I'm curious about this -- anyone know if there is anything in their contracts to lock in their champs, as the UFC does? Otherwise I think it's pretty easy to imagine UFC snatching up guys like Shields, Diaz, etc as soon as their contracts are up (Shields especially, as he has been saying for a couple years now that he wants to go to the UFC). It would certainly be worth it to them and their seeming scorched earth policy to snatch the champs right out from under the competition.
all that sounds like competition leading to better fighter pay to me.
4later
Nick Diaz isn't going anywhere. He needs a promoter that doesn't care that the only State he'll get licensed in is California.
That said, Scott Coker is savy enough to negotiate extensions for his top fighters before the last bout in their contract, and the UFC doesn't currently put on enough shows to support a bigger roster. They're already a little bloated.
Taking the current champion is only a feather in the hat for the smaller org. If the UFC signs Shields while he's still the champ, if they market him as the SF champ, it only gives SF press/credibility. Where as stealing a UFC champ is something SF (or any other org) would want to publicize and sell as an angle.
Not saying that the UFC wouldn't want to take their champions, but it's not quite the same had Randy gone to Affliction as the current UFC HW champion.
orcus - I'm curious about this -- anyone know if there is anything in their contracts to lock in their champs, as the UFC does?
yes, though their clause does does not continue to rollover like the UFC...
Strikeforce clause:
"Fighter grants EXPLOSION the option and the right but not the obligation to extend the term of this Agreement (“extended term”) upon the same terms and conditions except as hereinafter set forth for a one (1) time additional one year if Fighter at any time during the initial term hereof holds or held a Strikeforce Championship Title."
Strikeforce explicitly states that there is only one roll over, where as the UFC contract doesn't not mention this and is generally thought by most legal folks i have seen speak on it, could roll-over on an infinite basis.... could that hold up in court? well prob not , but the contract also indemnifies the fighter when legally challenging the clause, having to pay both parties legal fees if they lose, which is going to nix most all challenges...
the strikeforce does effect more fighters than the UFC clause, the ufc clause only effects the fighter if he is champion at the end of the term, where the Strikeforce clause clips anyone who has been a champion during the contract, whether they are champion at the end of the contract or not....
top
robnashville -orcus - I'm curious about this -- anyone know if there is anything in their contracts to lock in their champs, as the UFC does?
yes, though their clause does does not continue to rollover like the UFC...
Strikeforce clause:
"Fighter grants EXPLOSION the option and the right but not the obligation to extend the term of this Agreement ("extended term") upon the same terms and conditions except as hereinafter set forth for a one (1) time additional one year if Fighter at any time during the initial term hereof holds or held a Strikeforce Championship Title."
Strikeforce explicitly states that there is only one roll over, where as the UFC contract doesn't not mention this and is generally thought by most legal folks i have seen speak on it, could roll-over on an infinite basis.... could that hold up in court? well prob not , but the contract also indemnifies the fighter when legally challenging the clause, having to pay both parties legal fees if they lose, which is going to nix most all challenges...
the strikeforce does effect more fighters than the UFC clause, the ufc clause only effects the fighter if he is champion at the end of the term, where the Strikeforce clause clips anyone who has been a champion during the contract, whether they are champion at the end of the contract or not....
many industries have non-compete clauses. The UFC's champion's clause could possibly be judged as one of those. Non-compete clauses with lengthy terms are fairly standard and not legally controversial. This isn't an expert legal opinion, but just a take on the situation.
Good info Rob, thanks.