newtotheinterweb - From what I've read, because they specify boxing by name in the contracts as prohibited without UFC consent or involvement, it can be interpreted to imply that they have the right and the ability to provide boxing promotion, whether they have previously or intend to do so in the future or not, at their discretion, in regards to their contracted athletes. If a judge were to agree that technically, because McGregor obtained a boxing licence, making him a professional boxer under the act, the UFC were the contracted promoter of a professional boxer, with the ability to promote a boxing match, they are therefore acting in that case as a boxing promotor, that would make them subject to the terms of the Ali act and subsequently void mcgregors contract due to the terms of that contract
Southpaw'd - They could just do it in japan or russia, where anything goes. Hope to see this happen.
Zuffa could still seek an injunction in Nevada and seek foreign enforcement. More importantly they could get damages and go after assets of the Defendants.
Neither guy is that dumb. Floyd may be down for only one more fight (although I doubt it), Conor damn sure wants to fight more. And end run like this would be a mistake for any sort of future in MMA.
They could only pursue damages if Conor was already booked to fight in the UFC and proceeding with the Floyd fight forced it to be cancelled. Without an event scheduled and providing Conor had fulfilled any possible obligation on fights over that 12 month period, the UFC couldn't prove any financial loss brought on by Conor or any associated parties therefore couldn't be awarded any monetary compensation
newtotheinterweb - From what I've read, because they specify boxing by name in the contracts as prohibited without UFC consent or involvement, it can be interpreted to imply that they have the right and the ability to provide boxing promotion, whether they have previously or intend to do so in the future or not, at their discretion, in regards to their contracted athletes. If a judge were to agree that technically, because McGregor obtained a boxing licence, making him a professional boxer under the act, the UFC were the contracted promoter of a professional boxer, with the ability to promote a boxing match, they are therefore acting in that case as a boxing promotor, that would make them subject to the terms of the Ali act and subsequently void mcgregors contract due to the terms of that contract
That's indeed the potential argument but it is a long shot for a judge to agree that the UFC is a boxing promoter as defined by the statute. On the face of it they don't meet the definition.
It all depends if they hold a valid licence to promote boxing. They don't need to be actively promoting boxing events or even have ever done so. I've no idea if their license covers boxing or if they are in any way eligable to promote boxing currently but it wouldn't surprise me either way. One would assume that any requirements needed to hold an MMA event would be greater than required for boxing due simply to the far greater array of potential attacks and subsequent injuries. The only reason I would suggest they don't would be if the license they operate under to promote MMA didn't cover boxing and they'd be paying application and registration fees on a seperate license they have no known intention of actually using.
newtotheinterweb - From what I've read, because they specify boxing by name in the contracts as prohibited without UFC consent or involvement, it can be interpreted to imply that they have the right and the ability to provide boxing promotion, whether they have previously or intend to do so in the future or not, at their discretion, in regards to their contracted athletes. If a judge were to agree that technically, because McGregor obtained a boxing licence, making him a professional boxer under the act, the UFC were the contracted promoter of a professional boxer, with the ability to promote a boxing match, they are therefore acting in that case as a boxing promotor, that would make them subject to the terms of the Ali act and subsequently void mcgregors contract due to the terms of that contract
If this is true, then Conner will do it. He will make a massive boxing payday, keeping all the money.
At that point, what happens? Is his entire contract with the UFC void? If it is, I bet he goes to bellator or to some boxing style "no league" promotion. Probably one run by Al Haymon and Floyd. Even if this is objectively a poor move, he believes in his own star power, and I bet he takes this chance.
If the UFC still owns his next few MMA fights, then it becomes very interesting. Will the UFC punish him by putting a massive star on under cards and stripping his title? I bet they try to feed him to killer wrestlers and such. If he can still make 140 under the current rules, he might be able to withstand that.
He would be worth even more money in MMA after a Floyd fight, especially if he went to decision, so maybe business will carry on as usual.
That's only my understanding of a possible ruling. I couldn't say how likely that outcome would be if that situation did unfold. As for the aftermath, my guess is they couldn't void the contract specifically for boxing alone, it would mean the contract was void completely and McGregor would become a free agent with no restrictions whatsoever, as if he'd never signed a UFC contract at all. I doubt Conor would make better money to fight than his UFC contract anywhere outside the Floyd fight so IMO it'd be a choice between attempting to be the first to obtain a promotors licence and adopt the individual promotion angle holding his own events and headlining himself which I think would be very appealing to Conor and groundbreaking in the MMA world or trying to get his UFC contract reinstated/replaced. The latter would require the UFC to decide between their pride and the potential roll on effect that having Conor re contracted after openly disregarding their wishes and making them appear powerless. They'd lose face in a huge way and it would open the gates for others, most likely their biggest draws to try the same stunt. While it's easy to say that the smart choice would be say fuck the media, Re sign him, and get back to capitalising on possibly their highest revenue raiser, the consequences could be felt in many facets and far outweigh the benefits even financially
Huey freman - So then wouldn't the judge rule that the ufc is powerless to stop someone pursuing a boxing bout?
If zuffas argument is that it isn't a boxing promoter then they shouldn't be able to stop a boxing bout going ahead no?
I do believe a court could overrule the contract as long as it's a boxing match.
No I don't think so because if the UFC was found to not be a licenced boxing promoter then the court would have no jurisdiction to rule either way on any contracts they hold, meaning that he would still be bound the terms of his UFC contract
Southpaw'd - They could just do it in japan or russia, where anything goes. Hope to see this happen.
Zuffa could still seek an injunction in Nevada and seek foreign enforcement. More importantly they could get damages and go after assets of the Defendants.
Neither guy is that dumb. Floyd may be down for only one more fight (although I doubt it), Conor damn sure wants to fight more. And end run like this would be a mistake for any sort of future in MMA.
They could only pursue damages if Conor was already booked to fight in the UFC and proceeding with the Floyd fight forced it to be cancelled. Without an event scheduled and providing Conor had fulfilled any possible obligation on fights over that 12 month period, the UFC couldn't prove any financial loss brought on by Conor or any associated parties therefore couldn't be awarded any monetary compensation
Why do you say that? Zuffa has the exclusive contractual right to financially exploit the profits of McGregor bouts. If he participates in a contractually prohibited event Zuffa argues damages are the profits from that event or average profits McGregor makes Zuffa when he fights under their banner.
newtotheinterweb - From what I've read, because they specify boxing by name in the contracts as prohibited without UFC consent or involvement, it can be interpreted to imply that they have the right and the ability to provide boxing promotion, whether they have previously or intend to do so in the future or not, at their discretion, in regards to their contracted athletes. If a judge were to agree that technically, because McGregor obtained a boxing licence, making him a professional boxer under the act, the UFC were the contracted promoter of a professional boxer, with the ability to promote a boxing match, they are therefore acting in that case as a boxing promotor, that would make them subject to the terms of the Ali act and subsequently void mcgregors contract due to the terms of that contract
That's indeed the potential argument but it is a long shot for a judge to agree that the UFC is a boxing promoter as defined by the statute. On the face of it they don't meet the definition.
It all depends if they hold a valid licence to promote boxing. They don't need to be actively promoting boxing events or even have ever done so. I've no idea if their license covers boxing or if they are in any way eligable to promote boxing currently but it wouldn't surprise me either way. One would assume that any requirements needed to hold an MMA event would be greater than required for boxing due simply to the far greater array of potential attacks and subsequent injuries. The only reason I would suggest they don't would be if the license they operate under to promote MMA didn't cover boxing and they'd be paying application and registration fees on a seperate license they have no known intention of actually using.
They need more than just a boxing promoters licence. They have to meet the statutory definition of being a boxing promoter under the Ali Act which is an entity “primarily responsible for organizing, promoting, and producing a professional boxing match". Perhaps I'm wrong but I can't see how Zuffa meets this definition.
newtotheinterweb - From what I've read, because they specify boxing by name in the contracts as prohibited without UFC consent or involvement, it can be interpreted to imply that they have the right and the ability to provide boxing promotion, whether they have previously or intend to do so in the future or not, at their discretion, in regards to their contracted athletes. If a judge were to agree that technically, because McGregor obtained a boxing licence, making him a professional boxer under the act, the UFC were the contracted promoter of a professional boxer, with the ability to promote a boxing match, they are therefore acting in that case as a boxing promotor, that would make them subject to the terms of the Ali act and subsequently void mcgregors contract due to the terms of that contract
That's indeed the potential argument but it is a long shot for a judge to agree that the UFC is a boxing promoter as defined by the statute. On the face of it they don't meet the definition.
It all depends if they hold a valid licence to promote boxing. They don't need to be actively promoting boxing events or even have ever done so. I've no idea if their license covers boxing or if they are in any way eligable to promote boxing currently but it wouldn't surprise me either way. One would assume that any requirements needed to hold an MMA event would be greater than required for boxing due simply to the far greater array of potential attacks and subsequent injuries. The only reason I would suggest they don't would be if the license they operate under to promote MMA didn't cover boxing and they'd be paying application and registration fees on a seperate license they have no known intention of actually using.
They need more than just a boxing promoters licence. They have to meet the statutory definition of being a boxing promoter under the Ali Act which is an entity “primarily responsible for organizing, promoting, and producing a professional boxing match". Perhaps I'm wrong but I can't see how Zuffa meets this definition.
That would be the deciding factor to it all. Whether or not they could convince a judge that the UFC is essentially acting as a boxing promotor. If they prove that to be the case, any contractual rights they have to profits generated by Conor would be void along with the contract itself. It's all hypothetical of course and it's a million to one shot of ever happening
Or Conor simply sues UFC for breach of contract... Depending on the language of the contract and how specific for promotional obligations it could be argued he more then met his promotional obligations. My guess is zuffa has some open ended stuff like You will do what ever we tell you for promotion. In which case then this would be extremely unlikely.
Best route is to work it out with UFC. Seems like UFC would want to be associated with the biggest name in combat sport FMJ, It would be the best promotion they could get for their brand. I'm not confident they can work it out though because they are all the biggest egos in combat sports. Here's to hoping they can!
newtotheinterweb - From what I've read, because they specify boxing by name in the contracts as prohibited without UFC consent or involvement, it can be interpreted to imply that they have the right and the ability to provide boxing promotion, whether they have previously or intend to do so in the future or not, at their discretion, in regards to their contracted athletes. If a judge were to agree that technically, because McGregor obtained a boxing licence, making him a professional boxer under the act, the UFC were the contracted promoter of a professional boxer, with the ability to promote a boxing match, they are therefore acting in that case as a boxing promotor, that would make them subject to the terms of the Ali act and subsequently void mcgregors contract due to the terms of that contract
This is more than a frivoulous argument for sure.
I think McGraken downplays this argument in error--especially when a court takes a gander at the contract. . .
newtotheinterweb - From what I've read, because they specify boxing by name in the contracts as prohibited without UFC consent or involvement, it can be interpreted to imply that they have the right and the ability to provide boxing promotion, whether they have previously or intend to do so in the future or not, at their discretion, in regards to their contracted athletes. If a judge were to agree that technically, because McGregor obtained a boxing licence, making him a professional boxer under the act, the UFC were the contracted promoter of a professional boxer, with the ability to promote a boxing match, they are therefore acting in that case as a boxing promotor, that would make them subject to the terms of the Ali act and subsequently void mcgregors contract due to the terms of that contract
This is more than a frivoulous argument for sure.
I think McGraken downplays this argument in error--especially when a court takes a gander at the contract. . .
I just can't see how a contract to promote MMA (not boxing) but prohibits the fighter from boxing during the term makes Zuffa meet the definition of boxing promoter under the contract. Perhaps I'm wrong Rob, and it's fun watching this play out, but I just don't see it.
newtotheinterweb - From what I've read, because they specify boxing by name in the contracts as prohibited without UFC consent or involvement, it can be interpreted to imply that they have the right and the ability to provide boxing promotion, whether they have previously or intend to do so in the future or not, at their discretion, in regards to their contracted athletes. If a judge were to agree that technically, because McGregor obtained a boxing licence, making him a professional boxer under the act, the UFC were the contracted promoter of a professional boxer, with the ability to promote a boxing match, they are therefore acting in that case as a boxing promotor, that would make them subject to the terms of the Ali act and subsequently void mcgregors contract due to the terms of that contract
That's indeed the potential argument but it is a long shot for a judge to agree that the UFC is a boxing promoter as defined by the statute. On the face of it they don't meet the definition.
Erik, if the UFC copromotes with Mayweather, would that make them an actual boxing promoter, thus, voiding contracts?
newtotheinterweb - From what I've read, because they specify boxing by name in the contracts as prohibited without UFC consent or involvement, it can be interpreted to imply that they have the right and the ability to provide boxing promotion, whether they have previously or intend to do so in the future or not, at their discretion, in regards to their contracted athletes. If a judge were to agree that technically, because McGregor obtained a boxing licence, making him a professional boxer under the act, the UFC were the contracted promoter of a professional boxer, with the ability to promote a boxing match, they are therefore acting in that case as a boxing promotor, that would make them subject to the terms of the Ali act and subsequently void mcgregors contract due to the terms of that contract
That's indeed the potential argument but it is a long shot for a judge to agree that the UFC is a boxing promoter as defined by the statute. On the face of it they don't meet the definition.
Erik, if the UFC copromotes with Mayweather, would that make them an actual boxing promoter, thus, voiding contracts?
I think that would be dangerous territory for Zuffa.
I get that certain terms in current UFC contracts would be considered coercive under the Ali Act. Would one of those terms be the provision that prevents fighters from competing in boxing without the UFC's permission?
Applying the Ali Act to MMA would really give McGregor a lot more bargaining power. He would only be under contract for 12 months at a time, making him a true free agent on a regular basis. He would also get to see how much the UFC makes when he fights.
Honestly, if McGregor is not getting what he wants from the UFC, he should start lobbying in favor of Rep. Markwayne Mullin's measure.
