Erik is going to eat this up.
No. If that was the case, the clause could read, "any term over 12 months." Nothing additional.
It doesn't apply to a boxer and his promoter. It applies to an unattached boxer, or a boxer from a different promoter who wants to fight a fighter in the UFC, for example.
gokudamus -Macedawgg -gokudamus -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
Now we are talking.
As structured, there is no leverage.
When the promoter matchmakes, and dictates rank/title, you sign the form contracts.
If you don't, you are simply just not advanced in the promotion.
By making rank/title independent of the promoter, you place the boxer and promoter on more level playing field to negotiate, as you say.
Macedawg seems to know his stuff. 
Macedawgg -gokudamus -Macedawgg -gokudamus -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
Now we are talking.
As structured, there is no leverage.
When the promoter matchmakes, and dictates rank/title, you sign the form contracts.
If you don't, you are simply just not advanced in the promotion.
Macedawgg -
By making rank/title independent of the promoter, you place the boxer and promoter on more level playing field to negotiate, as you say.
gokudamus -Macedawgg -
By making rank/title independent of the promoter, you place the boxer and promoter on more level playing field to negotiate, as you say.
i still dont like the idea of the government coming in to regulate this sort of thing, but frankly i could care less about the rankings...they would probably look virtually the same with a few bellator guys mixed in and the ufc doesnt even really follow rankings anyways...
Getting closer.
Rankings could look identical--the big difference--a fighter could fight out his or her 4 fights, and keep their ranking.
Now you will have ALL sorts of promoters bidding to promote. . .
Further, with independent sanctioning, mandatory bouts with the number 1 contender will be required.
Carlos Newton distilled this beautifully:
"Fighters compete for titles. . . Promoters compete for fighters."
Macedawgg -gokudamus -Macedawgg -
By making rank/title independent of the promoter, you place the boxer and promoter on more level playing field to negotiate, as you say.
i still dont like the idea of the government coming in to regulate this sort of thing, but frankly i could care less about the rankings...they would probably look virtually the same with a few bellator guys mixed in and the ufc doesnt even really follow rankings anyways...
Getting closer.
Rankings could look identical--the big difference--a fighter could fight out his or her 4 fights, and keep their ranking.
Now you will have ALL sorts of promoters bidding to promote. . .
Further, with independent sanctioning, mandatory bouts with the number 1 contender will be required.
Carlos Newton distilled this beautifully:
"Fighters compete for titles. . . Promoters compete for fighters."
Macedawgg -
Erik is going to eat this up.
No. If that was the case, the clause could read, "any term over 12 months." Nothing additional.
It doesn't apply to a boxer and his promoter. It applies to an unattached boxer, or a boxer from a different promoter who wants to fight a fighter in the UFC, for example.
Listen to this clip from Representative Mullin.
This is an absurd admission. . . and in fact is not sport at all. It should not even be sanctioned.
It is literally pro-wrasslin' without predermined outcomes. Entertainment violence--Tough Man competition.
Listen to these short audio clips:
gokudamus -Macedawgg -gokudamus -Macedawgg -
By making rank/title independent of the promoter, you place the boxer and promoter on more level playing field to negotiate, as you say.
i still dont like the idea of the government coming in to regulate this sort of thing, but frankly i could care less about the rankings...they would probably look virtually the same with a few bellator guys mixed in and the ufc doesnt even really follow rankings anyways...
Getting closer.
Rankings could look identical--the big difference--a fighter could fight out his or her 4 fights, and keep their ranking.
Now you will have ALL sorts of promoters bidding to promote. . .
Further, with independent sanctioning, mandatory bouts with the number 1 contender will be required.
Carlos Newton distilled this beautifully:
"Fighters compete for titles. . . Promoters compete for fighters."
who are ALL sorts of promoters?
and fuck all that noise about mandatory bouts...why should the government regulate that...you wouldnt get to see a lot of great fights
Because that is sport.
MMA as we know it is not operated as sport.
Like Fedor v. Randy? We see that?
Askren vs. Lawlor? We see that? Wasn't Askren simply exiled?
huh? im pretty sure mma is a sport...why are your posts so cryptic?
ufc made offers to fedor in the past and he went elsewhere...no coercsion..that was his choice...but yet he keeps coming back to the UFC
askren was released by bellator..are you saying you want to FORCE the UFC to sign askren to fight if he is ranked #1? get out
Yes, exactly. And if the UFC refused, the match would go up for bid and would be promoted by the highest bidder.
That is what sport requires.
You listen to Mullin on UFC comments Goku?
My posts are not cryptic at all--they are about as direct as can be.
what does sport require?
Matt Mitrione -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.
Independent sanctioning would not mandate an immediate rematch, nor do fights have to follow rankings lockstep.
Sanctiong would set forth time periods for title defenses against the #1 contender.
Macedawgg -
Independent sanctioning would not mandate an immediate rematch, nor do fights have to follow rankings lockstep.
Sanctiong would set forth time periods for title defenses against the #1 contender.
One time is to many.
How many times has a fighter retained his ranking when leaving any promotion?
If nothing would change--why is the UFC vigorously resisting?
You listen to Mullin clips Goku? The one where Mullin says the UFC told him they don't have championship titles--they have prizes for fighter of the night?
I wonder if that was said with a straight face. Would have loved to see it.
The "Askren Act" really has the right ring to it.
MagSlim - Holding my breath for the MMA media to get Dana and Lorenzo on the record about why they're opposed to this.
