California bill AB2100 my cause UFC to leave California.

[Vanno]

Thats a good way to put it. They are always at the forefront of insane legal rulings, anti-business rules and a haven for illegal immigration.

Funny you mention legal rulings. It houses the 9th Circuit (if I recall correctly), which is pretty much a judicial joke.

[LordZardoz]

I like the intent, but the execution blows. The law as described seems to be geared towards taking a big chunk of what sets the UFC apart and making it illegal. It seems to try to force MMA to be organized exactly the way boxing is.

Protecting the fighters is good. Making exclusive contracts impossible is not good. Forcing the promoter to accept inappropriate or conflicting sponsers is not good. IE: The UFC has Dodge as a sponsor for the entire promotion. Why should they be forced to let a fighter be sponsored by Ford? And why should a fighter be able to cause issues for a promoter by insisting on a sponsor that the TV partners wont tolerate (ie, Fox and the Gun Store).

I am also convinced that a big part of the reason for the UFC's success is that the exclusive contracts give them the means to create competitive matchups without making it cripplingly expensive to do so. Without a combination of a champions clause and the exclusive contracts, I just do not see Shogun giving Jon Jones a title shot. Too much risk and not nearly enough reward. Shogun may have been better off simply walking away and creating his own promotion. A promotion like the UFC needs to have the means to protect the integrity of their titles within reason. While a champion should have the right to be adequately compensated, I do not think they should be able to hold the promotion hostage by refusing to defend a title because they do not want to honor a contract.

Also, what recourse would the UFC have if Nate Diaz were to get KTFO while fighting at Bobs Backyard Brawlers 15 and get a 60 day medical suspension if that happened 30 days before UFC on Fox 3?

I would rather see something of a 'give them work or let them walk' rule. If a fighter signs a contract of say, 4 fights and 3 years, then they should be able to get a fight on a regular basis. To that end, if the promoter does not offer them a fight within a certain amount of time of the fighter asking for it, than the fighter should either be able to walk away, fight for another promotion during the interim, or get paid to wait.

Having California as a market is great, but quite frankly the UFC can live without them and live without the headache. It would damn sure hurt, but I think they could make it up with a few targeted overseas trips and trips to other states.

END COMMUNICATION

[jmose86]

I like the intent, but the execution blows.

This just about sums in up in my opinion. You make good points about specific changes that could actually benefit the fighters, and I think these and other considerations need to be made before any such reform is even considered.

This seems like an all too familiar piece of legislation where the objective may be justifiable, but the execution is poor and the resulting consequences are more damaging than beneficial to their cause. A standard case of trying to "good" but not doing it well.

[tantryl]

I like the intent, but the execution blows.

Yeah, I have to agree with that too.

While I think the UFC could survive it being enforced on them now, I'm not sure the Ferrtita's wouldn't sell it off just to be rid of the hassle and the new owners wouldn't have the necessary gumption to ride out the problems of putting on MMA shows.

*EDIT* Both this post and my last were made on the concept of it being applied across the board on the UFC, not just in Cali. Just in Cali only means no shows in Cali.

[wK78]

Explain to me how this bill would work. Zuffa is a Las Vegas based company (correct me on that too). So in vegas all these items would be legal. So how would the California rulings effect them. If they hold a card in California, does all the contracts that have championship clauses, exclusitivity, sponsoship restrictions, and so on all of a sudden become null and void. And then once the fight is over they are valid again after leaving California. The tax thing I see how that would work, but not the others. Am I missing this completely??

[wK78]

Anyone catch on Inside MMA last night that dolt in California who is behind this bill???

[jmose86]

Anyone catch on Inside MMA last night that dolt in California who is behind this bill???

Ya, Mr. I wrestled in high school so I'm an MMA expert. I was hoping they would ask him how he felt about the possibility of MMA promoters taking their business elsewhere and his legislation damaging California's economy. I was glad to see the MFC promoter as a smaller scale promoter also say the bill was ****.

[jmose86]

Explain to me how this bill would work. Zuffa is a Las Vegas based company (correct me on that too). So in vegas all these items would be legal. So how would the California rulings effect them. If they hold a card in California, does all the contracts that have championship clauses, exclusitivity, sponsoship restrictions, and so on all of a sudden become null and void. And then once the fight is over they are valid again after leaving California. The tax thing I see how that would work, but not the others. Am I missing this completely??

I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic to provide a whole lot of clarity, but that sounds about right. This confuses me as well regarding the provisions like exclusive contracts. If it is passed in California, would it even affect a Las Vegas based company? Or does it apply to California citizens who are fighters, so living in that state would allow you these new rights? Interstate law is a little out of my ballpark I'm going to find the bill and do a quick read through.

[wK78]

I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic to provide a whole lot of clarity, but that sounds about right. This confuses me as well regarding the provisions like exclusive contracts. If it is passed in California, would it even affect a Las Vegas based company? Or does it apply to California citizens who are fighters, so living in that state would allow you these new rights? Interstate law is a little out of my ballpark I'm going to find the bill and do a quick read through.

From what it sounded like listening to the guy was that the UFC could lose there California promoter license. But as it seems they wouldn't promote in CA anymore really wouldn't matter. Also I loved how he got interested in all this was watching a biased ESPN report. and thinking he was gonna lead the way to a nationwide standards. lol I will agree with everyone on the show that sponsorship is a little controverial and needs to be looked at, but the rest is pretty ridiculous. And ifdoesn't he see how taking away exclusivity would destroy the sport.

[wK78]

Ya, Mr. I wrestled in high school so I'm an MMA expert. I was hoping they would ask him how he felt about the possibility of MMA promoters taking there business elsewhere and his legislation damaging California's economy. I was glad to see the MFC promoter as a smaller scale promoter also say the bill was ****.

and you called it right, i would love to see them pass this, and then watch as no UFC/Strikeforce/Bellator and what not run events in California.