VIDEO: Wanderlei Silva & MMAFA push for Muhammad Ali Act in MMA

Im entirely for fighters being paid more from the huge amounts generated by the ufc

the one thing that detracts from that underlying theme for me is that....

like has been said previously...these are all fighters that have been rejected from the UFC.....where was all these complaints BEFORE they signed a UFC contract, there was none of this talk...outside of a few people like Hansen...there just has never really been anybody that walked the walk when the offer came to them

I do respect their position in that at the end of the day, what theyre doing is the right thing....

if they had wised up to doing the right thing before they signed up to the UFC they wouldnt have been part of the problem....

the UFC is the UFC....but part of the reason they dont give out more money is simply because they dont have to....they have hundreds of fighters that are willing to take whatever is given to them((to an extent of course))...so why would they change?
 
sounds like youre a tribe of one

A multi layered individual who acknowledges the different traits in his personality. Then again, aren't we all?

3NlOj.jpg
 
Wand is living proof MMA needs the Muhammad Ali Act...Have you heard this guy lately. As a huge Wand fan it's so sad to see how far he's fallen. Now he's rolling with the butt hurt bottom feeders of MMA. Wand has become a sideshow.
 
I didn't even watch the video. I am done listening to Wand speak. I want to remember him the way he was.
 
I'm all for the change, but if the Muhammad Ali act were enacted tomorrow Zuffa would most likely spin off a self contained non-profit to rank fighters.

Charter rules for the non-profit would be that it's Org specific to the UFC but independent. Then nothing really changes but a 3rd party issuing rankings. The promoter is still free (just like in boxing) to arrange and promote their own fights.

In essence, nothing would really change for the UFC.

If all the Ali Act called for was an objective 3rd party rating system, then yes, that's all that would change. It would seem that you're ignoring the majority of the Act if you that's all it entails, though. There are any number of things under the Act that could cause significant change withing MMA if such an act were applied to the sport. Not the least of which would be that the revenues of the promotion for any given event must be made available to the fighters and their management so as to ensure an equal footing in negotiation (I'd suggest that this would cause huge change). Of course, one of the biggest problems with the Ali Act in boxing is that it is often not stringently applied and some even dismiss it as largely ineffective. Just if anyone's interested, there are lawsuits underway right now that claim some of Al Haymon's business practices, especially the ones related to PBC (and there are some clear parallels between the UFC and Haymon's PBC enterprise), are in violation of the Act.
 
Can't see vid now but is Wand doing crazy stuff again?
 
This will eventually happen once MMA blows up a little more, BUT not for another 5 years I think.
 
If all the Ali Act called for was an objective 3rd party rating system, then yes, that's all that would change. It would seem that you're ignoring the majority of the Act if you that's all it entails, though. There are any number of things under the Act that could cause significant change withing MMA if such an act were applied to the sport. Not the least of which would be that the revenues of the promotion for any given event must be made available to the fighters and their management so as to ensure an equal footing in negotiation (I'd suggest that this would cause huge change). Of course, one of the biggest problems with the Ali Act in boxing is that it is often not stringently applied and some even dismiss it as largely ineffective. Just if anyone's interested, there are lawsuits underway right now that claim some of Al Haymon's business practices, especially the ones related to PBC (and there are some clear parallels between the UFC and Haymon's PBC enterprise), are in violation of the Act.

The act requires a governing body in the US. Which the UFC is in compliance with.
I requires fighters be registered. Which the UFC is in compliance with.
It has fighter safety standards. Which the UFC is in compliance with.
Protection from coercive contracts. Not only are they already in compliance with this, the contracts have been tested in court and held up.

(b) Disclosures to the boxer

A promoter shall not be entitled to receive any compensation directly or indirectly in connection with a boxing match until it provides to the boxer it promotes
 
I agree with wand here, but he's kinda made himself into a joke lately....at least to the newer fans (like myself) who didn't see him in pride. Also didnt juanito ibarra screw rampage out of a bunch of money when he was with him?
 
The act requires a governing body in the US. Which the UFC is in compliance with.
I requires fighters be registered. Which the UFC is in compliance with.
It has fighter safety standards. Which the UFC is in compliance with.
Protection from coercive contracts. Not only are they already in compliance with this, the contracts have been tested in court and held up.



It's really not a lot of change.

Legislation that forces a promotion to disclose the revenue they make on a given event to a fighter competing in that event is a signficant change as it greatly impacts the dynamics of negotiation between the two parties. Right now, Zuffa is not compelled to reveal any of this information, whereas boxing promotions are (and there have been lawsuits that fighters have won against promotions and networks where the promotion or network failed to adequately reveal their revenues to the fighters, see Fernando Guerrero vs Prize Fight Promotions).
 
How did baldy and the mobsters get past the Muhammad Ali act?

Short answer: The Ali act is boxing specific.

Long answer:

Congress noted through research that there were a number of problems with the sport of boxing which needed to be changed to ensure the safety and protection of professional boxers. Listed are a number of discoveries made by Congress (see 144 Stat. 322(3) (2000)):

  1. Professional boxing is not governed by any league, association, or any form of an established organization like majority of other professional sports. The UFC could be considered an established organization.
  2. The state officials are not ensuring the protection of the boxers and are not aware or informed of contracts boxers have agreed to. This really isn't the case. The UFC discloses this information to the Athletic commissions already.
  3. Promoters are taking advantage of the sport by conducting dishonest business affairs. Promoters are not being punished due to some states being less strict about the legal terms that are stated in contracts. This is really up for debate, but would specifically have to be examined.
  4. There is no rating system provided to rank professional boxers thus ratings are subjected to manipulation by those in charge. The UFC has disclosed it's ranking system, but is less transparent and could be argued to be not transparent enough about which media members are used. This may well be open to manipulation, but we are yet to see anything grossly negligent yet.
  5. There has been a major interference in the sport by because of open competition by restrictive and anti-competitive bodies. Despite what we hear frequently, that's not really the case in MMA. There are 3 orgs large enough to have TV deals and top 10 fighters. We've seen fighters flow back and forth between these orgs regularly. (e.g. Sheilds was a UFC fighter and fought this weekend in WSOF, Agular was a WSOF fighter and fought this weekend in the UFC, etc...)
  6. There are no restrictions placed on contracts that boxers agree to with promoters and managers. It is necessary to enforce a national contract reform which will guarantee the safety of professional boxers and the public from unlawful contracts and to enhance the integrity of the sport. I'm not sure what if any restrictions exist, or if the AC's have jurisdiction over promotional contracts in MMA, but this is the place where the strongest argument could probably be made for enforcing the Ali act in MMA.
The thing with the Ali act is that ALL of the above had to be true for congress to get involved. At best some of the above are true in some orgs and one or two are possibly true in the UFC.

That's probably why the UFC hasn't been effected by it.
 
Good cause, unfortunately we don't have our best and brightest behind the cause.

We need Paul heyman to speak for these guys or something.
 
Legislation that forces a promotion to disclose the revenue they make on a given event to a fighter competing in that event is a signficant change as it greatly impacts the dynamics of negotiation between the two parties. Right now, Zuffa is not compelled to reveal any of this information, whereas boxing promotions are (and there have been lawsuits that fighters have won against promotions and networks where the promotion or network failed to adequately reveal their revenues to the fighters, see Fernando Guerrero vs Prize Fight Promotions).

I think that's a dramatic overstatement of the effect that disclosure would have. As it stands the UFC discloses the gate at every presser, and the PPV numbers when they are available. Approximate event specific revenues are pretty well available already.

But even if the UFC discloses their income in minute detail, that's not going to give Beneil Dariush any more leverage in his negotiations. It could certainly help Ronda, Conor, and Weidman, but not everyone.

Edit: I'm really not trying to come off as a shill, but there is usually a very large burden of evidence required before the Congress gets involved in regulating a private business, and I just don't see volume of specific problems that were identified prior to the Ali act, or the single smoking gun that would justify legislative action at this point.
 
Last edited:
Even with the Ali act, boxing is still corrupt as fuck. Guys get bumped up in ratings all the time or get shady deals signed. There's no consequences at all.
 
I think that's a dramatic overstatement of the effect that disclosure would have. As it stands the UFC discloses the gate at every presser, and the PPV numbers when they are available. Approximate event specific revenues are pretty well available already.

But even if the UFC discloses their income in minute detail, that's not going to give Beneil Dariush any more leverage in his negotiations. It could certainly help Ronda, Conor, and Weidman, but not everyone.

The UFC has never disclosed PPV numbers from what I understand. Only recently when Dana made some outlandish statements about the popularity of McGregor (saying that his fight trended higher than UFC 100) did he come out and say that it broke 1 million. Now, you're not wrong that certain fighters are not going to be considerably better compensated for the simple reason that them being on the card doesn't really add to overall amount generated. The idea is that the top fighters who do generate the money get better compensated for what is generated on their behalf. Also, the discussion of % of revenue generated and how much goes to the fighters would also become a public discussion (it is in the other major professional sports leagues in the USA, and many would argue that the UFC is the rough equivalent of a sports league for MMA) and if there was a significant discrepancy between the UFC and other sports, that would certainly raise some eyebrows.
 
Even with the Ali act, boxing is still corrupt as fuck. Guys get bumped up in ratings all the time or get shady deals signed. There's no consequences at all.

Well, yeah. There is significant criticism that the Act is very poorly enforced and that it fails to address a variety of other issues within the sport (and, we need to remember that the Muhammad Ali Act is an American law and boxing is very much an international sport; in some ways MMA would be easier to regulate on a big scale since the UFC is so US-centric).
 
The UFC has never disclosed PPV numbers from what I understand. Only recently when Dana made some outlandish statements about the popularity of McGregor (saying that his fight trended higher than UFC 100) did he come out and say that it broke 1 million. Now, you're not wrong that certain fighters are not going to be considerably better compensated for the simple reason that them being on the card doesn't really add to overall amount generated. The idea is that the top fighters who do generate the money get better compensated for what is generated on their behalf. Also, the discussion of % of revenue generated and how much goes to the fighters would also become a public discussion (it is in the other major professional sports leagues in the USA, and many would argue that the UFC is the rough equivalent of a sports league for MMA) and if there was a significant discrepancy between the UFC and other sports, that would certainly raise some eyebrows.

But raising eyebrows is not tantamount to wrongful or hurtful action. Even if it could be proven as stone cold fact that MMA fighters were the worst paid professional athletes in the world by a sizable margin, that doesn't mean that they are being harmed in any way. As it stands eyebrows are already raised about salary all the time.

I know the Ali act sounds great on paper, and like I said at the start of this, I'm all for it, but I just don't see it having the big effect that everyone else does. I also don't see the justification for the Ali act that existed with boxing being so dramatic in MMA.

I honestly don't think much would change.
 
Back
Top