To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
When Tim Sylvia gives blood, he declines the syringe, and requests a gun and a bucket.
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.
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.
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.
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??
Anyone catch on Inside MMA last night that dolt in California who is behind this bill???
Last edited by jmose86; 05-01-2012 at 10:55 PM.