SupesUp - Considering the overall state of boxing I can't say I'd be happy with it, but I'm not a fighter.
So your logic is that boxing is in a shitty state, the Ali act applies to boxing, and therefore the Ali act would be bad for MMA? Please explain.
Well the Ali act takes the power from the promoter and gives it back to the fighter. This system is what caused boxing to be so fragmented. Without any long term contracts fighters will not be forced to fight the best in the world. This results in fighters picking and choosing fights. I agree fighters > promoters but I believe the overall health of the sport is what's most important for me, the fan.
More like it forces the promotion to pay a fighter what he deserves to fight the best in the world. Take UFC 197 - you have the two challengers making disclosed amounts of $55k (St Preux) and $60k (Cejudo) which is fucking ridiculous. If they didn't step up and take those title fights, the UFC has the right to be bitter and space out their remaining fights out spanning many years, if not indefinitely, completely preventing them from making enough money to live on. Basically, they can tell fighters "either take this fight for peanuts or your career is effectively over."
So you may be correct that the Ali Act would result in fighters demanding more money for big fights, but fucking good for them. Fighters being compensated in a reasonable manner with reasonable contracts will only attract better talent and be good for the sport in the long run. If the UFC had more legitimate competition fighers would have more leverage in negotiating reasonable contracts and this wouldn't be necessary, but it's more than clear that they're abusing their power just like monopolies always do.
You may be right but the Ali act is not the proper way of going about this. Fighters wealth is not more important than the health of the sport.
yeah...i have no idea why fans dont get this...its like they all hate the ufc and want to see it burned to the ground, yet everyone is here because of the ufc
Obviously most fans disagree with you that the Ali Act would be bad for the sport. Maybe bad for the UFC's pocket book, but not bad for the sport. It certainly wouldn't "burn the UFC to the ground."
"yet everyone is here because of the ufc"
The UFC is here because of the fans and the fighters - that's a fact. MMA would certainly be around and arguably in a healthier state without the UFC. I'm not saying I want them to fail - they put on amazing fights and that's probably helped by their near monopoly over the sport. However, they take advantage of that status by raping all but the top fighters. The Ali Act would help with that.
SupesUp - Considering the overall state of boxing I can't say I'd be happy with it, but I'm not a fighter.
So your logic is that boxing is in a shitty state, the Ali act applies to boxing, and therefore the Ali act would be bad for MMA? Please explain.
Well the Ali act takes the power from the promoter and gives it back to the fighter. This system is what caused boxing to be so fragmented. Without any long term contracts fighters will not be forced to fight the best in the world. This results in fighters picking and choosing fights. I agree fighters > promoters but I believe the overall health of the sport is what's most important for me, the fan.
More like it forces the promotion to pay a fighter what he deserves to fight the best in the world. Take UFC 197 - you have the two challengers making disclosed amounts of $55k (St Preux) and $60k (Cejudo) which is fucking ridiculous. If they didn't step up and take those title fights, the UFC has the right to be bitter and space out their remaining fights out spanning many years, if not indefinitely, completely preventing them from making enough money to live on. Basically, they can tell fighters "either take this fight for peanuts or your career is effectively over."
So you may be correct that the Ali Act would result in fighters demanding more money for big fights, but fucking good for them. Fighters being compensated in a reasonable manner with reasonable contracts will only attract better talent and be good for the sport in the long run. If the UFC had more legitimate competition fighers would have more leverage in negotiating reasonable contracts and this wouldn't be necessary, but it's more than clear that they're abusing their power just like monopolies always do.
You may be right but the Ali act is not the proper way of going about this. Fighters wealth is not more important than the health of the sport.
yeah...i have no idea why fans dont get this...its like they all hate the ufc and want to see it burned to the ground, yet everyone is here because of the ufc
Obviously most fans disagree with you that the Ali Act would be bad for the sport. Maybe bad for the UFC's pocket book, but not bad for the sport. It certainly wouldn't "burn the UFC to the ground."
"yet everyone is here because of the ufc"
The UFC is here because of the fans and the fighters - that's a fact. MMA would certainly be around and arguably in a healthier state without the UFC. I'm not saying I want them to fail - they put on amazing fights and that's probably helped by their near monopoly over the sport. However, they take advantage of that status by raping all but the top fighters. The Ali Act would help with that.
I think everyone including Matt agree that boxing regulation is a mess. And like Matt said if things are going to change it going to take some effort.
Most people would rather dine with the devil you know than the one you dont. Changing gears to an unproven system or a system that currently reflects boxing is a risk. And therein lies the rub..... it is really hard to change the system you have because you have limited power.
With promoter control, to even ascend to contender status or obtain a title fight, the fighter must sign the contract presented by the promoter. If they don't--they simply will not move up the ladder. Think about what this does to the leverage between a fighter and promoter.
Further, if rank/title is not independent, the promotion can simply "strip" it away from the fighter. Again--think what this does to leverage. In boxing, a fighter can work up the ranks, win a title, and then become open for bid from all other promoters who want to promote a champion.
In MMA, at a time when marketability and leverage should be at their peak, the promotion can simply strip it away from the fighter.
I hear what you're saying, but how many MMA champions do you see get stripped? I see boxing champions get stripped all the time, often for refusing to fight a bum the sanctioning body is trying to sell as a legit contender. I agree with most of what Matt is saying, but the rankings in boxing are considerably more fucked up than in MMA.
bonnie - The Ali Act was indeed successful at giving some bargaining power back to boxers. I don't know how you can think otherwise.
The bottom long is this: If you're fine with the UFC's habit of paying less than market rate for high-end fights and pocketing the difference, there's no way I can convince you otherwise. That's why legislation like this is left up to the political process.
Im not arguing that the ali act would give more leverage to the fighters. clearly it would. im asking why its a forgone conclusion that having the government step in to artificially create that leverage is a good thing.
what exactly is market? what is reasonable? weve seen free agents go to bellator and other orgs and weve seen them go to the UFC. thats the market.
Exactly...guys like Aljamain Sterling were free agents, tested the market, and came back to the UFC. He wasn't bullied into a contract, and he isn't with the UFC because they somehow trapped him. He chose their offer over the other competitors. I don't see the problem.
bonnie - The Ali Act was indeed successful at giving some bargaining power back to boxers. I don't know how you can think otherwise.
The bottom long is this: If you're fine with the UFC's habit of paying less than market rate for high-end fights and pocketing the difference, there's no way I can convince you otherwise. That's why legislation like this is left up to the political process.
Im not arguing that the ali act would give more leverage to the fighters. clearly it would. im asking why its a forgone conclusion that having the government step in to artificially create that leverage is a good thing.
what exactly is market? what is reasonable? weve seen free agents go to bellator and other orgs and weve seen them go to the UFC. thats the market.
Exactly...guys like Aljamain Sterling were free agents, tested the market, and came back to the UFC. He wasn't bullied into a contract, and he isn't with the UFC because they somehow trapped him. He chose their offer over the other competitors. I don't see the problem.
Hired Gun - I wonder how pissed off some guys are going to be when salary is made public and they see how much more other guys are making?
it will be a huge clusterfuck...same with 1 year contracts....the independent rankings, who cares- fine..but this micromanaging of contracts by the government is a big deal
bonnie - I'm not understanding the argument against extending the Ali Act to MMA.
Is giving fighters more bargaining power going to destroy MMA?
Or is giving fighters more bargaining power no big deal because they are already paid at the market rate?
Personally it's the short term contracts that bother me. One year is fuck all in MMA, sometimes 1-2 fights. Basically this means the ufc becomes irrelevant. They have no reason to promote a fighter just so he can leave after 2 fights and promote his own show. So now you don't have a large organization corralling the best fighters to fight one another. Everything will be fragmented as it is in boxing, fighters will have more of a self interest in fighting cans to move up the new 3rd party "official" rankings as there won't be anyone assigning fights based on moving up the way the ufc does. I am all for fighters getting more but in its entirety the Ali act is not it. I don't see how you need more proof than just look at what it's done to boxing.
bonnie - I'm not understanding the argument against extending the Ali Act to MMA.
Is giving fighters more bargaining power going to destroy MMA?
Or is giving fighters more bargaining power no big deal because they are already paid at the market rate?
there are a lot of things you can do to give power to fighters...you can make the minimum salary 500K, you could give them 100% freedom to advertise whatever they want including pornsites and competitors, you could allow them to take all the drugs they want with no repercussions....but would all these things be good for the UFC or mma in general? probably not...you cant assume, in absolutely terms, that having the gov step in to give the fighters more power will always be a good thing
there have been many mma orgs in the past...pretty much all have failed...people want to think of fighter rights in a vacuum, but the reality is that there are two sides to the equation..you cant manipulate one side without causing an effect, possibly a very adverse one, to the other side
Act doesn't limit promotional agreements to one year--legislative history explicitly says it does nothing to regulate length of promotional agreements.
It limits options to one year--i.e. the mandatory challenger is unattached or with a different promoter. In obtaining the title fight, any extension over 1 year would be coercive.
"It is important to note that the duration of basic boxer-promoter contracts is not limited by the bill. The Committee does not seek to limit contracts reached as a result of legitimate arms length bargaining between an unattached boxer and promoter. The one-year limitation applies only to those situations where a promoter secures promotional rights from a boxer (or another promoter), as a condition for that boxer to compete in a particular bout."
Independent rankings, even if not perfect, are an improvement of many magnitudes for fighters.
Act doesn't limit promotional agreements to one year--legislative history explicitly says it does nothing to regulate length of promotional agreements.
It limits options to one year--i.e. the mandatory challenger is unattached or with a different promoter. In obtaining the title fight, any extension over 1 year would be coercive.
"It is important to note that the duration of basic boxer-promoter contracts is not limited by the bill. The Committee does not seek to limit contracts reached as a result of legitimate arms length bargaining between an unattached boxer and promoter. The one-year limitation applies only to those situations where a promoter secures promotional rights from a boxer (or another promoter), as a condition for that boxer to compete in a particular bout."
Independent rankings, even if not perfect, are an improvement of many magnitudes for fighters.
what does it mean to secure promotional rights from a boxer
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.
Makes complete sense.
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.
Point by point I can think of at least one fighter being bent over by each example. The recent rise of Nate Diaz is a good example. His ranking was dropped due to inactivity after being put of the shelf for an extended period of time over contract disputes. It took the UFC brass underestimating Nate, and trying to cash him in (his name recognition) to build Connor's brand. They expected an easy win for Connor with Nate having no camp as a late replacement. I am sure that was a calculated decision. I also think this is why there was so much catharsis among other fighters.
Sadly, that's the kind of rare situation that it takes for a "journeyman" fighter to buck the UFC narrative. The UFC is attempting to put together a product. A pre-packaged and marketed product in which they can minimize costs, and maximize profit. The issue is that the product's primary ingredient is people. This is an issue, because you can't do that without objectifying these people. How can anyone call themselves a fan of the sport, and not feel some loyalty towards the people that comprise it?
The argument that the UFC is the fastest growing sport BECAUSE of their business model is horseshit. The largest sports organizations aren't exploiting their athletes to the degree that the UFC is. There are laws in place to protect athletes; the UFC made huge efforts to legitimize MMA as a sport for regulatory purposes. It's time to act like it's a legit sport with legit athletes. That includes legit compensation, and benefits.
I don't watch boxing so I don't know how the Ali Act affected boxing. I don't recall there being any boxing promotions modeled like the UFC before the Ali Act was passed, so I'm not sure we can say there is some blueprint for what will happen to the UFC if the Ali Act is extended to MMA.
As far as the UFC staying on top if the Ali Act were to pass.
Promoting fighters: As it stands the UFC requires its fighters to promote the company, but it has no corresponding requirement to promote the fighters. So the UFC can punish a fighter for missing a press conference, but the fighter can't punish the UFC if they drive down his market value by talking negatively about him to the press. So while the Ali Act would give the UFC less of an incentive to promote a fighter, it will also give them more of an incentive to not drive their market value down (because the fighter would be able to respond by signing with a different promotion or have the bargaining power to contracctually prevent the UFC from doing so). So as far as I'm concerned this issue is a wash.
Top fighters avoiding each other: It seems that no matter what, fighters will always want a crack at the world champion. I don't think that would change if the Ali Act is extended to MMA. Whether the fights happen in the UFC, Bellator, or in a co-promotion is not my concern.
bonnie - I don't watch boxing so I don't know how the Ali Act affected boxing. I don't recall there being any boxing promotions modeled like the UFC before the Ali Act was passed, so I'm not sure we can say there is some blueprint for what will happen to the UFC if the Ali Act is extended to MMA.
As far as the UFC staying on top if the Ali Act were to pass.
Promoting fighters: As it stands the UFC requires its fighters to promote the company, but it has no corresponding requirement to promote the fighters. So the UFC can punish a fighter for missing a press conference, but the fighter can't punish the UFC if they drive down his market value by talking negatively about him to the press. So while the Ali Act would give the UFC less of an incentive to promote a fighter, it will also give them more of an incentive to not drive their market value down (because the fighter would be able to respond by signing with a different promotion within a year). So as far as I'm concerned this issue is a wash.
Top fighters avoiding each other: It seems that no matter what, fighters will always want a crack at the world champion. I don't think that would change if the Ali Act is extended to MMA. Whether the fights happen in the UFC, Bellator, or in a co-promotion is not my concern.
there doesnt need to be a requirement for the UFC to promote the fighters...one, they do anyways because there is an alignment of interests there...two, all of the obligations of the parties in a contract dont have to be mirror images of each other...fighters get paid to fight, to promote, to make weight etc...its all part of their obligations...all things which they can try to negotiate if they want
Act doesn't limit promotional agreements to one year--legislative history explicitly says it does nothing to regulate length of promotional agreements.
It limits options to one year--i.e. the mandatory challenger is unattached or with a different promoter. In obtaining the title fight, any extension over 1 year would be coercive.
"It is important to note that the duration of basic boxer-promoter contracts is not limited by the bill. The Committee does not seek to limit contracts reached as a result of legitimate arms length bargaining between an unattached boxer and promoter. The one-year limitation applies only to those situations where a promoter secures promotional rights from a boxer (or another promoter), as a condition for that boxer to compete in a particular bout."
Independent rankings, even if not perfect, are an improvement of many magnitudes for fighters.
<br />
<span class="User-264289" id="userPost57398740">what does it mean to secure promotional rights from a boxer</span></blockquote>
"as a condition to" is important--means Bellator promotes the mandatory, and Legacy has the champion. or the mandatory is unattached to any promoter.
They attempt to negotiate deal. Legacy cannot require more than 1 year of promotional rights as a condition to granting the fight against a boxer it promotes. Think Fedor-Couture. Fedor wanted to fight UFC's HW champion, and move on win or lose. The statute says no, promoter should have right to some options on future promotion--but limited it to 1 year.
bonnie - I don't watch boxing so I don't know how the Ali Act affected boxing. I don't recall there being any boxing promotions modeled like the UFC before the Ali Act was passed, so I'm not sure we can say there is some blueprint for what will happen to the UFC if the Ali Act is extended to MMA.
As far as the UFC staying on top if the Ali Act were to pass.
Promoting fighters: As it stands the UFC requires its fighters to promote the company, but it has no corresponding requirement to promote the fighters. So the UFC can punish a fighter for missing a press conference, but the fighter can't punish the UFC if they drive down his market value by talking negatively about him to the press. So while the Ali Act would give the UFC less of an incentive to promote a fighter, it will also give them more of an incentive to not drive their market value down (because the fighter would be able to respond by signing with a different promotion within a year). So as far as I'm concerned this issue is a wash.
Top fighters avoiding each other: It seems that no matter what, fighters will always want a crack at the world champion. I don't think that would change if the Ali Act is extended to MMA. Whether the fights happen in the UFC, Bellator, or in a co-promotion is not my concern.
there doesnt need to be a requirement for the UFC to promote the fighters...one, they do anyways because there is an alignment of interests there...two, all of the obligations of the parties in a contract dont have to be mirror images of each other...fighters get paid to fight, to promote, to make weight etc...its all part of their obligations...all things which they can try to negotiate if they want
Jon Jones disagrees. So does Nick and Nate Diaz. Conor McGregor.
The UFC does not always promote a fighter--in fact, at times they outright bash.
Act doesn't limit promotional agreements to one year--legislative history explicitly says it does nothing to regulate length of promotional agreements.
It limits options to one year--i.e. the mandatory challenger is unattached or with a different promoter. In obtaining the title fight, any extension over 1 year would be coercive.
"It is important to note that the duration of basic boxer-promoter contracts is not limited by the bill. The Committee does not seek to limit contracts reached as a result of legitimate arms length bargaining between an unattached boxer and promoter. The one-year limitation applies only to those situations where a promoter secures promotional rights from a boxer (or another promoter), as a condition for that boxer to compete in a particular bout."
Independent rankings, even if not perfect, are an improvement of many magnitudes for fighters.
<br />
<span class="User-264289" id="userPost57398740">what does it mean to secure promotional rights from a boxer</span></blockquote>
"as a condition to" is important--means Bellator promotes the mandatory, and Legacy has the champion. or the mandatory is unattached to any promoter.
They attempt to negotiate deal. Legacy cannot require more than 1 year of promotional rights as a condition to granting the fight against a boxer it promotes. Think Fedor-Couture. Fedor wanted to fight UFC's HW champion, and move on win or lose. The statute says no, promoter should have right to some options on future promotion--but limited it to 1 year.
Anymore than 1 year is coercive and voidable.
still dont quite get it...does promotional rights mean fighting in the org? if so, doesnt that apply to all of UFC's contracts
bonnie - I don't watch boxing so I don't know how the Ali Act affected boxing. I don't recall there being any boxing promotions modeled like the UFC before the Ali Act was passed, so I'm not sure we can say there is some blueprint for what will happen to the UFC if the Ali Act is extended to MMA.
As far as the UFC staying on top if the Ali Act were to pass.
Promoting fighters: As it stands the UFC requires its fighters to promote the company, but it has no corresponding requirement to promote the fighters. So the UFC can punish a fighter for missing a press conference, but the fighter can't punish the UFC if they drive down his market value by talking negatively about him to the press. So while the Ali Act would give the UFC less of an incentive to promote a fighter, it will also give them more of an incentive to not drive their market value down (because the fighter would be able to respond by signing with a different promotion within a year). So as far as I'm concerned this issue is a wash.
Top fighters avoiding each other: It seems that no matter what, fighters will always want a crack at the world champion. I don't think that would change if the Ali Act is extended to MMA. Whether the fights happen in the UFC, Bellator, or in a co-promotion is not my concern.
there doesnt need to be a requirement for the UFC to promote the fighters...one, they do anyways because there is an alignment of interests there...two, all of the obligations of the parties in a contract dont have to be mirror images of each other...fighters get paid to fight, to promote, to make weight etc...its all part of their obligations...all things which they can try to negotiate if they want
Jon Jones disagrees. So does Nick and Nate Diaz. Conor McGregor.
The UFC does not always promote a fighter--in fact, at times they outright bash.
then negotiate for that...give up some $$$ and require the UFC to run x amount of ads and give you x amount of appearances...throw in a non-disparagement clause too
