White threatens no UFC in CA if AB 2100 passes
MMA Payout/Bloody Elbow, 30 April 2012
UFC head Dana White has threatened to cease holding events in the state of California if a controversial piece of legislation passes in the state. Assembly Bill 2100 was introduced last Wednesday and is supported by the Culinary Workers Union while opposed by the UFC among others.
Via San Jose Mercury: "(Assembly member Luis) Alejo wants to eliminate what he sees as abusive contracts, freeing up fighters to make Assembly Bill 2100 would prevent promoters from claiming unreasonable future merchandising rights, prevent unreasonable restrictions on fighters' seeking outside sponsors and prohibit other onerous contract provisions."
"this seems good for fighters"
you answered your own question.
"Do you know what's going on in Sacramento, right now?" White said. "They are trying to pass this bill to raise our taxes and do a bunch of crazy (expletive) to us. They voted 4-2 for the bill. There were a couple of people not present to vote on it. If that thing passes we won't do anymore fights in California. All kinds of crazy (expletive) they're trying to throw in this bill for MMA. You know who's doing it? The Culinary Union from Las Vegas. These guys have been (expletive) with us in New York, too. That's why we're not in New York. These guys got a bunch of lobbyists together to try to pass this bill against MMA. They are putting pressure on my partners, the Fertitta brothers, because they own the fourth-largest gaming company in the country and they are non-union."
junobeach - Freedom seems so good for slaves, why do the slavemasters say no?Slaves had the option of signing contracts?
junobeach - yes it was called indentured servitudePretty big difference between that and slavery....
SECTION 1. Section 18649 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read:
18649. (a) The commission shall revoke or refuse to renew the license of any mixed martial arts promoter that enters into a contract with a mixed martial arts fighter in the state of California if the contract contains one or more coercive provisions. A contract provision shall be considered coercive to the extent that it does any of the following:
- (1) Assigns any future merchandising rights to a promoter beyond the term of the promotional contract.
- (2) Automatically renews the contract or extends the term without good faith, arms-length negotiation.
- (3) Grants the promoter a right to match the terms of a competing offer or contract.
- (4) Grants the promoter a right to enter into exclusive negotiations with a mixed martial arts fighter.
- (5) Restricts a mixed martial arts fighter from sponsoring another firm, product, or individual.
- (6) Requires a mixed martial arts fighter to relinquish any legal claims for negligence that the fighter has, or may acquire in the future, against the promoter.
- (7) Restricts a mixed martial arts fighter from contracting with another promoter.
- (8) Requires a mixed martial arts fighter to forfeit any rights as a condition precedent to the fighter's participation in a contest.
What's the point of signing a fighter to a contract then? It doesn't mean shit -
Lol looks like contracts will just be the number of fights they are signing on for and that is it. 
UGCTT_EnderTL - Lol looks like contracts will just be the number of fights they are signing on for and that is it.
It would allow any fighter under contract with UFC to fight for other promotions....
Exclusive contracts would be illegal.
Stu Cazzo -junobeach - Freedom seems so good for slaves, why do the slavemasters say no?Slaves had the option of signing contracts?
You are correct..
Its more like forced share cropping...
Stu Cazzo -UGCTT_EnderTL - Lol looks like contracts will just be the number of fights they are signing on for and that is it. <img style="vertical-align: middle" border="0" alt="Phone Post" src="/images/phone/apple.png" />
It would allow any fighter under contract with UFC to fight for other promotions....
Exclusive contracts would be illegal.
Re read it.
Oversimplification.
Dana is pissed because he won't be able to force fighters into signing away their likeness for life anymore. It is good for the fighters.
chokeyou -
Re read it.
Oversimplification.
Tell me what I'm missing here -
The commission shall revoke or refuse to renew the license of any mixed martial arts promoter that enters into a contract with a mixed martial arts fighter in the state of California if the contract contains one or more coercive provisions. A contract provision shall be considered coercive to the extent that it does any of the following:
- (7) Restricts a mixed martial arts fighter from contracting with another promoter.
This doesn't seem bad for fighters from what I read. But I could be wrong
If it benefits the fighters and not Dana it = bad lol.
Stu Cazzo - "Do you know what's going on in Sacramento, right now?" White said. "They are trying to pass this bill to raise our taxes and do a bunch of crazy (expletive) to us. They voted 4-2 for the bill. There were a couple of people not present to vote on it. If that thing passes we won't do anymore fights in California. All kinds of crazy (expletive) they're trying to throw in this bill for MMA. You know who's doing it? The Culinary Union from Las Vegas. These guys have been (expletive) with us in New York, too. That's why we're not in New York. These guys got a bunch of lobbyists together to try to pass this bill against MMA. They are putting pressure on my partners, the Fertitta brothers, because they own the fourth-largest gaming company in the country and they are non-union."
Of course they are against it , it allows fighters a little bit of protection and some freedom to have their own sponsors.
LOL@4th biggest gaming company. Did the other three also run up huge bills and go bust? Only to buy the business back for a piddance screwing over people owed money?
I am not a big Union person but at this point they (Culinary) are doing more to protect the fighters then Zuffa. I was against a Union for fighters 5 years ago when I heard about it but now I am supportive.
If Cali and NY keep them out that will also be good for MMA imo. It will allow Orgs that are actually doing something from the heavy handed things UFC has done in the business. Like not allowing people in certain demographs from even using a cage.
If Zuffa gets it's way in ten years it will be called UFC not MMA. All the fighters will be forced to only train at UFC gyms , have UFC managers and only UFC sponsors. Fighters by that point will not be able even take family photos for fear that Zuffa does not like the shirt they are wearing.
Hessian -Wow. Just wow.Stu Cazzo - "Do you know what's going on in Sacramento, right now?" White said. "They are trying to pass this bill to raise our taxes and do a bunch of crazy (expletive) to us. They voted 4-2 for the bill. There were a couple of people not present to vote on it. If that thing passes we won't do anymore fights in California. All kinds of crazy (expletive) they're trying to throw in this bill for MMA. You know who's doing it? The Culinary Union from Las Vegas. These guys have been (expletive) with us in New York, too. That's why we're not in New York. These guys got a bunch of lobbyists together to try to pass this bill against MMA. They are putting pressure on my partners, the Fertitta brothers, because they own the fourth-largest gaming company in the country and they are non-union."
Of course they are against it , it allows fighters a little bit of protection and some freedom to have their own sponsors.
LOL@4th biggest gaming company. Did the other three also run up huge bills and go bust? Only to buy the business back for a piddance screwing over people owed money?
I am not a big Union person but at this point they (Culinary) are doing more to protect the fighters then Zuffa. I was against a Union for fighters 5 years ago when I heard about it but now I am supportive.
If Cali and NY keep them out that will also be good for MMA imo. It will allow Orgs that are actually doing something from the heavy handed things UFC has done in the business. Like not allowing people in certain demographs from even using a cage.
If Zuffa gets it's way in ten years it will be called UFC not MMA. All the fighters will be forced to only train at UFC gyms , have UFC managers and only UFC sponsors. Fighters by that point will not be able even take family photos for fear that Zuffa does not like the shirt they are wearing.
Stu Cazzo -chokeyou -
Re read it.
Oversimplification.
Tell me what I'm missing here -
<b>The commission shall revoke or refuse to renew the license of any mixed martial arts promoter that enters into a contract with a mixed martial arts fighter in the state of California if the contract contains one or more coercive provisions</b>. A contract provision shall be considered coercive to the extent that it does any of the following:<ul> <li><b>(7) Restricts a mixed martial arts fighter from contracting with another promoter. </b></li></ul>
I read that as, shady promoters will loose their licenses..
IwillSuckTheSkinOffYourBone - Why dont they free the NFL players NHL and NBA players to go and play where ever they want and when ever they want.
"sorry cant be on the finals, they promised me few millions to play coupld games in italy, and I heard its nice weather over there, sorry gotta go."
They have collective bargaining..
Fighters have mangers or agents.. Which ZUFFA also want out of the picture...
IwillSuckTheSkinOffYourBone - Why dont they free the NFL players NHL and NBA players to go and play where ever they want and when ever they want.
"sorry cant be on the finals, they promised me few millions to play coupld games in italy, and I heard its nice weather over there, sorry gotta go."
Do fighters get paid while they sit on the bench?
chokeyou -Stu Cazzo -chokeyou -
Re read it.
Oversimplification.
Tell me what I'm missing here -
<b>The commission shall revoke or refuse to renew the license of any mixed martial arts promoter that enters into a contract with a mixed martial arts fighter in the state of California if the contract contains one or more coercive provisions</b>. A contract provision shall be considered coercive to the extent that it does any of the following:<ul> <li><b>(7) Restricts a mixed martial arts fighter from contracting with another promoter. </b></li></ul>
I read that as, shady promoters will loose their licenses..
You say it's "oversimplification" and then respond with not knowing the difference between lose and loose?
Nevermind...I thought I was dealing with somebody that has accomplished second grade reading and comprehension....