Is the Ali Act good for MMA?

[kflo]

Yeah. I'm not sure divorcing the titles from the UFC is the best idea, but it's interesting. The UFC would still be able to lock down most of the title fights, but it would give new promotions or investors incentive to snap up a big one here and there or drive up prices in purse bids.

sure, co-promotion with the ufc is obviously a win for the other promotion......

 

[Andreh]

probably not.

would blow up the ufc, fracture the sport. create sanctioning bodies.............

i get people think it's magically going to make fighters rich but i don't see it.

Hi Dana. You again... against anything that is good for fighters?! lol

 

[Captain Herb]

First, the championship clause seems complaint with Ali Act as the provision has a one year limit as pointed out in my earlier post. Please point to where it violates the act. I am more than willing accept an argument backed by evidence.



I was talking about the current landscape.

It's debatable whether or not an expansion would create or roll MMA under boing sanctioning bodies. The act doesn't necessitate the creation of sanctioning body as it just assumes their existence.

Even then the UFC has argued that it's titles are meant to signify the best in the world. They under oath said the titles are just props to sell fights. Basically fancy trophies. So the likelihood of a sanctioning body gaining control of their belts seems nil.

The truth is that the ALI ACT is not applicable to MMA.

That's why MMA needs an entirely different legislation for the sport. It's own "MMA ACT" if you will because the Ali Act as it stands isn't really applicable to MMA. Best case scenario would be a union or an athletic association

You just pointed out that under the Ali Act, a promoter cannot leverage a mandatory fight in order to force future contracts. That's what the Champion Clause is. It would be illegal. Furthermore, once a sanctioning body implemented the "real" belt, the UFC belt would be worthless. Especially since they would be unable to retain all the talent they have wrapped up through restrictive contracts.

 

[MCS]

The goal of the Act is to give fighters freedom. So in the long run yes. But it's not an easy transition.

 

[kflo]

Hi Dana. You again... against anything that is good for fighters?! lol

another genius who can't read.

there's no guarantee that the ali act would be good for fighters and could in fact be bad.

but hey, some aren't interested in actual discussion.

 

[DR Nick]

another genius who can't read.

there's no guarantee that the ali act would be good for fighters and could in fact be bad.

but hey, some aren't interested in actual discussion.

Yeah I think it would be good for some fighters (popular ones) and pretty shit for others.
In boxing you basically get what you bring in. There's been loads of British level fights where both fighters have made a million+ but then there's fighters who don't get anything near that much fighting at higher levels.

 

[You Will Vote For Dreyga]

You just pointed out that under the Ali Act, a promoter cannot leverage a mandatory fight in order to force future contracts. That's what the Champion Clause is.

Possibly.

It my assumption (but I may be wrong and your right) that as long as the UFC can maintain that their their belt is just a prop used for promotional purposes and not an actual signifier of who is the best in the world (which is what the UFC has argued in court). Fighting for that belt would never be mandatory.

It would be illegal. Furthermore, once a sanctioning body implemented the "real" belt, the UFC belt would be worthless.

Possible, but I strongly doubt it. The UFC has built too much brand awareness. As long as the UFC is able to hand out their fancy "trophies" they will still be considered the most valuable title among the general audience.

Especially since they would be unable to retain all the talent they have wrapped up through restrictive contracts.

While the Championship Clause might, and that's a big maybe (I remain skeptical), get tossed out.

The overwhelming majority of UFC contracts would still be upheld under the Ali Act.

And they would still be the highest paying organization in MMA. OneFC and Bellator wouldn't magically gain the monetary resources to outbid the the UFC. They maybe be able to get a star here or there, but both of those companies would still be operating in the red whereas the UFC has over a billion dollars in contracted revenue coming in each year.

The market forces at play that dictate pay wouldn't change. A union is the best case scenario for everyone involved.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

you don't really think boxing works better in these respects do you?

No but boxing doesn't have an org like a UFC or Bellator either. I could see it working when you have one company and a roster. Boxing is too disorganized to see it really work.

 

[avenue94]

sure, co-promotion with the ufc is obviously a win for the other promotion......

If the belts are separate from promoters, there's no co-promotion, unless they feel like it for whatever reason.

 

[kflo]

If the belts are separate from promoters, there's no co-promotion, unless they feel like it for whatever reason.

not sure what you mean. if the promotion doesn't own the belt they lose control of who can be champion unless they play by the rules of the sanctioning bodies.

 

[kflo]

No but boxing doesn't have an org like a UFC or Bellator either. I could see it working when you have one company and a roster. Boxing is too disorganized to see it really work.

ali act would likely create more of that disorganization.

 

[kflo]

Possibly.

It my assumption (but I may be wrong and your right) that as long as the UFC can maintain that their their belt is just a prop used for promotional purposes and not an actual signifier of who is the best in the world (which is what the UFC has argued in court). Fighting for that belt would never be mandatory.




Possible, but I strongly doubt it. The UFC has built too much brand awareness. As long as the UFC is able to hand out their fancy "trophies" they will still be considered the most valuable title among the general audience.



While the Championship Clause might, and that's a big maybe (I remain skeptical), get tossed out.

The overwhelming majority of UFC contracts would still be upheld under the Ali Act.

And they would still be the highest paying organization in MMA. OneFC and Bellator wouldn't magically gain the monetary resources to outbid the the UFC. They maybe be able to get a star here or there, but both of those companies would still be operating in the red whereas the UFC has over a billion dollars in contracted revenue coming in each year.

The market forces at play that dictate pay wouldn't change. A union is the best case scenario for everyone involved.

a union doesn't inherently change that dynamic though either. it just allows them to collectively bargain. but they still have the competitive backdrop that they have to deal with.

 

[You Will Vote For Dreyga]

a union doesn't inherently change that dynamic though either. it just allows them to collectively bargain. but they still have the competitive backdrop that they have to deal with.

Seems like the best case scenario unless ONE and Bellator magically become competent promoters.

What would you suggest?

 

[Askafan]

A handful of fighters get paid more

 

[avenue94]

not sure what you mean. if the promotion doesn't own the belt they lose control of who can be champion unless they play by the rules of the sanctioning bodies.

Yeah, that's the point of that move. To give fighters more leverage.

 

[kflo]

Seems like the best case scenario unless ONE and Bellator magically become competent promoters.

What would you suggest?

that is the best case. fans actually want to watch other promotions, including the feeder promotions, not just the potential competitors........

 

[Captain Herb]

A union is the best case scenario for everyone involved.

I definitely agree there. But legislation may be easier

 

[You Will Vote For Dreyga]

I definitely agree there. But legislation may be easier

Legislate a union into existence

 

[Garnet_StrongerThanYou]

Have you read the law? The fighters wouldn’t get paid more under the Ali Act because their aren’t other promotions to hid against the UFC. MMA is too different from boxing

A whole bunch of new promotions would pop up like ants crawling over a banana

 

[johnmangala]

Good thing about the Ali Act is that there would be a global pool of fighters instead of separate promotions holding the fighters.