Hogan and Gawker had arranged to settle. Hogan was even going to be offered part ownership of Gawker, and had agreed to that. Until his (I mean Thiel's) lawyers met with him again.
And then he withdrew that offer.
And then after winning the lawsuit, withdrawing the only claim that would allow Gawker's insurance to allow Hogan to recoup some of his claimed damages (including an "estimated $50M loss of _future_ earnings, for a man who has only made $25M in his career and retirement so far).
Let's be very clear, Thiel's involvement in this was much more than "paid legal costs".
Regardless of the right or wrongs of thing, it is a generally accepted concept in modern societies and legal systems that you should have the right to face your opponent, not for them to have a legal 'proxy' or puppet acting at their behest.
Was Hogan wronged? Absolutely. But, as noted above, he'd agreed to settle until Thiel (and/or his lawyers) stepped in (again). He'd also settled with the person who _made_ the nonconsensual recording _and_ sold it... for _1/55,000th_ what he claimed in damages from Gawker.
1) gawker was trash and probably got what was coming to them. outing someone to get clicks is much more scummy in my opinion than what PT did. the world is a better place now that Gawker is not in it.
2) regarding "legal proxy's acting on someone behest,", I'm not a lawyer but what is the difference between this and HSBS acting as a "proxy" and paying the legal costs of mexican employees (executives actually) [1] who got caught illegal laundry money for the cartels. It is basically the same thing, someone or something with a lot of money throwing around money and affecting legal outcomes (Deferred prosecution agreements)
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-became-ba...
And while I personally found Gawker trashy and not worth a lot of respect, Thiel had profile pictures on open social media accounts of him shirtless on gay cruises. Short of a formal press release saying "I am gay", this wasn't any particular revelation.
(As to the "well, it's still noone's business" - while I agree, the courts have repeatedly held that billionaires are considered "public figures" "by virtue of the undue or oversized influence they wield or are capable of wielding" - so Thiel had little legal claim to his own situation, so used someone else as a proxy for his own grievances).
