Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


Josh Gross


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Lowkick


Liver Kick


Fightsport Asia


Caged In


MMA Junkie


MMA Mania


Bloody Elbow


Fightlinker


Fightnomics


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


Infinite MMA


MMA Convert


Fightline


Fight Medicine


CompuBox


CompuStrike


MMA Frenzy


Ult MMA


Fighters


Kevin Iole


Yahoo MMA Blog


MMA Betting


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


MMA Chronicle


David Williams


Audio Corner


Oddscast


MMA Dude Bro


Sherdog Radio


Joe Ferraro


The Fightworks Podcast


Eddie Goldman


Pro MMA Radio


MMA Torch


Video Corner


Fight Hub


The Fight Nerd


Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index


To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site


Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback


Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

Site Meter

« | Home | »

Layout of how AB2100 currently stands

By Zach Arnold | April 29, 2012

Print Friendly and PDF

There’s been a lot of confusion, and rightfully so, as to what the actual text of AB2100 looks like right now in terms of an amendment for Mixed Martial Arts in California. Even some members of the Assembly committee that passed the amendments on a 5-3 party-line vote last Wednesday admitted that they had not read the amendments as they currently stand.

So, for the record, here is how the amendments for AB2100 currently looks. It’s much more streamlined than the initial amendments proposed for AB2100 were in the first place.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Add Legislative Intent Language to provide:

It is the intention of the Legislature in enacting these provisions to protect Mixed Martial Arts fighters from being subjected to exploitative, oppressive, or coercive contractual practices that violate the athletes’ freedom to work and their ability to support themselves and their families as professional athletes. Therefore it is necessary and appropriate to establish standards to protect the rights and welfare of mixed martial arts fighters licensed under this chapter.

SEC. 2 Section 18649 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read:

1864. To ensure that individuals and entities licensed under this act observe common standards of decency, the commission shall, in consultation with the. Association of Boxing Commissioners, establish a professional code of ethical conduct. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the commission shall enforce the code of ethical conduct and may suspend, revoke or refuse to issue- or renew the license of any mixed martial arts promoter orfighter that itfinds has violated this Code of Conduct. Violations of this code shall include but not be limited to the following:

a. Engaging in actions or activities such as felony convictions, failing to respond to a subpoena, sanctions by a judge or court of law, crimes involving moral turpitude, sexual assault, ethnic or religious slurs, hate speech and obscene language.

b. Entering into a promotional contract with a mixed martial arts fighter licensed in the state of California if the contract contains one or more coercive provisions. For purposes of this Section, a coercive contract provision includes but is not limited to the following.:

(1) Assigns any exclusive future merchandising rights to a promoter for an unreasonable period beyond the term of the promotional contract.

(2) Automatically renews a promotional contract or extends the term without good faith negotiation, or extends the term of any promotional contract of a fighter who participates in a championship contest for a period greater than 12 months beyond the existing contract termination period.

(3) Unreasonably restricts a mixed martial arts fighter from obtaining outside sponsorship from a firm, product or individual.

(4) Requires a mixed martial arts fighter to relinquish all legal claims that the fighter has, or may acquire in the future, against the promoter beyond assumption of the risks Inherent in the sport ofmixed martial arts and the Fighter participation in Pre and Post Bout events and activities.

(5) Requires a fighter to grant or waive any additional rights not contained in the promotional contract as a condition precedent to the fighter’s participation in any Contest.

SEC 3. Section 18849 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:

18849. (a) No promoter, nor any person having a proprietary interest in the promoter, shall have, either directly or indirectly, any proprietary interest in a boxer or martial arts fighter competing on the premises owned, leased, or rented by the promoter without written approval from the commission.

(b) No promoter shall be entitled to receive any compensation directly or indirectly in connection with a contest until the promoter provides to the commission the following:

(1) A copy of any agreement in writing to which the promoter is a party with any professional athlete or contestant licensed under this act.

(2) A statement made under penalty of perjury that there are no other agreements, written or oral, between the promoter and the athlete with respect to that contest.

(3) All fees, charges, and expenses that will be assessed by or through the promoter on the athlete participating in the event, including any portion of the athlete’s purse that the promoter will receive.

(4) Any reduction in the athlete’s purse contrary to a previous agreement between the promoter and the athlete.

(c) Neither the commission, nor any person acting on its behalf, may disclose to the public any agreement furnished by a promoter under this section except to the extent required to comply with an order in a legal, administrative or judicial proceeding.

SEC. 4

No reimbursement is required the this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article. XIIIB of the California Constitution.

****

Even more interesting than the proposed amendments are the comments from those both pro-AB2100 and anti-AB2100 about the future of the amendments.

A sampling here:

Topics: MMA, Media, UFC, Zach Arnold | 56 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

56 Responses to “Layout of how AB2100 currently stands”

  1. 45 Huddle says:

    So basically in 1 corner you have people with an ax to grind with Zuffa. Guys like Goldman & Shamrock.

    And in the other corner, you have Zuffa AND the companies who own the arenas.

    Hmmmm…. I wonder who will win this one.

    • Strider says:

      “encouraging fighters to promote racism, sexism, homophobia, and other anti-social values such as disrespect for their opponents as a means of publicizing their fights and manufacturing rivalries”

      Both amazing and crazy at the same time. Wow.

    • Rob Maysey says:

      When you cannot attack the merits of a bill–attack the personalities of those involved!

      It will be interesting to see people dance to oppose now that the taxing provisions have been removed. . .

      • 45 Huddle says:

        1) A person’s motivations is absolutely fair game in a discussion like this.

        2) The current UFC fighters don’t want this bill. The UFC doesn’t want this bill. The owners of the major California Arena’s don’t want this bill. Most of the fans don’t want this bill. Basically, every major player who doesn’t hold a grudge is against this thing. That alone mean it should not pass.

        If you want to talk about the merits of the bill itself, I’d be perfectly happy to do so. Here are the top problems with it:

        1) “Automatically renews a promotional contract or extends the term without good faith negotiation, or extends the term of any promotional contract of a fighter who participates in a championship contest for a period greater than 12 months beyond the existing contract termination period.”

        This is not a problem now. The championship clauses in MMA have never been abused. The UFC doesn’t even use them. They negotiate in good faith. Strikeforce has used them, but it has never been used beyond what is reasonably fair. And Bellator has used them with Alvarez & Lombard. I don’t see either of them hurting. So why make legislation for something that is currently not a problem? Let is become a problem first, and then create a law that is tailor made to prevent that bad practice.

        2) “Unreasonably restricts a mixed martial arts fighter from obtaining outside sponsorship from a firm, product or individual.”

        The UFC and Bellator have no restrictions on sponsorships of fighters when they are not in the sanctioned events. ZERO!! They have restrictions while they are at events. And MMA promotions are 100 times better about allowing athletes to make money from sponsors during sanctioned events then any of the major sports in America. Once again, not an issue…. Why regulate it now?

        3) “No promoter, nor any person having a proprietary interest in the promoter, shall have, either directly or indirectly, any proprietary interest in a boxer or martial arts fighter competing on the premises owned, leased, or rented by the promoter without written approval from the commission.”

        First, this is way too vague. Secondly, if you want to enact this…. It would cripple the UFC and the sport itself. This wording can easily be used to say that the way the UFC does business is illegal. Long term that is bad for the sport.

        4) “No promoter shall be entitled to receive any compensation directly or indirectly in connection with a contest until the promoter provides to the commission the following:” And then they list a bunch of stipulations….

        So now the CA wants the right to withhold money from the UFC if demands are not met? Holy Sh!t. Talk about government over reaching here. They should have no rights to do this. Bonds have been in place for over 100 years to ensure fighter pay and other things. There is no need for this extra measure which only gives too much power to the state and puts the promoters is a very bad position even if they have done nothing wrong.

        ******

        So what this bill has is a bad combination of unnecessary laws and overreaching laws. And far too many of them to be worth while. I agree with the idea of limiting the UFC’s ability to have the rights to the fighters likeness. This needs to be changed. But the funny thing is that for the fighters who have this in their contracts, their likeness isn’t worth a dime. And for the fighters who don’t have it in their contract, it is because they are popular enough to create a better deal. Funny how that works out.

        And the rest as I have pointed out above is just garbage. Too vague, too overreaching, and solutions to problems that don’t even currently exist.

        • diceman says:

          “2) The current UFC fighters don’t want this bill.”

          Go ahead and provide a link. Oh wait, you just made that one up. You have no idea what percentage of these guys support this bill.

          Does anyone really want to sign a contract that allows a company to use their likeness in perpetuity? Do any other major sports contracts allow something like this? Hint:NOPE

  2. RST says:

    “Exclusive and non-public contracts; a perpetually-renewing ‘championship clause’; assigning of certain merchandising rights to promoters in perpetuity with no compensation or remuneration…”

    Had me.

    “…encouraging fighters to promote racism, sexism, homophobia, and other anti-social values…”

    Lost me.

    • Rob says:

      “anti social values”. LOL. Now remember, when you go into this cage and start elbowing and punching your opponent to separate him from consciousness, you be sure and respect his personhood and don’t you dare do anything disrespectful. Meanwhile, all across the very same state high school and college defenseive ends are slamming quarterbacks to the turf and dancing over their injured, motionless bodies. Priceless.

    • Zach Arnold says:

      I don’t think the ignorant race baiting between Rashad and Rampage was exactly a shining moment for the sport or for UFC.

      • Steve4192 says:

        It wasn’t a shining moment, but it is hardly a fighter welfare issue. I thought this bill was all about fighters’ rights and extending some of the protections of the Ali act to MMA? Last I checked, Pretty Boy Floyd was protected by the Ali act and none of it’s provisions banned him from getting licensed after making racist statements about Manny.

        That particular clause seems ripe for abuse by grandstanding politicians and does absolutely nothing to benefit the fighters. These guys are fighters, not college professors. They are going to say stupid shit sometimes.

      • RST says:

        I’m not sure that I recall the Race Baiting.

        You mean the “white boy” thing?

        If you meant that, that was in between Rashad and Jones via a private text.

        If that had been the character of debate in public (which I wouldn’t put past everyone’s favorite “personality” jackson), then that would have been offensive.

        But maybe you mean something else they said.

        Honestly I tuned out that whole fiasco because I found the whole situation in general more then offensive enough for my taste.

        I wouldn’t mind some sort of regulation that curbs Dana bullying team mates to fight against each other through implied threats or intimidation.

        But racist?
        I must have missed that.

      • RST says:

        My bad, You said Shad and Jackson.

        But honestly I still dont recall it.

        I probably ignored that also.

        Thats in between black people.

  3. Rob Maysey says:

    All of the committee members had all amendments ahead of the hearing–so it wasn’t for lack of availability.

    The hearing audio also plainly makes clear that the pension fund language and other taxing provisions were removed from the bill.

  4. Rob says:

    This is not an uncommon scenario for any organization that conducts operations across many states and nations. At the end of the day, this is just business for both sides. I don’t fault either side. If CSAC is inspired to do this then I think that’s great. At that point Zuffa may decide that they only want to do business under the conditions that they and California historically have had in place. So, they might decide to not do business there or in any states with such stipulations. There would be no shortage of jurisdictions that would volunteer to host events. That’s generally my view of labor or regulation issues in any sports situation. Both sides are free to do what they want. Then, natural consequences will commence.

    • Steve4192 says:

      Exactly.

      Unfortunately, I don’t think the people who put this bill forward have thought through all the potential consequences. Kind of like how the folks who drafted the MMA regulations in Hawaii did not anticipate that their bill would kill the sport in that state. Hawaii used to be a hotbed of MMA, but over-regulation killed it. The same might happen in California.

    • RST says:

      If ca is a lucrative market then they can pass any legislation that they want to and it would still be worth it.

      As long as the profit margin is still there.

      Thats how they’ve maintained their status as a state so far despite themselves.

      But seeing as Nevada is just a roadtrip away, they cant nickel and dime this one too deep.

  5. Stel says:

    Some of the ufc’s constricting contract policies can be compared to the now banned practice of using wires to trip horses on cue to make exciting action for the paying customer. It was expedient for the producers, but was deadly to a lot of horses. Tripwires were eventually outlawed in the states but still used in the over seas market.

    There’s no down side to setting the precedent of banning such practices designed only to maximize profit for a corporation at its individual workers expense.

    • Rob says:

      No, Stel, you are wrong. None of the UFC’s contract policies could be compared to the intentional injuring of animals that sometimes even led to their eventual deaths. I’m embarassed for you and your family that you would make such an analogy. I know fighters that have competed in UFC and Strikeforce events and I know fighters that have competed in professional boxing events. None of them were ever forced to sign any contract. They and their management teams had a say in their business decisions. The horses in your analogy had none. And that’s only one way in which your analogy fails. I have no problem with California adopting this legislation if they so choose. And I have no problem with Zuffa taking their business to jurisdictions that have policies in place which more closely mirror California’s historic MMA policies. But let’s be adults about his. Melodrama is overrated. You’re better than that.

      • Rob Maysey says:

        The American Kickboxing Academy didn’t have a say when presented with an assignment of video game rights, exclusively and forever, unless of course accepting their termination is the “choice” you believe they had.

        The majority of UFC fighters oppose this bill? Ahh–no.

        As to the champions clauses–they have been a factor numerous times already. To say they have not is flat out incorrect. Further, are you to say that someone must first suffer to correct an inequity? Is that really your position?

        I ask again, why shouldn’t mixed martial artist enjoy the same protection that boxers have? They already have that protection. Is there a valid reason as to why mixed martial artists should be treated as second class citizens?

        As to the proprietary interest in a fighter–this isn’t problematic at all–hasn’t crippled boxing.

        The statement regarding restrictions on sponsors is just flat incorrect. An enormous amount of the value a public person has for an endorsement is the ability to offer exclusive product. In MMA, however, fighters are unable to do this. To put the point another way, do you think an apparel line, trading card, or action figure is going to pay a fighter large sums for the use of their likeness, when a promoter can flood the market with the exact same product?

        Item 4 is over-reaching? Boxing promoters have no problem complying with these requirements. Why is MMA different? To put this point another way, how can the athletic commissions even pretend to be doing their jobs when they do not even have copies of the underlying contracts?

        For a very recent example of this, please see the EliteXC fiasco in the State of Florida. The commission’s asserted defense–we don’t have the contracts to review!

        • 45 Huddle says:

          What value does Jon Fitch’s video game rights have? Honestly, there are none. And like I have stated, the guys who do have value, have much different contracts in place. The free market works itself out.

          Name one fighter who has spoken up in favor of this? Not even one champion, who has enough power to not have it negatively effect them.

          Since the UFC started making money (SpikeTV and beyond), they have never used the Championship Clause on a fighters contract. So why make a law on something that is not hurting anybody? And Hector Lombard had a Championship Clause in his contract, and look at how well he recently did for himself. If there becomes a problem, then regulate it. There is no problem with the Championship Clauses in MMA as of today.

          “As to the proprietary interest in a fighter–this isn’t problematic at all–hasn’t crippled boxing.”

          Do you really want MMA to become boxing where the top guys barely fight each other and play games. The UFC has their own issues, but it is 1/10th of the problems that plague boxing. You have just tipped your hand at your biases.

          “The statement regarding restrictions on sponsors is just flat incorrect. An enormous amount of the value a public person has for an endorsement is the ability to offer exclusive product. In MMA, however, fighters are unable to do this. To put the point another way, do you think an apparel line, trading card, or action figure is going to pay a fighter large sums for the use of their likeness, when a promoter can flood the market with the exact same product?”

          What does that have to do with this law? The facts are the facts. The UFC or Bellator put zero restrictions on sponsors outside of their own events. This alone makes that part of the law pointless. A basketball player can be sponsored by Nike but be forced to wear Reebok while competing for his team. This isn’t hurting them from getting big named sponsors. Your bullsh#t is getting worse and worse as your statements continue. Once again, they are trying to make a law around something that isn’t even an issue. Both FOX & UFC have a right to have whatever sponsors they want on their telecasts. They enact this. They have zero rights to say what the fighters wear and endorse outside of their events. And they don’t.

          What this really comes down to is that some people are mad about the “sponsor” tax. And yet that sponsor tax is actually a GOOD thing long term for the fighters. Does BUD LIGHT want to be next to Rick’s Tire Barn? Nope. In order to get big time advertisers, you need to appear to have a premium product. You can’t do that with mom & pop advertisers.

          So these laws could hurt the fighters long term. Think outside the box….

          As for my 4th point….. Show me the problem first. Show me all of these travesties in the state of CA that need this portion to become law. I’m open ears….

  6. EJ says:

    After thinking about this some more i’ve decide that I want them to pass this law so that Zuffa can blackball them. The CSAC is the most inept and corrupt AC in the US and personally speaking I would love to see them fall flat on their face by pulling something like this. To me something needs to happen to wake those people up and Zuffa telling them to go screw themselves might finally be that move or they’ll just be to stupid and screw mma in that state either way i’m good with it.

    • Rob Maysey says:

      Commission sentiments aside, you have any objections to the merits of the bill?

      • Steve4192 says:

        I’m speaking for myself here, but I think the bill is well-intentioned but will create more problems than it solves.

        If you want to pass this kind of legislation and have it work, it has to be a coordinated effort, not piecemeal one state at a time. If you really want to effect change, work through the ABC to recommend a bill that can be passed in ALL states. That would have some teeth and create real change. Doing it state-by-state is too easily circumvented by just bypassing that state.

        I think it is a good bill in theory, but in practice it will do nothing but hurt the California MMA scene and by extension, California fighters.

  7. Rob says:

    Rob Maysey, I’m assuming your response is targeted toward 45 Huddle since you’re bringing up several issues and it was he that went into a point by point breakdown of issues he had. It’s none of my business but I thought I’d respond on at least one point:

    “The American Kickboxing Academy didn’t have a say when presented with an assignment of video game rights, exclusively and forever, unless of course accepting their termination is the “choice” you believe they had.”

    This is, indeed, a choice that I believe they had. It’s like this: Zuffa approached these fighters and both parties agreed that Zuffa could terminate contracts at their discretion. It’s important to note that both sides agreed to this in writing with legal counsel assisting. The fighters and their managers (Zinkin Entertainment) agreed to these terms. When the fighters and their management expressed that they didn’t like the video game likeness deal, Zuffa simply said “Okay, truly sorry to hear that. Let’s part ways, then.” It is then that Zinkin came back to the table. They could have not done that and taken their talents elsewhere or run their own show. They didn’t. They came back. I know this seems like a detached, somewhat shocking viewpoint to many. You can say that you don’t like that choice and it’s strong-arming the fighters in this scenario (a trait present in most business negotiations to some degree). But it is, nonetheless, a choice.

    Now having said this, once again, I don’t have a problem with California enacting this. If that’s the road they want to go down then I wish them the best. They and Zuffa both owe it to themselves to run things the way they see fit. Again, I don’t have a problem with either side. Both are doing what they, legally, have a right to do. It will be interesting to see how it plays out for both parties. I sincerely wish them both well. I think it’s safe to assume that all (or most) of the people here love this sport, it’s athletes and the organizations that have given it life during these past 20 years. Although we can agree to disagree on issues like this, this thing will play out over the course of the next year and natural consequences will occur, no matter which way this thing goes.

  8. Rob Maysey says:

    Rob,

    Thank you for the response–you are correct, it was really a response to 45 Huddle.

    I respect that opinion, and you have stated it well. I, obviously, do not agree. These contracts are the definition of contracts of adhesion–they are virtually non-negotiable. While “legal counsel” at times reviews, the promoters are known to say “this is not a democracy” when changes are requested.

    Further, these contracts are completely one sided in terms of obligation. I have reviewed these contracts, and it is stunning how the athlete is obligated to promote the promoter throughout, with no corresponding obligation on behalf of the promoter.

    • 45 Huddle says:

      The promoter, by way of making the most money possible, has a natural builtin incentive to promote. What the f#ck. How is that not blatantly obvious?

      • Steve4192 says:

        C’mon 45,

        There is a world of difference between a contractual obligation (what the fighters have) and a ‘natural incentive’ (what Zuffa has).

  9. Rob Maysey says:

    Tipped my hand in terms of biases?

    Are you serious? My “bias” is hardly hidden, its up front directly on the table and always has been. I am pro-athlete. I also believe this legislation is a step forward for the sport as a whole.

    As to your characterization of Jon Fitch, if his rights had no value, why did Zuffa threaten to fire the entire team, if just one didn’t sign? The real impact of these contracts is to install, by contract, a blatantly anti-competitive regime.

    As to sponsors–you are again incorrect. The stripping of ancillary rights necessarily compromises the free market system–you need only have been first. . .

    • 45 Huddle says:

      And yet every “athlete first” organization has gone out of business in MMA. That doesn’t work for this sport.

      Anti-Competitive Regime? This world has 7 Billion people in it spread across basically 6 continents (not enough people on Antarctica to really matter). And yet nobody has been able to make a dent in the MMA scene except for the UFC.

      Competition isn’t there because this sport is impossible to do business in. It has nothing to do with the UFC. They are the exception, not the rule.

      “As to sponsors–you are again incorrect. The stripping of ancillary rights necessarily compromises the free market system–you need only have been first.”

      You are talking out of your #ss now. What free market? There is no MMA video game market. Only the UFC name sells. If there was, EA would have been successful. There is no action figure MMA market. Heck, right now there is barely a UFC action figure market. There is no MMA DVD market. Take the UFC out of the picture and there is no MMA free market. There is basically no MMA market at all.

      You continue to ignore that fact that the UFC & Bellator allow for their athletes to have MORE rights to showcase their sponsors then any of the major 4 sports in America. But that doesn’t go well with your slanted views….

      • diceman says:

        “You are talking out of your #ss now”

        Yeah he’s the one talking out of his #ss when you claimed earlier that current UFC fighters don’t support AB2100 without any basis in fact or logic.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          “Yeah he’s the one talking out of his #ss when you claimed earlier that current UFC fighters don’t support AB2100 without any basis in fact or logic.”

          You sort of need to prove to me that active UFC fighters have a problem with this first. Before this bill was written, active fighters as a whole were not making these complaints. Since the bill has been released, no UFC fighters have come in favor of it.

          So the burden of proof is most certainly on people like you to show me otherwise.

          As it stands, no current UFC fighters are in favor of this bill.

        • diceman says:

          “So the burden of proof is most certainly on people like you to show me otherwise.”

          ??
          I am not the one making any FACTUAL claim that they support or don’t support the bill. You are. But logic would suggest 2 things: 1) a bill that protects their rights would likely be supported by them in the name of self interest and 2) if you are wondering why you haven’t seen a lot of support for it then I think you need to get your head checked. Do you think that it would be wise for current fighters to come out right now and protest against UFC interests?

          I remember reading your Zuffa nuthugging hackery on this site years ago. And it is only fitting that you make a factual claim(without a shred of evidence or logical coherence) and then claim the burden of proof is on the other side to disprove you.

          Hey, guess what, God exists and lives on the other side of Venus with a stable of unicorns. Don’t believe it? Burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong ;)

      • Rob Maysey says:

        The athletes in the other 4 major sports don’t have to obtain individual sponsors–they obtain over 50% of the revenue generated through licensing. . .

        Ah, I see. Why then did Zuffa fire an entire camp in regards to the video game, and further, threaten athletes not even under contract with Zuffa at all if they chose to sign with EA?

        • Jonathan Snowden says:

          Why shouldn’t the UFC be able to sign fighters based on their willingness to work with the company in other areas like video games and action figures?

        • nottheface says:

          There is a pretty strong restraint of trade argument against it. Is having fighters’ image rights necessary for the UFC to operate its business of promoting MMA events? If not, then is it coercive for the UFC to ask for those rights in return for a spot in the promotion that owns a 90% share of the market? Government regulations exists to answer these questions.

        • Megatherium says:

          Rob, if this this could be twinned with the bill in New York when it does pass, it could have some real bite industry wide that not even Zuffa could afford to ignore.

      • smoogy says:

        45: Free market will sort itself out.

        Rob: UFC contract policy compromises the free market.

        45: What free market? There is no free market!

        Comedy gold.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          Um no. My biggest problem with the bill is that it attacks issues that don’t even exist in MMA right now. Which I have stated multiple times. And the other things it attacks would literally cripple the UFC’s business model and hurt the sport long term.

          If issues arise, then conquer them at the time. This bill isn’t doing that for the most part.

          Still playing in the minor leagues smoogy.

  10. Deck says:

    This version of the bill is roughly 100% more cogent than the vague original presented (which was filled with provisions that would’ve been struck down quickly). However, it still carries this onerous passage:
    a. Engaging in actions or activities such as felony convictions, failing to respond to a subpoena, sanctions by a judge or court of law, crimes involving moral turpitude, sexual assault, ethnic or religious slurs, hate speech and obscene language.
    This seems like a bizarro Eddie Goldman inclusion that dovetails his letter; the notion that the CSAC would attempt to sanction or remove a promoter’s/fighter’s license on the basis of subjective “obscene language” is outrageous. If this bill somehow passes, which even in amended form is no guarantee, those provisions are asking to be challenged in the courts. The framers would be better off removing or altering that portion of SEC. 2 Section 18649 before it goes before the Appropriation committee.

  11. [...] in the country and they are non-union.”Exakt vad denna motion, kallad AB2100, innehåller har Fight Opinion en mer utförlig förklaring på. Men det viktiga i väldigt korta drag är detta:(1) Assigns any [...]

  12. Steve4192 says:

    In regards to Dana claiming the Culinary Union is behind this bill, here is the campaign contribution history for Luis Alejo.

    http://maplight.org/california/legislator/1376-luis-alejo

    Neither UniteHERE or the culinary union local 226 are listed, but the data is only updated through 12/31/2010. It is possible they made contributions over the last 16 months to push this bill through. What the data does show is that Assemblyman Alejo is indebted to the unions, as the vast majority of his campaign contributions come from various union sources.

    • Vadim says:

      So there is no proof that he is actually being influenced by the culinary union at all at least so far. Its funny to see commentators here doing more research on this than the people who write articles on some MMA websites.

  13. Deck says:

    Now I’m confused. Assembly Member Alejo was just interviewed by Kenny Rice on Inside MMA about AB2100 and indicated that the bill would restrict promoters from offering exclusive contracts. That was included as part of the original 2/23/2012 version of the bill – SECTION 1. Section 18649 ….. subsection (7) Restricts a mixed martial arts fighter from contracting with another promoter. – but doesn’t exist or have an equivalent provision in the revised April 9th variation that appeared on the Assembly notes & in the above FightOpinion article. In fact, nothing in the amended version seems to prevent contract exclusivity or promoters to recognize multiple promotional contracts (it just limits the scope of extending contract clauses). So why would Assembly Member Alejo field questions as if such a measure is still active in the amended bill? Any help?

    • Zach Arnold says:

      It’s chaos everywhere. Even trying to get a proper vote total (first it was said 5-2, then revealed 5-3-1) has been a chore.

      • Rob Maysey says:

        LOL

      • Deck says:

        Luis Alejo claimed, again, on Josh Gross’s podcast, that this legislation would bar any exclusive contract. That would be a curious amendment to leave in the bill from its inception, given that it doesn’t have an analogue in the Ali Act (exclusive contract in boxing are the normative, as they are in nearly every industry). So either the amendments in this article are not the representative of the full bill as it currently stands or Alejo doesn’t know what is in the bill he is sponsoring since it has been amended. The latter seems improbable, but stranger things have happened.

  14. Rob Maysey says:

    Jonathan,

    The same exact reason Microsoft isn’t free to work only with those PC providers that agree to bundle Explorer, with built in code advantages. . .

    • Jonathan Snowden says:

      That’s certainly an argument you could make in a court of law. You know, if you actually represented any fighters under contract to the UFC or Zuffa.

    • 45 Huddle says:

      Many smart phones only have one built in internet browser with no choice of options. And in fact they purposely disallow their competitors browsers to be available through their own app store.

      Bad example on your part.

  15. Rob Maysey says:

    Still talking Jonathan–you still don’t know. . .

Comments

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image