http://www.mmafighting.com/2016/6/11/11910628/ufc-hires-lobbying-firm-to-combat-extension-of-ali-act-to-mma
The UFC is making its feelings regarding the possible extension of the Ali Act to MMA very clear.
This week, the world's leading mixed martial arts promotion hired Washington, D.C. firm Farragut Partners to lobby against the new proposed bill that would bring the Ali Act to the sport, according to a release by O'Dwyers PR.
The Muhammad Ali Expansion Act was recently introduced to Congress by Con. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma. Mullin, a former MMA fighter himself, believes the balance of power in the sport leans much more toward promoters than the fighters and it's his desire to even the playing field.
The Ali Act, passed in boxing 16 years ago, is designed to protect fighters from unfair practices by promoters. Under the federal law, promoters can't bind fighters with contract provisions that last more than a year; no manager of fighters can act as a promoter; rankings and championship belts are regulated by third-party sanctioning bodies; and promoters must divulge full revenues to fighters.
There are some who believe the Ali Act would not translate in a logical way to MMA, a wholly different sport than boxing. Those in the UFC surely feel that way.
"We continue to believe the federal government would have no productive role in regulating MMA promotions or competitions," UFC COO Lawrence Epstein told 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."
The UFC hired the firm Brownstein Hyatt Earber Schreck to lobby against Sen. John McCain's Professional Boxing Amendments Act, which would have expanded and strengthened the Ali Act even further. That proposed legislation ended up being unsuccessful.
Considering the overall state of boxing I can't say I'd be happy with it, but I'm not a fighter. 
In, to read an MMA fighter's perspective.
Last week Honoring Ali, now getting legal action on the Ali act, motherfuckersss
Bill O'Really -
In, to read an MMA fighter's perspective.
id love to hear from a few fighters, a few managers and maybe even a promoter
In 
Anyone got any idea how much hiring this firm would cost? Per month.
Do they not realise they could use the money to better compensate athletes and avoid all this shit to begin with.
Well that won't help find a buyer for the UFC, darn it.
Let me give this a whirl as simply as I can make it:
It eliminates the secret monies.
By not being forced to disclose the money each fighter is getting paid, it severely limits the negotiating power of the other fighters. For states that release fighter pay information, fight contracts are turned in and that information is released publicly BUT any addendum to said contract is NOT. For example, if the #6 guy signs for 50/50 but then has an addendum added that provides an additional 150/150 it gets released that #6 gets paid 50/50, not 200/200. If number #11 (who gets paid 35/35) beats #7 (who gets paid whatever) and #11 asks for 70/70, they get told how ridiculous that is considering #6 only gets 50/50 and then the negotiations are severely limited. Even if you know what #6 is getting paid on the backend, they will deny and say that was bragadocious behavior on the part of #6 and it's not real.
Forces rankings to be held by a third party:
I believe this is fairly self explanatory but just in case, the proportion can't just arbitrarily claim this guy is this rank one week and then he's completely out of the reasons the next because he did something to upset the promoter.
Limits the length and terms they can put on our contracts.
You know the way fighters that are champions bitch and complain about the championship clause that if they win the title they're f'd due to being stuck in the promotion for an extended time going
forwards? That's eliminated. It also limits the terms of the contracts to just 1 year so the promotion either has to fight the athlete or let them go. Can't just sit them on the shelf.
There's other things included but I believe this mostly answers the questions. I don't see how anyone can logically argue against any of these points unless you're the promotion itself.
As a fan of the fighters, the Ali Act is a good thing. If I were a shareholder in a promotion, I would want to fight this.
Matt Mitrione - Let me give this a whirl as simply as I can make it:Thanks Matt,
It eliminates the secret monies.
By not being forced to disclose the money each fighter is getting paid, it severely limits the negotiating power of the other fighters. For states that release fighter pay information, fight contracts are turned in and that information is released publicly BUT any addendum to said contract is NOT. For example, if the #6 guy signs for 50/50 but then has an addendum added that provides an additional 150/150 it gets released that #6 gets paid 50/50, not 200/200. If number #11 (who gets paid 35/35) beats #7 (who gets paid whatever) and #11 asks for 70/70, they get told how ridiculous that is considering #6 only gets 50/50 and then the negotiations are severely limited. Even if you know what #6 is getting paid on the backend, they will deny and say that was bragadocious behavior on the part of #6 and it's not real.
Forces rankings to be held by a third party:
I believe this is fairly self explanatory but just in case, the proportion can't just arbitrarily claim this guy is this rank one week and then he's completely out of the reasons the next because he did something to upset the promoter.
Limits the length and terms they can put on our contracts.
You know the way fighters that are champions bitch and complain about the championship clause that if they win the title they're f'd due to being stuck in the promotion for an extended time going
forwards? That's eliminated. It also limits the terms of the contracts to just 1 year so the promotion either has to fight the athlete or let them go. Can't just sit them on the shelf.
There's other things included but I believe this mostly answers the questions. I don't see how anyone can logically argue against any of these points unless you're the promotion itself.
Which would you say is the most important thing to argue for in the MMA case? I'd imagine knowing the revenue generated and other fighters contracts would strengthen a fighters negotiating position hugely, as would yearly contracts.
If you could only have one, what would it be.
I was in Purdue when you were in TUF, was down at one of your viewing nights. Weren't you there with Rampage one night? Missed that
I'm going to go with what Matt Mitrione said.
Keeping fighter pay and conditions secret only helps the promoter, and the same goes for multi-year contracts.
Fighters eager to get into a major promotion are at risk of signing contracts which they will often later regret.
Matt Mitrione - Let me give this a whirl as simply as I can make it:
It eliminates the secret monies.
By not being forced to disclose the money each fighter is getting paid, it severely limits the negotiating power of the other fighters. For states that release fighter pay information, fight contracts are turned in and that information is released publicly BUT any addendum to said contract is NOT. For example, if the #6 guy signs for 50/50 but then has an addendum added that provides an additional 150/150 it gets released that #6 gets paid 50/50, not 200/200. If number #11 (who gets paid 35/35) beats #7 (who gets paid whatever) and #11 asks for 70/70, they get told how ridiculous that is considering #6 only gets 50/50 and then the negotiations are severely limited. Even if you know what #6 is getting paid on the backend, they will deny and say that was bragadocious behavior on the part of #6 and it's not real.
Forces rankings to be held by a third party:
I believe this is fairly self explanatory but just in case, the proportion can't just arbitrarily claim this guy is this rank one week and then he's completely out of the reasons the next because he did something to upset the promoter.
Limits the length and terms they can put on our contracts.
You know the way fighters that are champions bitch and complain about the championship clause that if they win the title they're f'd due to being stuck in the promotion for an extended time going
forwards? That's eliminated. It also limits the terms of the contracts to just 1 year so the promotion either has to fight the athlete or let them go. Can't just sit them on the shelf.
There's other things included but I believe this mostly answers the questions. I don't see how anyone can logically argue against any of these points unless you're the promotion itself.
Is the ranking thing really a big deal? I'm curious for your perspective. I ask because there are already several other places to get rankings other than the UFC's website that only ranks their fighters, and everyone sees through it when they drop a guy out for BS reasons. To me, all their rankings really are is a way for them to market a fight by saying how highly ranked certain guys are. I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing.
Do they really sit down with you during negotiations and say "Matt, you're ranked 9, and you can't get paid more than the guy ranked 8?"
To me, the thing about having an outside party regulate championships is a terrible idea, and I think that's the reason boxing has so many worthless titles. They'll tell a guy after winning the belt that some scrub is their mandatory #1 contender, and the dude gets stripped because he doesn't want to defend it against the guy who only deserves it in the eyes of that sanctioning body. If done correctly, it's a great idea, but seeing as though I don't see one sanctioning body in boxing doing it correctly, I hate the idea of eliminating UFC & Bellator champions and going with outside sanctioning bodies.
I'm a fan of the fighters, not the promotion.....
I Bellator seems to be doing some good things but until there is a real estate number 2 90% of the top guys are going to the UFC. The third party thing just seems are weird fit when there is 1 top promotion.
dowthebow -I think the financial terms are by far the most crucial.Matt Mitrione - Let me give this a whirl as simply as I can make it:Thanks Matt,
It eliminates the secret monies.
By not being forced to disclose the money each fighter is getting paid, it severely limits the negotiating power of the other fighters. For states that release fighter pay information, fight contracts are turned in and that information is released publicly BUT any addendum to said contract is NOT. For example, if the #6 guy signs for 50/50 but then has an addendum added that provides an additional 150/150 it gets released that #6 gets paid 50/50, not 200/200. If number #11 (who gets paid 35/35) beats #7 (who gets paid whatever) and #11 asks for 70/70, they get told how ridiculous that is considering #6 only gets 50/50 and then the negotiations are severely limited. Even if you know what #6 is getting paid on the backend, they will deny and say that was bragadocious behavior on the part of #6 and it's not real.
Forces rankings to be held by a third party:
I believe this is fairly self explanatory but just in case, the proportion can't just arbitrarily claim this guy is this rank one week and then he's completely out of the reasons the next because he did something to upset the promoter.
Limits the length and terms they can put on our contracts.
You know the way fighters that are champions bitch and complain about the championship clause that if they win the title they're f'd due to being stuck in the promotion for an extended time going
forwards? That's eliminated. It also limits the terms of the contracts to just 1 year so the promotion either has to fight the athlete or let them go. Can't just sit them on the shelf.
There's other things included but I believe this mostly answers the questions. I don't see how anyone can logically argue against any of these points unless you're the promotion itself.
Which would you say is the most important thing to argue for in the MMA case? I'd imagine knowing the revenue generated and other fighters contracts would strengthen a fighters negotiating position hugely, as would yearly contracts.
If you could only have one, what would it be.
I was in Purdue when you were in TUF, was down at one of your viewing nights. Weren't you there with Rampage one night? Missed that
Rickmassmma -Rankings are a big deal, yes. They SHOULD have direct relationship on who gets title shots and when. I completely agree that boxing is a disaster and it's turned itself into a farce of money grabbing and greed but in theory, it's correct, imo. To fix the issues could take effort and determination but why not try something new with us. Modify things a bit. Why not take a chance.Matt Mitrione - Let me give this a whirl as simply as I can make it:
It eliminates the secret monies.
By not being forced to disclose the money each fighter is getting paid, it severely limits the negotiating power of the other fighters. For states that release fighter pay information, fight contracts are turned in and that information is released publicly BUT any addendum to said contract is NOT. For example, if the #6 guy signs for 50/50 but then has an addendum added that provides an additional 150/150 it gets released that #6 gets paid 50/50, not 200/200. If number #11 (who gets paid 35/35) beats #7 (who gets paid whatever) and #11 asks for 70/70, they get told how ridiculous that is considering #6 only gets 50/50 and then the negotiations are severely limited. Even if you know what #6 is getting paid on the backend, they will deny and say that was bragadocious behavior on the part of #6 and it's not real.
Forces rankings to be held by a third party:
I believe this is fairly self explanatory but just in case, the proportion can't just arbitrarily claim this guy is this rank one week and then he's completely out of the reasons the next because he did something to upset the promoter.
Limits the length and terms they can put on our contracts.
You know the way fighters that are champions bitch and complain about the championship clause that if they win the title they're f'd due to being stuck in the promotion for an extended time going
forwards? That's eliminated. It also limits the terms of the contracts to just 1 year so the promotion either has to fight the athlete or let them go. Can't just sit them on the shelf.
There's other things included but I believe this mostly answers the questions. I don't see how anyone can logically argue against any of these points unless you're the promotion itself.
Is the ranking thing really a big deal? I'm curious for your perspective. I ask because there are already several other places to get rankings other than the UFC's website that only ranks their fighters, and everyone sees through it when they drop a guy out for BS reasons. To me, all their rankings really are is a way for them to market a fight by saying how highly ranked certain guys are. I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing.
Do they really sit down with you during negotiations and say "Matt, you're ranked 9, and you can't get paid more than the guy ranked 8?"
To me, the thing about having an outside party regulate championships is a terrible idea, and I think that's the reason boxing has so many worthless titles. They'll tell a guy after winning the belt that some scrub is their mandatory #1 contender, and the dude gets stripped because he doesn't want to defend it against the guy who only deserves it in the eyes of that sanctioning body. If done correctly, it's a great idea, but seeing as though I don't see one sanctioning body in boxing doing it correctly, I hate the idea of eliminating UFC & Bellator champions and going with outside sanctioning bodies.
Matt Mitrione - Let me give this a whirl as simply as I can make it:Makes complete sense.
It eliminates the secret monies.
By not being forced to disclose the money each fighter is getting paid, it severely limits the negotiating power of the other fighters. For states that release fighter pay information, fight contracts are turned in and that information is released publicly BUT any addendum to said contract is NOT. For example, if the #6 guy signs for 50/50 but then has an addendum added that provides an additional 150/150 it gets released that #6 gets paid 50/50, not 200/200. If number #11 (who gets paid 35/35) beats #7 (who gets paid whatever) and #11 asks for 70/70, they get told how ridiculous that is considering #6 only gets 50/50 and then the negotiations are severely limited. Even if you know what #6 is getting paid on the backend, they will deny and say that was bragadocious behavior on the part of #6 and it's not real.
Forces rankings to be held by a third party:
I believe this is fairly self explanatory but just in case, the proportion can't just arbitrarily claim this guy is this rank one week and then he's completely out of the reasons the next because he did something to upset the promoter.
Limits the length and terms they can put on our contracts.
You know the way fighters that are champions bitch and complain about the championship clause that if they win the title they're f'd due to being stuck in the promotion for an extended time going
forwards? That's eliminated. It also limits the terms of the contracts to just 1 year so the promotion either has to fight the athlete or let them go. Can't just sit them on the shelf.
There's other things included but I believe this mostly answers the questions. I don't see how anyone can logically argue against any of these points unless you're the promotion itself.
For a long time the UFC (mainly Dana) has hidden behind the idea that the fighters don't want their earnings disclosed for their own private reasons.
This is nonsense: anyone with any business knowledge knows it's done to control bargaining power.
The only big purses they're happy to disclose are the heavy hitters. This is because it pumps up the average disclosed fighter pay and acts as a "look what you COULD earn if you fall in line" to the newcomers/uncooperative.
They're also happy to disclose the Reebok pay because they can wash their hands of that and claim "Hey, it's not our fault - blame the sponsors".
There needs to be more transparency (and solidarity) for the sake of the fighters.
People like Conor calling out other fighters as 'bums' and mocking their pay grade is counter-productive for the sport IMO. After all, if it wasn't for the likes of Tito, Chuck, Randy, GSP etc. Conor might not even be able to earn a living from the sport he 'loves'.
Fighters should start looking out for each other more, and pull together, as it's one big connected situation IMO.
Matt Mitrione - Let me give this a whirl as simply as I can make it:Voted up! Thank you.
It eliminates the secret monies.
By not being forced to disclose the money each fighter is getting paid, it severely limits the negotiating power of the other fighters. For states that release fighter pay information, fight contracts are turned in and that information is released publicly BUT any addendum to said contract is NOT. For example, if the #6 guy signs for 50/50 but then has an addendum added that provides an additional 150/150 it gets released that #6 gets paid 50/50, not 200/200. If number #11 (who gets paid 35/35) beats #7 (who gets paid whatever) and #11 asks for 70/70, they get told how ridiculous that is considering #6 only gets 50/50 and then the negotiations are severely limited. Even if you know what #6 is getting paid on the backend, they will deny and say that was bragadocious behavior on the part of #6 and it's not real.
Forces rankings to be held by a third party:
I believe this is fairly self explanatory but just in case, the proportion can't just arbitrarily claim this guy is this rank one week and then he's completely out of the reasons the next because he did something to upset the promoter.
Limits the length and terms they can put on our contracts.
You know the way fighters that are champions bitch and complain about the championship clause that if they win the title they're f'd due to being stuck in the promotion for an extended time going
forwards? That's eliminated. It also limits the terms of the contracts to just 1 year so the promotion either has to fight the athlete or let them go. Can't just sit them on the shelf.
There's other things included but I believe this mostly answers the questions. I don't see how anyone can logically argue against any of these points unless you're the promotion itself.
Thanks for the input, Matt. Much appreciated