last year.

  6. Tracym says:

    This could be brutal. They’re living in Qatar right? The custody issue won’t be dealt with there in the same manner it is here. She may be back in control of her own life, but it’s going to be hard for her unless they have a previous arrangement for custody because, and this is my understanding only, that under Islamic law, the father is the preferred patent for custody, especially for boys.

    • QQ says:

      Right , that’s the first thing I thought, that to cut her loose most likely her fresh new Baby’s Custody is at the stake, no matter how into/not into having kids one might be or how modern/evolved one wants to be about divorce, religion, way of life etc, This is gonna be a bruiser and a Sophie’s choice of bad choices

      • mermaid says:

        Off topic, QQ, do you write for a living? I really look forward to your comments; humour, compassion, depth, warmth and knowledge. Outstanding writing in very short form.

      • QQ says:

        Whe? thanks for the lovies Nah! I Used to keep a blog years back but no mostly trash talking her and twitter for work-funs in run on sentences ( YES I KNOW – IDC #EnglishIsStillMySecondLanguageYOLO)

    • notasugarhere says:

      From other sites, he’s lived in London most of his life, off-and-on since he was two. Time spent at university in the US, time spent in Qatar for business, but mostly in London. Their son was born in London. If any of the leaks are to be believed, she’s “basing herself in London”, which is where they’ve been living.

    • Babs says:

      The baby was born in London and Janet still lives here with him I assume (I don’t know about Wissam, maybe they separated a while ago). She’s been pictured in London like a month ago with her mother Katherine who seeked help after one of her nephews took advantage of her.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I wonder if her mother will move in with her and the baby in London long-term? At least for the next year while things settle down.

    • Qatar2 says:


      In sharia law, the preference is for children to stay with the mom up to a certain age – I believe 7 or 9 years old – at which time the father can assume full custody if he wants. But, the caveat is that the mother is supposed to raise the children as Muslims, so if there is a perceived risk that she won’t, then the father’s family can assume custody in the earlier years.

      • Tracym says:

        Thanks for the info. It’s all very confusing because each country has it’s laws and their own interpretation of, and enforcement of Sharia law. I am American married to an Iranian born man (for 30 years). He became an American citizen in 1990.

        I will not travel to Iran with him even though I’d like to because in the eyes of Iran my I am an Iranian citizen by dint of being married to my husband. Also our children. It’s nuts to me.

        His family is wonderful and him too or I wouldn’t be with him, but the laws of Iran are not something I’m willing to subject myself to.

  7. amp122076 says:

    I still don’t think Janet is worth as much as people speculate. I wonder if her finances are a mess, she’s cash strapped and this was a double win – a new baby and money matters resolved.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I don’t think he’s worth as much as speculated. He doesn’t own the entire business himself, it is a family company with at least two other equal shareholders (his brothers).

    • QQ says:

      Same, I think the Jacksons are Regular People OK but not Rich People Ok and they tend to be …um…greedy? Attention starved? so I also don’t doubt a lot of her money has gone towards family

    • Neelyo says:

      I agree. She needs that settlement. Remember all of the drama in the driveway after Michael’s death? Janet was right there front and center with the lesser known Jacksons trying to cash in.

      • Jeesie says:

        Yep, she was out there looking for ways to cash in and circling round the kids like the worst of them.

        I’m not sure why people think she’s so wealthy these days. It’s been a very long time since she’s enjoyed big success. The Super Bowl incident that tanked her career was a comeback of its own, and not a very successful one even before that. She’s not an act who can get an audience for huge stadium tours based on decades old material and while she had some classic hits she doesn’t have even one album whose sales remain consistently high over decades. It’s been a while since she had any major sponsorships too.

        I kind of doubt she ever had 200 million just sitting there. That number seems more like what’s she’s earned over the entire course of her career, not what she actually has available now.

    • Luca76 says:

      I think there were quite a few rumors about her having money problems before they married. And although she’s popular I don’t think her catalog or tours have held up in the past few years. Remember that after the Super Bowl her career crashed very quickly (FU JT).

  8. Clare says:

    Man, the Jacksons have always been messy and money grubbing – I hope Janet keeps her sleazy brothers and sisters at arms length while she sorts this shit out. For someone who has so so so so much more than ‘normal’ people, it seems insane to go into battle for money money – I hope she doesn’t and I hope they can handle this like decent people.

    As someone said above, all this info seems to be coming from Jackson’s camp, so maybe her ex is taking the high ground. I hope so. And I hope he continues to – because as I say, the Jacksons can be super messy.

  9. BJ says:

    Janet announced her marriage in 2013,saying she had been married a year or so if they cant get that right I don’t believe any of this story.Their sources don’t even know when she got married .GMAB

  10. oce says:

    I bet Janet was introduced to wife #2 and was like bruh, NEXT! #CallmeMissNasty

  11. Louise says:

    His wealth is probably tied up in family trusts.

  12. Mohammed says:

    I think she doesn’t love Mr.wissam Al Mana she married him only for money. She earn from singing $ 150 million now she expected 200 million dollars so this is big game for her.

  13. Miss S says:

    It breaks my heart to see how babies, tiny human beings who will hopefully grow into adults will have to deal with their parent’s mess when they didn’t even ask to be born. Life can be messy, yes, but some mistakes are easier to understand than others. Having a baby to secure a partner, to mend things? You are selfishly using a tiny human for your own benefit without any consideration of his own interests!

  14. what's inside says:

    I believe what is being leaked to the public, but I also believe there is a lot more to this as discussed by others as in prior posts. I think she cannot live with her baby daddy, but also has issues with joint custody because of the religious and cultural aspects.

  15. JRenee says:

    Janet was with Rene for 10 years, she was with Jermaine Dupri for 8 or 9 years. And she was with this guy for a couple of years or more before they married so it’s not like 1) she hasn’t dated men less financially successful than her 2) paid a divorce settlement or 3) had lasting relationships. For a 50 year old lady with 3 relationships totaling 25-27 years, she seems to like being coupled up.

    I don’t know what happened here, but I wish her well and hope she can help ensure her mom is not being mistreated.

  16. reg says:

    Now she can raise her grandson in California, the reason for divorce is this is not
    her husbands child. she is passing her secret daughter’s child for her own.

    Their wedding almost got canceled due to problems with prenup.

  17. David says:

    Sori people,but I think it is all about money Janet is a very shrewed business wonan

  18. bliss says:

    Pity. I liked them together.