California Assembly Bill Threatens UFC Contracts And Could Give Fighters New Rights

  • Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!

    I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register

    Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board


No More Sorrow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
8,942
Reaction score
41
Points
48
Age
33
Location
Connecticut
Recent developments in the Assembly Bill 2100 could have devastating effects on current Zuffa contracts should it be passed, the issue has arisen at a difficult time as it is during a year which the UFC has already faced allegations about their pay and treatment of fighters. The ESPN documentary on the UFC entitled “Outside the Lines” in January claimed that fighter’s were underpaid and forced into contracts that were binding. An interview with Lorenzo Fertitta was claimed to have been cut unfairly during the documentary, the UFC was even referred to as a ‘monopoly’ which sent Dana White and the Fertitta brothers into a fury causing them to release the full uncut interview online.


California Assemblymember, Luis A. Alejo has recently proposed changes to the Bill of Rights for professional boxers and mixed martial artists (AB 2100). The proposed changes could take away some of the power of the major brands in MMA, giving fighters more contractual rights. The new bill states:


“Fighters licensed in California who compete in these contests often undergo years of demanding training, and risk serious injury. Despite these physical risks, California MMA fighters have no pension benefits and limited protection against exploitation. Promoters often require that MMA fighters in California agree to coercive and oppressive contract terms that can include exclusivity clauses, unlimited merchandise rights agreements and legal waivers among other things…. AB 2100 authorizes the State Athletic Commission to revoke or refuse to renew the license of any mixed martial arts (MMA) promoter in California that participates in coercive and unfair contracting practices.”


The “unfair practices” the bill is referring to includes the following:


(1) Assigns any future merchandising rights to a promoter beyond the term of the promotional contract.
(2) Automatically renews the contract or extends the term without good faith, arms-length negotiation.
(3) Grants the promoter a right to match the terms of a competing offer or contract.
(4) Grants the promoter a right to enter into exclusive negotiations with a mixed martial arts fighter.
(5) Restricts a mixed martial arts fighter from sponsoring another firm, product, or individual.
(6) Requires a mixed martial arts fighter to relinquish any legal claims for negligence that the fighter has, or may acquire in the future, against the promoter.
(7) Restricts a mixed martial arts fighter from contracting with another promoter.
(8) Requires a mixed martial arts fighter to forfeit any rights as a condition precedent to the fighter’s participation in a contest.
As Zuffa’s fighter contracts establish jurisdiction in Las Vegas the changes could start off a legal battle as the bill suggests that fighters based in California may be able to challenge the terms of their contracts. Therefore if Alejo’s bill is passed in California, a state in which so many UFC and Strikeforce fighters are based in, the whole contractual rights of MMA fighters as we know it could change.


Among various other changes to the bill, the boxer’s pension fund is brought up to include mixed martial artists:


SEC. 4. Section 18881 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:


18881. (a) The commission shall, consistent with the purposes of this article, establish a pension plan for professional boxers and professional mixed martial arts fighters who engage in boxing or mixed martial arts contests in this state.


(b) The commission shall, consistent with the purposes of this article, establish the method by which the pension plan will be financed, including those who shall contribute to the financing of the pension plan. The method of financing the pension plan may include, but is not limited to, assessments on tickets and contributions by boxers, mixed martial arts fighters, managers, promoters, or any one or more of these persons, in an amount sufficient to finance the pension plan. Any promoter that receives a fee for televising a boxing or mixed martial arts contest performed in the State of California on a pay-per-view or network telecast shall pay 5 percent of the gross receipts from the telecast, exclusive of federal, state, or local taxes, into the Boxers’ and Mixed Martial Arts Fighters’ Pension Fund. For purposes of this section, the term “sufficient” means that the annual contributions shall be calculated to achieve no less than the average level of annual aggregate pension plan contributions from all sources for the period from July 1, 1981, through December 31, 1994, and adjusted thereafter to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for California as set forth by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


(c) Any pension plan established by the commission shall be actuarially sound.

Does the UFC or MMA really even need California at this point? The only Zuffa product banking on California shows is StrikeForce right? And I honestly believe that Strikeforce is going to fold within the next year and a half to two years.
 

Deezy

DZ PZ
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
139,458
Reaction score
39,389
Points
118
Location
Canada
Favorite Wrestler
brethart2
Favorite Wrestler
newjack
Favorite Wrestler
ddp
Favorite Wrestler
therock
Favorite Wrestler
nwo
Favorite Wrestler
wolfpac
CSAC is run by blueberries.
 

Troy

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
72
Points
48
Location
Streets Ahead
Favorite Wrestler
wherestroy
Favorite Wrestler
wherestroy
Favorite Wrestler
wherestroy
Favorite Wrestler
wherestroy
Favorite Wrestler
wherestroy
Favorite Wrestler
wherestroy
Wait so one of the things they disagree with is exclusivity contracts and they want to allow fighters to contract with other promoters? That is ridiculously dumb, that would be like a company hiring someone but than that person is allowed to work for their competitor for a week. Crazy, if this goes through then UFC should simply never run in California.