The Savage Truth: Front Lines Forming in Ali Act Battle
Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed below are those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of
Sherdog.com, its affiliates and sponsors or its parent company,
Evolve Media.
When Representative Markwayne Mullin introduced his legislation to include the sport of mixed martial arts in the Ali Act, we knew it wouldn’t be long before the other shoe would drop.
Last week, we learned that the UFC has hired a Washington
D.C.-based lobbying firm to help them oppose the potential new
federal regulations on MMA. I don’t think this was a surprise to
anyone who has followed this fight for any period of time, but it
did clearly delineate the company’s stance.
In no uncertain terms, Zuffa LLC, the parent company of the UFC, wants no part of federal legislation of their business. They and other MMA promoters obviously have some problematic practices that could be called into question if the Ali Act extension makes it through Congress.
These are the main issues according to Rob Maysey and his MMA Fighter’s Association. The body issued a press release last week detailing why they believe congress should adopt Rep. Mullins’ legislation and why they believe it would be good for not just the fighters but for all parties involved in the sport. They have portrayed themselves as the white hats in this burgeoning fight.
That leaves the mean old UFC in the familiar role as the bad guy. The black hats, if you will, have stated for quite some time that there is no need for further federal regulation of MMA. They say the sport is much better off than the state boxing was in when the Ali Act was passed into law, and nowhere near the disaster it was in the decades before when alleged fixed fights and oppressive contracts were staples of the sweet science.
“We continue to believe the federal government would have no productive role in regulating MMA promotions or competitions,” said UFC executive Lawrence Epstein in an interview with ESPN.com. “Already, states regulate each bout and MMA athletes are well compensated and treated fairly, which is one of the reasons the sport is the fastest growing in the world.”
It sounds pretty straightforward, right? Wrong, says Maysey and his group of supporters.
“This amendment is desperately needed by combat sports athletes... to enable these sports to prosper and thrive,” Maysey declared in an open letter last week. “The lack of financial disclosures and coercive contractual practices that plagues MMA not only deprives each athlete of rights already offered to boxers, but also prevents investment in the sport and, as a result, stunts the sport’s natural growth.”
So, who is right? Well, like in so many situations, both actually have some very good points to their arguments.
Let’s start with the UFC’s position that increased federal oversight is not warranted because the states regulate the sport, fighters are treated in a just manner and are paid well. It seems fair on the surface, but it is based on some pretty big and subjective assumptions.
Are UFC’s athletes treated fairly? I’m sure there are plenty of them -- probably a large majority of them -- who would say yes. On the other hand, I can guarantee you there are a significant number who assuredly don’t subscribe to that line of thinking.
The UFC’s belief that the federal government being a superfluous
regulator rings loudly as the most cogent point of dissention, in
my eyes anyway. Name one thing that the federal government gets its
hands on that doesn’t evolve into some huge, unwieldy
bureaucracy.
I’ve had conversations with numerous state regulators, and their main concern whenever the topic of federal regulation or even oversight comes up is that their ability to do their jobs would be adversely affected by a federal body. I can see their point, but I can also see some good in a federal body made up of these state officials -- like the Association of Boxing Commissions -- who would be tasked with making sure all states regulate the sport in the same manner.
The mechanics of this setup may make for another column at another time. Moving on, we have the MMAFA’s contentions that essentially say that the uncompetitive practices of one promoter are limiting the advancement of the sport and enriching only one group. Again, I can see some good and bad in their statement.
If I were a fighter or a manager of fighters, I would really want to know what my clients’ fights were doing on the financial ledger. Boxing promoters are legally bound to share this information, and it would be a big help to mixed martial artists who wonder what comparable fighters are making. That isn’t possible today because of the UFC’s notoriously clandestine bonus apparatus and their reluctance to release revenue figures for their events.
I get that, as a private company, the UFC want to keep their financial data to themselves. It is also pretty easy to see why fighters and their representatives would covet that information. There is no easy answer here, because once that genie is out of the bottle, once the labor side of the equation gets those figures, they will quickly filter down into the public sphere.
That is a proposition UFC seems to want to avoid at all costs. Pay-per-view figures -- the real ones -- are guarded like priceless state secrets, which, in turn, keep actual payouts to top fighters relatively unknown. Revenue data is difficult to come by. Bonuses are a little more of an identified variable, because fighters and managers can have loose lips at times, but still are not concrete enough to regularly tout in negotiations.
I guess the argument, at least when it pertains to the financial disclosure portion of the Ali Act, comes down to where you stand in the ongoing struggle between labor and capital. Should the company that took the financial risks to provide the platform upon which the labor performs and earns their living be subject to regulations that create a level playing field between the company and its laborers?
There are a lot of issues with capital/labor relations when it comes to combat sports. That is why we got the Ali Act in the first place. It is clear there are some issues within mixed martial arts -- not just with the UFC -- that the Ali Act expansion, if enforced, could help mitigate.
I am sympathetic to business owners who invest and work hard and build something out of virtually nothing. It is amazing that this sport has made the strides it has in the last 15-plus years. I find it disingenuous when I hear that the obstacles that have already been overcome pale in comparison to what might happen if fighters actually have some more information and some leverage when they go to negotiate with their employers.
We’ve heard these doomsday predictions with every major sport when the actual talent gets and even shake in the bargaining process and in every case the leagues and owners have continued to prosper. I find it hard to believe MMA is the one industry that would collapse and crumble onto itself.
I have the same concerns I’ve always spouted when it comes to the Ali Act. The fact that it is rarely enforced remains chief among them. I also worry about a clumsy, cumbersome regulatory body doing more harm than good should the federal government get involved in the day-to-day officiating of the sport. Those concerns are trumped by the fact that fighters deserve to have the information needed to accurately decide what it is worth to them to risk their long-term health.
In the end, the Ali Act hasn’t been a huge success story for boxing, but neither has it hurt those it purports to protect. If limiting the scope of contracts, providing more financial information to fighters and making rankings more clear and unbiased are deal-breakers for promoters, then I’m not sure what to say.
Sherdog.com Executive Editor Greg Savage can be reached by email or Twitter @TheSavageTruth. If you would like to have your question or comment answered in the weekly Postal Connections mailbag, please submit them by Wednesday evening each week.
When Representative Markwayne Mullin introduced his legislation to include the sport of mixed martial arts in the Ali Act, we knew it wouldn’t be long before the other shoe would drop.
Advertisement
In no uncertain terms, Zuffa LLC, the parent company of the UFC, wants no part of federal legislation of their business. They and other MMA promoters obviously have some problematic practices that could be called into question if the Ali Act extension makes it through Congress.
There is the secretive financial information to which boxers are
privy, to which MMA fighters have no right. Champion’s clauses,
long-term contracts and likeness rights that some MMA promoters ask
fighters to sign away all would be under greater scrutiny if this
bill survives and becomes a law.
These are the main issues according to Rob Maysey and his MMA Fighter’s Association. The body issued a press release last week detailing why they believe congress should adopt Rep. Mullins’ legislation and why they believe it would be good for not just the fighters but for all parties involved in the sport. They have portrayed themselves as the white hats in this burgeoning fight.
That leaves the mean old UFC in the familiar role as the bad guy. The black hats, if you will, have stated for quite some time that there is no need for further federal regulation of MMA. They say the sport is much better off than the state boxing was in when the Ali Act was passed into law, and nowhere near the disaster it was in the decades before when alleged fixed fights and oppressive contracts were staples of the sweet science.
“We continue to believe the federal government would have no productive role in regulating MMA promotions or competitions,” said UFC executive Lawrence Epstein in an interview with ESPN.com. “Already, states regulate each bout and MMA athletes are well compensated and treated fairly, which is one of the reasons the sport is the fastest growing in the world.”
It sounds pretty straightforward, right? Wrong, says Maysey and his group of supporters.
“This amendment is desperately needed by combat sports athletes... to enable these sports to prosper and thrive,” Maysey declared in an open letter last week. “The lack of financial disclosures and coercive contractual practices that plagues MMA not only deprives each athlete of rights already offered to boxers, but also prevents investment in the sport and, as a result, stunts the sport’s natural growth.”
So, who is right? Well, like in so many situations, both actually have some very good points to their arguments.
Let’s start with the UFC’s position that increased federal oversight is not warranted because the states regulate the sport, fighters are treated in a just manner and are paid well. It seems fair on the surface, but it is based on some pretty big and subjective assumptions.
Are UFC’s athletes treated fairly? I’m sure there are plenty of them -- probably a large majority of them -- who would say yes. On the other hand, I can guarantee you there are a significant number who assuredly don’t subscribe to that line of thinking.
Watch 100+ Channels On Pluto TV
I’ve had conversations with numerous state regulators, and their main concern whenever the topic of federal regulation or even oversight comes up is that their ability to do their jobs would be adversely affected by a federal body. I can see their point, but I can also see some good in a federal body made up of these state officials -- like the Association of Boxing Commissions -- who would be tasked with making sure all states regulate the sport in the same manner.
The mechanics of this setup may make for another column at another time. Moving on, we have the MMAFA’s contentions that essentially say that the uncompetitive practices of one promoter are limiting the advancement of the sport and enriching only one group. Again, I can see some good and bad in their statement.
If I were a fighter or a manager of fighters, I would really want to know what my clients’ fights were doing on the financial ledger. Boxing promoters are legally bound to share this information, and it would be a big help to mixed martial artists who wonder what comparable fighters are making. That isn’t possible today because of the UFC’s notoriously clandestine bonus apparatus and their reluctance to release revenue figures for their events.
I get that, as a private company, the UFC want to keep their financial data to themselves. It is also pretty easy to see why fighters and their representatives would covet that information. There is no easy answer here, because once that genie is out of the bottle, once the labor side of the equation gets those figures, they will quickly filter down into the public sphere.
That is a proposition UFC seems to want to avoid at all costs. Pay-per-view figures -- the real ones -- are guarded like priceless state secrets, which, in turn, keep actual payouts to top fighters relatively unknown. Revenue data is difficult to come by. Bonuses are a little more of an identified variable, because fighters and managers can have loose lips at times, but still are not concrete enough to regularly tout in negotiations.
I guess the argument, at least when it pertains to the financial disclosure portion of the Ali Act, comes down to where you stand in the ongoing struggle between labor and capital. Should the company that took the financial risks to provide the platform upon which the labor performs and earns their living be subject to regulations that create a level playing field between the company and its laborers?
There are a lot of issues with capital/labor relations when it comes to combat sports. That is why we got the Ali Act in the first place. It is clear there are some issues within mixed martial arts -- not just with the UFC -- that the Ali Act expansion, if enforced, could help mitigate.
I am sympathetic to business owners who invest and work hard and build something out of virtually nothing. It is amazing that this sport has made the strides it has in the last 15-plus years. I find it disingenuous when I hear that the obstacles that have already been overcome pale in comparison to what might happen if fighters actually have some more information and some leverage when they go to negotiate with their employers.
We’ve heard these doomsday predictions with every major sport when the actual talent gets and even shake in the bargaining process and in every case the leagues and owners have continued to prosper. I find it hard to believe MMA is the one industry that would collapse and crumble onto itself.
I have the same concerns I’ve always spouted when it comes to the Ali Act. The fact that it is rarely enforced remains chief among them. I also worry about a clumsy, cumbersome regulatory body doing more harm than good should the federal government get involved in the day-to-day officiating of the sport. Those concerns are trumped by the fact that fighters deserve to have the information needed to accurately decide what it is worth to them to risk their long-term health.
In the end, the Ali Act hasn’t been a huge success story for boxing, but neither has it hurt those it purports to protect. If limiting the scope of contracts, providing more financial information to fighters and making rankings more clear and unbiased are deal-breakers for promoters, then I’m not sure what to say.
Sherdog.com Executive Editor Greg Savage can be reached by email or Twitter @TheSavageTruth. If you would like to have your question or comment answered in the weekly Postal Connections mailbag, please submit them by Wednesday evening each week.
Related Articles
