California bill AB2100 my cause UFC to leave California.

[LordZardoz]

Personally, I think that Zuffa should be responsible for fight/training related injuries for fighters who have established tenure with the company, like after 5 fights or something.

Ok, so what about a fighter who enters the UFC, on a 15-2 record, goes 3 and 4 and gets cut, but then has another 18 fights in the regional circut before hanging it up? That adds up to 7 UFC fights vs 35 non UFC fights. The UFC already covers all injuries from the fight and they provide accident insurance. What you are describing is probably better handled by a fighter union, and to my mind the union dues should come from the fighters belonging to it. I say let the fighters organize if so inclined, and make damn sure the UFC cannot just cut / ban the lot of them.

Also just because a fighter has the opportunity to fight elsewhere doesn't mean that he has to, or will, just that he has the opportunity. Would eliminate the Zuffa "freeze-outs" which are a negotiating ploy that forces fighters to wait until contract is nearly expired until booking a fight.

I somewhat agree. That is why I am in favor of something in the contracts or in the laws to 'give them work or let them work'. If a fighter would go more than 4 months without being offered a fight, then they should be able to find a fight elsewhere.

Belts are nice and shiny and they add a level of intrigue to a fight promotion. But they are not a bastion of integrity, especially without a transparent ranking system of any sort. Doesn't the UFC already shy away from giving smotherers title shots?

Short answer, yeah I do think the UFC does hesitate, but in the end they will do it. In that regard the Bellator tournament model is the most fair to the fighters. There are no shortage of fighters who rag on that kind of fight. I can easily see someone like Nick Diaz or Rampage refusing to give a fighter like Fitch or Ryan Bader a title shot no matter how warranted it is. When a cut of PPV money is at stake, there is also an incentive for the champions to deny some opponents a shot in favor of someone else.

All things considered, I am at more inclined trust the promoter to be fair then the fighter.

With the advent of 5-round main events hasn't a "Title Fight" lost some of its allure? ... especially with the interim belts, logjams and rematches that have abounded lately?

Not to me, but that is a matter of personal taste.

I would agree with this some extent, but as you said earlier, this isn't really about us as fans (or Zuffa as promoters). It's about fighters. They're the ones with the skills and dedication to a dangerous and life-shortening career, and they're the ones that should reap the majority of the rewards.

I look at it this way: Who took the bigger risk? Dana and his millioaire heir friends when they spent 35 million dollars of their dad's money? Or any fighter who ever stepped into the Octagon?

Dana and the Fertittas have made plenty of money from all their hard work, time for them to give back to the fighters IMO.

It is a two way street to my mind. You and I have very different ideas about how fairly the UFC is rewarding the fighters. At the root of it for me is that I suspect that most people vastly underestimate the amount of money that is required to keep the UFC operating on a day to day basis. The UFC generates a lot of gross revenue, but the operational expenses combined with the fighter pay and the insurance they need to pay out is a big chunk of change as well. Unless someone gets a hold of the UFC's accounting and tax info for the past 4 years, its not an arguement that can be won.

Anyway, I respect your point of view. I just disagree with some of it. The UFC is not all 'sunshine and rainbows' as far as its business practices, but I do not think that they are 'peel the skin off of a puppie so you can listen to it scream' kind of evil either.

END COMMUNICATION

[wgrapple]

I said "all" of the fighters, including the grossly underpaid ones on the undercard.

And just because I'm on a roll - I'm guessing some will respond with "the undercard fighters don't draw, so they don't get paid". This reasoning has always struck me as BS.

The Bulls don't sell out the UC because of Michael Scalabrine, but he's a necessary part of the equation, even if he doesn't get in the game. Nobody ever says that the NBA minimum salary is too high, because *GASP* it actually seems reasonable for the amount of income the league generates... I would like Zuffa to follow that route, instead of pay/treat its employees so little that state representatives find it necessary to be remedied via legislation.

It's Brian Scalabrine mofo and he's a world champion unlike most of the Bulls team

But seriously man it's two different sports that collect and distribute revenue in two completely separate ways. Not to mention that the NBA has been around since the end of WWII and has major sponsorship deals up the wazoo.

[Fuentez]

seems more like a PPV tax thing w/ the fighter benefit stuff added on to cloud the issue

[wgrapple]

seems more like a PPV tax thing w/ the fighter benefit stuff added on to cloud the issue

Exactly, anyone who knows about the CA state economy knows that the budget is ****ed six ways to Sunday and they are going to do whatever they can to increase revenue.

[PITTFOX]

I said "all" of the fighters, including the grossly underpaid ones on the undercard.

And just because I'm on a roll - I'm guessing some will respond with "the undercard fighters don't draw, so they don't get paid". This reasoning has always struck me as BS.

The Bulls don't sell out the UC because of Michael Scalabrine, but he's a necessary part of the equation, even if he doesn't get in the game. Nobody ever says that the NBA minimum salary is too high, because *GASP* it actually seems reasonable for the amount of income the league generates... I would like Zuffa to follow that route, instead of pay/treat its employees so little that state representatives find it necessary to be remedied via legislation.

I don't care what fighters draw, that's irrelevant. My contention is you saying are basically implying that Zuffa doesn't treat it's employees like they aren't valuable commodities which is really silly if you have an idea of what Zuffa actually does for i's employees including the under card fighters. I see you are only seeing what they are paid and are stuck on that.

[fightfan80]

I don't care what fighters draw, that's irrelevant. My contention is you saying are basically implying that Zuffa doesn't treat it's employees like they aren't valuable commodities which is really silly if you have an idea of what Zuffa actually does for i's employees including the under card fighters. I see you are only seeing what they are paid and are stuck on that.

The "valuable commodities" thing was not the best wording, I admit. I'm almost always for the worker, so it riles me when corporations do the bare minimum to provide for them while the upper echelon of the ladder gets crazy rich.

[fightfan80]

Also, 1,000 apologies for misidentifying the White Mamba!!

[LordZardoz]

Update:

Its dead for now.

http://www.fightopinion.com/2012/06/...t+Industry.%29

Towards the end of the San Diego hearing, the Zuffa family showed up to quickly comment on AB2100. Given that AB2100 died on May 25th in Appropriations, there wasn’t much for the Zuffa family to worry about. The commissioners made it very clear that they do not want to deal with such regulation, no matter how watered down it is. Executive Director George Dodd warned, however, that he heard that AB2100 might be revived and attached to another piece of legislation in Sacramento soon. Larry Epstein, Lorenzo Fertitta, Marc Ratner, Chuck Liddell, Ronda Rousey, and Dominick Cruz were at the hearing to voice their opposition to AB2100. Only Mr. Epstein spoke and he didn’t need to say too much to know that the commission is on board with him. For a state that is already over $500,000 off of their revenue projections for this year alone, they are not going to have anything to do with AB2100 as long as they are open to the public.

END COMMUNICATION

[jmose86]

I didn't realize the bill died May 25th. Why wasn't this reported on a single MMA news site?

[LordZardoz]

I didn't realize the bill died May 25th. Why wasn't this reported on a single MMA news site?

UFC 146 was on May 26th. I think the MMA media was a bit distracted that week.

END COMMUNICATION