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

[Deleted member 347815]

Anything that defies the UFC monopoly I will support.

WAR WAND!

 

[JayElectra]

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.

Well, it plainly couldn't be applied to MMA under the format that it currently exists (as the landscape of boxing and MMA are quite different at the time being). It's abundantly clear that the UFC doesn't want the legislation to apply to MMA (I recall them threatening to not do any more business in California if California were to extend some of the aspects of the Ali Act to MMA). Now, you may be right that the implementation of the Act won't necessarily bring immediate and sweeping change simply by virtue of what it forces the UFC to adjust to immediately. What I think is that certain aspects of the Act (such as releasing revenue numbers) could contribute to significant change down the road. Would it mean the end of the UFC? I think that's extremely unlikely, but it could at least partially compromise their position as having almost complete control of top level MMA worldwide, and it could lead to better compensation for fighters (in other words, a more equitable or fair share of the revenue they generate).

 

[information]

This actually seems like a good initiative.

 

[giusti825]

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.

Look. ALOT would change.

1st: There would no longer be a UFC belt. The promoter is in no way allowed to act as a manager or sanctioning body.

Belts would have to be independent of the promotion.

2nd: Fighters would select their own fights. The promoter is not allowed to act as manager, which includes selecting opponents.

3rd: Fighters would get their sponsorship rights back. This is once again the promoter acting as manager.

4th: There would be co-promotional fights. Due to an independent belt system, fighters who wanted to remain champ would have mandatory defenses which would force them into co promotional fights or face being stripped.

5th: Alot of the ridiculously 1 sided clauses in the UFC contract would be thrown out. (noncompete, champion clause, etc).

 

[jx820]

Look. ALOT would change.

1st: There would no longer be a UFC belt. The promoter is in no way allowed to act as a manager or sanctioning body.

Belts would have to be independent of the promotion.

How would spinning off an independent non profit sanctioning body with charter rules that it can only sanction and rank UFC title fights not solve this problem. Sure, you might have to take the letters UFC off the belt. NOTHING else would change. It could be 100% transparent to the audience.

2nd: Fighters would select their own fights. The promoter is not allowed to act as manager, which includes selecting opponents.

That's pretty far off base. The UFC can offer to promote certain fights, and managers can say yes or no. Which is exactly what happens now. If 2 fighters wanted to fight and the promoter didn't want to put it on their card, that fight doesn't happen. Even with the Ali act.

3rd: Fighters would get their sponsorship rights back. This is once again the promoter acting as manager.

Yes and no, they can refuse the Reebok deal, and sign with whomever they want, but the Ali act doesn't restrict a promoter from having their own rules and regulations about what can be worn or displayed in their broadcast. So fighters could refuse the reebok deal, but that doesn't mean they could wear Venum logos into the cage, or hang a vinyl banner full of logos.

4th: There would be co-promotional fights. Due to an independent belt system, fighters who wanted to remain champ would have mandatory defenses which would force them into co promotional fights or face being stripped.

Just because a belt system is independent of the promoter, does not implicitly mean it will be in use just anywhere. If you start a non-profit tomorrow that ranks and issues belts with the sole purpose stated in your charter documents that it is to rank and belt UFC fighters, that's all you will ever do, and it likely can't be challenged in court because it's a charter principal. It's your reason for being. Then the promoter doesn't own the belting org, but there is still a UFC specific belt. It's a VERY easy fix that fans wouldn't even notice.

It also wouldn't nullify promotional contracts, so co-promotion wouldn't flourish in the UFC. If Lawler wants to fight Askren but he's in an exclusive promotional contract with the UFC he can't. Same as when Tyson wanted to fight Lewis, but one was signed to HBO and one to Shotime they had a nightmare time because of the promoters.

5th: Alot of the ridiculously 1 sided clauses in the UFC contract would be thrown out. (noncompete, champion clause, etc).

Where in the Ali act is that stipulated?

 

[giusti825]

Where in the Ali act is that stipulated?

View Post
Look. ALOT would change.

1st: There would no longer be a UFC belt. The promoter is in no way allowed to act as a manager or sanctioning body.

Belts would have to be independent of the promotion.

How would spinning off an independent non profit sanctioning body with charter rules that it can only sanction and rank UFC title fights not solve this problem. Sure, you might have to take the letters UFC off the belt. NOTHING else would change. It could be 100% transparent to the audience.

2nd: Fighters would select their own fights. The promoter is not allowed to act as manager, which includes selecting opponents.

That's pretty far off base. The UFC can offer to promote certain fights, and managers can say yes or no. Which is exactly what happens now. If 2 fighters wanted to fight and the promoter didn't want to put it on their card, that fight doesn't happen. Even with the Ali act.

3rd: Fighters would get their sponsorship rights back. This is once again the promoter acting as manager.

Yes and no, they can refuse the Reebok deal, and sign with whomever they want, but the Ali act doesn't restrict a promoter from having their own rules and regulations about what can be worn or displayed in their broadcast. So fighters could refuse the reebok deal, but that doesn't mean they could wear Venum logos into the cage, or hang a vinyl banner full of logos.

4th: There would be co-promotional fights. Due to an independent belt system, fighters who wanted to remain champ would have mandatory defenses which would force them into co promotional fights or face being stripped.

Just because a belt system is independent of the promoter, does not implicitly mean it will be in use just anywhere. If you start a non-profit tomorrow that ranks and issues belts with the sole purpose stated in your charter documents that it is to rank and belt UFC fighters, that's all you will ever do, and it likely can't be challenged in court because it's a charter principal. It's your reason for being. Then the promoter doesn't own the belting org, but there is still a UFC specific belt. It's a VERY easy fix that fans wouldn't even notice.

It also wouldn't nullify promotional contracts, so co-promotion wouldn't flourish in the UFC. If Lawler wants to fight Askren but he's in an exclusive promotional contract with the UFC he can't. Same as when Tyson wanted to fight Lewis, but one was signed to HBO and one to Shotime they had a nightmare time because of the promoters.

5th: Alot of the ridiculously 1 sided clauses in the UFC contract would be thrown out. (noncompete, champion clause, etc).

1. Set up a nonprofit that only ranks ufc fighters? WTF are you talking about. Thats just fucking stupid and wouldn't happen. It would be a system open to all professional mixed martial artists.

Does the WBO only rank Top Rank fighters?

Does the IBF only rank Golden Boy promotions?

This argument is so nonsensical it should be ignored. You clearly dont understand what "independent sanctioning body" means.

2. This was more about the contract itself. Which has provisions in it about refusing fights. But i was unclear and i see how that can be misinterpreted. This point and the next are really more about negotiating power of the athletes.

3. Fair point. But it would prevent a situation where a promoter can pay a fighter $2500 while reeping the benefit of a $70,000,000 deal. I can understand a reasonable sponsor tax, but to tell a fighter "wear this so we get rich," is unethical.

4. The belt would be considered bunk. The real independent org that ranked fighters from all promotions would be looked at as the only one with a legitimate belt. It would defeat the purpose of the Ali act by creating an illegal collusion between the sanctioning body and the promotion. I doubt it would survive a lawsuit.
If it was in the charter to murder people, would that be legal? You cant incorparate crime into a charter and call it exempt from legal action.

5. Moving the Ali act into MMA would expose the earnings of events and merchandise so fighters could negotiate an informed deal and refuse to fight if the promotion is trying to screw them. More informed negotiations lead to less restrictive terms and better compensation.

 

[MuayChai297]

War Wanderlei.

 

[Chromosome47]

Oh look, it's the Bitter Exes UFC Haters club. Fitch, Jimmo, Wand, Stitch, the whole crew is there!

Oh look, it's the same shit poster who claims it was harder to achieve what Ronda did in Judo (Olympic Bronze) than what Tyson did in boxing (Youngest Heavyweight champ in history).

You are an embarrassment.

 

[jx820]

1. Set up a nonprofit that only ranks ufc fighters? WTF are you talking about. Thats just fucking stupid and wouldn't happen. It would be a system open to all professional mixed martial artists.

Does the WBO only rank Arum's fighters?

Does the IBF only rank Golden Boy promotions?

This argument is so nonsensical it should be ignored. You clearly dont understand what "independent sanctioning body" means.

2. This was more about the contract itself. Which has provisions in it about refusing fights. But i was unclear and i see how that can be misinterpreted. This point and the next are really more about negotiating power of the athletes.

3. Fair point. But it would prevent a situation where a promoter can pay a fighter $2500 while reeping the benefit of a $70,000,000 deal. I can understand a reasonable sponsor tax, but to tell a fighter "wear this so we get rich," is unethical.

4. The belt would be considered bunk. The real independent org that ranked fighters from all promotions would be looked at as the only one with a legitimate belt. It would defeat the purpose of the Ali act by creating an illegal collusion between the sanctioning body and the promotion. I doubt it would survive a lawsuit.
If it was in the charter to murder people, would that be legal? You cant incorparate crime into a charter and call it exempt from legal action.



5. Moving the Ali act into MMA would expose the earnings of events and merchandise so fighters could negotiate an informed deal and refuse to fight if the promotion is trying to screw them. More informed negotiations lead to less restrictive terms and better compensation.

I tried to be more organized this time so my answers weren't buried in your quote.

1) Were they established to do exactly that? No, boxing fucked up. That doens't mean you CANT do that. Independent just mean's not owned by, managed by, or managed in collusion with.

You are assuming that because something wasn't done 30 years ago that it can't be done today, and you're mistaken.

4) Look at the model of super-pacs in politics. Jeb Bush founded the Right to Rise PAC, he raised a ton of money for it (roughly 100 million), but when he decided to run for office he had to hand it over to someone else. He legally can't tell them what to do with the money he helped raise. But they were established to get him elected and that's all they'll do. Even thought he has no official link to them at this point. They aren't running ads for Trump, or Carson. Not even if Bush drops out. It's not collusion, they just have a limited scope. It's all legal.

An independent sanctioning body with a limited UFC scope would be considered legit because it would be the belt used in the UFC and thus the only one taken seriously. Let me put it to you this way, if the EFL, the CFL, and Arena football all contested for a world title in American rules football, no one would know who won it, consider them the the real champions, or care except for a tiny faction of die hard fans would follow it. All anyone would know, care about or consider real would be the Superbowl title.


5) Fighters already think the promotion is screwing them and they aren't leaving.

• It almost certainly pays better in the long term to get screwed by the UFC then to get a square deal in Bellator or WSOF.
• The UFC honestly doesn't care if some middle 30 fighter threatens to walk. The top guys aren't going to, and that's who sells the tickets. Do you think WSOF is going to offer Rumble half a million dollars per fight win or lose to come back?

 

[ralek4grammy]

The right thing to do. SO satisfying, if this becomes law.

 

[giusti825]

I tried to be more organized this time so my answers weren't buried in your quote.

1) Were they established to do exactly that? No, boxing fucked up. That doens't mean you CANT do that. Independent just mean's not owned by, managed by, or managed in collusion with.

You are assuming that because something wasn't done 30 years ago that it can't be done today, and you're mistaken.

4) Look at the model of super-pacs in politics. Jeb Bush founded the Right to Rise PAC, he raised a ton of money for it (roughly 100 million), but when he decided to run for office he had to hand it over to someone else. He legally can't tell them what to do with the money he helped raise. But they were established to get him elected and that's all they'll do. Even thought he has no official link to them at this point. They aren't running ads for Trump, or Carson. Not even if Bush drops out. It's not collusion, they just have a limited scope. It's all legal.

An independent sanctioning body with a limited UFC scope would be considered legit because it would be the belt used in the UFC and thus the only one taken seriously. Let me put it to you this way, if the EFL, the CFL, and Arena football all contested for a world title in American rules football, no one would know who won it, consider them the the real champions, or care except for a tiny faction of die hard fans would follow it. All anyone would know, care about or consider real would be the Superbowl title.


5) Fighters already think the promotion is screwing them and they aren't leaving.

• It almost certainly pays better in the long term to get screwed by the UFC then to get a square deal in Bellator or WSOF.
• The UFC honestly doesn't care if some middle 30 fighter threatens to walk. The top guys aren't going to, and that's who sells the tickets. Do you think WSOF is going to offer Rumble half a million dollars per fight win or lose to come back?

1. Sanctioning bodies can and do get sued for misconduct. It would defeat the purpose of a sanctioning body to be prejudiced against the majority of the fighters in the sport, and to be quite honest, without collusion, the sanctioning body would have no reason for the prejudice.

If the UFC isn't putting money into their pockets, what is their incentive to show them favoritism at the risk of litigation? This idea just doesnt work on so many levels.

4. I dont want to get started on FEC/Citizens United. Bribery is bribery. Legalized bribery is unethical. Constitutionally protected bribery is morally, ethically and democratically repugnant. This super-pac phase in american politics will not last. As soon as a justice leaves the supreme court, i am certain that this decision will be overturned. 90% of heavier funded candidates won their federal elections in 2014. This is not democracy, its plutocracy. It fundamentally severely weakens the power of the voter through manipulation and political debts.

But i digress.

Football has a long and storied tradition. MMA does not. Also, it is an individual sport. One on one, people will want to know who the best in the world is. Poeple will want to root for the world champ, not some belt with a limited scope.

The fans will know the difference. MMA has the unique distinction of being a sport developed in the internet era. Fans will talk and people will know who the real world champion is. You are underestimating the huge fanbase differences and style of sport differences between football and MMA.

Belts with limited scopes in combat sports get no recognition. This would be no different. Nobody cares who the NABF regional champions are. They care who the world champions are.

5) They aren't leaving because they are either not allowed to (Wand, Cung Le) or they cant find a better alternative right now. All of which would change if the Ali act was passed.

 

[ThePatriot]

Look. ALOT would change.

1st: There would no longer be a UFC belt. The promoter is in no way allowed to act as a manager or sanctioning body.

Belts would have to be independent of the promotion.

2nd: Fighters would select their own fights. The promoter is not allowed to act as manager, which includes selecting opponents.

3rd: Fighters would get their sponsorship rights back. This is once again the promoter acting as manager.

4th: There would be co-promotional fights. Due to an independent belt system, fighters who wanted to remain champ would have mandatory defenses which would force them into co promotional fights or face being stripped.

5th: Alot of the ridiculously 1 sided clauses in the UFC contract would be thrown out. (noncompete, champion clause, etc).

Then it would have all the problems ofnboxing ya fuckin dummy. Good *falls asleep*

Yeah ya goof

 

[giusti825]

Then it would have all the problems ofnboxing ya fuckin dummy. Good *falls asleep*

Yeah ya goof

Boxings problem is that the big fights are boring as fuck. Not so much of a problem in mma.

Say what you will about it, but at least boxing has a reasonable revenue split between promoters, managers and fighters. The revenue favors the attraction, as it should.

 

[jx820]

1. to be quite honest, without collusion, the sanctioning body would have no reason for the prejudice.

If the UFC isn't putting money into their pockets, what is their incentive to show them favoritism at the risk of litigation? This idea just doesnt work on so many levels.

A body choosing at it's inception to limiting itself to a narrow purpose for being isn't a prejudice. The US only passes laws applicable to US citizens. That doesn't make them prejudiced against the UK, it's just not their jurisdiction. The US has a limited scope.

All promoters pay sanctioning bodies, that is how they are funded. This has never been deemed a cause of favoritism, and the incentive is that is why this hypothetical organization exists. Same as the super pac.

4. I dont want to get started on FEC/Citizens United.

I agree that super-pacs are an abomination, but don't share your optimism that it will go away. I think oligarchy is here to stay.

Poeple will want to root for the world champ, not some belt with a limited scope.

Fans will talk and people will know who the real world champion is. You are underestimating the huge fanbase differences and style of sport differences between football and MMA.

Really? Next time Conor is fighting head down to your local bar and ask people if they think Askren would beat Lawler. I'd be floored if 10% of the casuals I talked to knew who Askren was.

Next time you hear some Mayweather talk around the water cooler ask what they think of Kell Brook getting ducked to make the Pacquioa fight. Hell watch any pre-fight show from before Mayweather-Pac and tell me if they mention Brook's name.

5) They aren't leaving because they are either not allowed to (Wand, Cung Le) or they cant find a better alternative right now. All of which would change if the Ali act was passed.

To say that would all change is not to say how. I don't see anything in that law that would allow Wand and Le to break a multi-fight promotional contract or circumvent an athletic commissions licensing process.

And I don't see anything in that law that will make Bellator or WSOF profitable enough to offer top guys the money that the UFC can. If they could, they'd already be doing that.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Oh look, it's the same shit poster who claims it was harder to achieve what Ronda did in Judo (Olympic Bronze) than what Tyson did in boxing (Youngest Heavyweight champ in history).

You are an embarrassment.

Typical response from you. "I can't prove my point in another thread about another topic by using good argumentation skills, so I'll follow my 'opponent' into another thread and attack them."

Perpetually butthurt. Take a break, kid.

 

[Fencible]

Interesting. Thank you for posting.