- Joined
- Mar 5, 2016
- Messages
- 7,038
- Reaction score
- 1,719
I mean ... the system is almost the same as boxing. The only difference is the UFC is now acting as one massive Don King, holding a monopoly over almost all of the top athletes in the sport.I just think the application of the Ali act to mma would probably be illegal. I don’t see a strong basis for government infringement on these promotions ability to do business.
The UFC are trying to have it both ways. When it comes to the Ali Act they claim they're a league, not a promoter -- so long contracts like the NHL are okay. But then when it comes to collective bargaining they claim they're not a league, they're a promoter -- so the athletes are independent contractors.
You cannot make both arguments to suit your position on an individual issue. One of the two is inevitable. In fact, the UFC are really a league and a promoter -- the worst case scenario for them. The two are not mutually exclusive. The legal grounds are met for both the formation of a union and the application of the Ali Act.
They do become mutually exclusive once one resolution is met, though. Once a union is formed, the Ali Act would be off the table -- and vice-versa.
Because the change has to come from MMA megastars. Either a group of MMA stars would need to organize and lead fighters to form a union, or MMA star(s) would need to take the UFC to court in a contract dispute and have the Ali Act applied to MMA.It hasn’t happened yet so I don’t see why its inevitable.
These issues take decades to build and resolve. The UFC has really only been "mainstream" for about a decade, so it wouldn't be shocking to see these issues take another 10 years to resolve.