Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Lowkick


Liver Kick


Fightsport Asia


Caged In


MMA Junkie


MMA Mania


Bloody Elbow


Fightlinker


Fightnomics


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


MMA Convert


Fightline


Fight Medicine


CompuStrike


MMA Frenzy


Fighters


Kevin Iole


Yahoo MMA Blog


MMA Betting


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


Audio Corner


Oddscast


MMA Dude Bro


Sherdog Radio


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

Despite recent TV ratings, UFC’s overall success rips the scab off of uncomfortable truths for Fox

By Zach Arnold | September 13, 2016

Despite below-average UFC 203 prelim ratings (870,000 viewers) and Ultimate Fighter viewership (370,000 viewers), UFC’s overall success on Fox Sports 1 has ripped the mask off of some very uncomfortable truths about the future of Rupert Murdoch’s suicide sports pact with ESPN.

The two sports properties saving the Fox Sports 1 ship from sinking are UFC and NASCAR. In the words of Dan Patrick, they don’t have “ESPN muscles” — they have their own muscles and have demonstrated to be capable, portable television properties.

For non-live event programming, the most successful shoulder programming on Fox Sports 1 is the daily NASCAR race hub show that attracts around 150,000 viewers. That number is only “good” relative to how else Fox Sports 1 performs. Colin Cowherd’s radio simulcast draws around 100,000 viewers. The Skip Bayless Experiment is drawing between 70,000 and 90,000 viewers. Cowherd & Whitlock average around 60,000 viewers.

You can’t build a major sports network on those kinds of figures and expect cable & satellite companies to pay hefty carriage fees like ESPN is asking for right now. The great heist ESPN has pulled off for years getting $7 a month from each cable subscriber for having shoulder programming that draws a few hundred thousand viewers has been exposed. Fox Sports 1 emulating ESPN in 2016 makes little sense.

Which brings us to the uncomfortable truths about Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to compete with ESPN:

First: Without UFC and NASCAR, there is little (if any) justification for cable & satellite providers to carry Fox Sports 1.

If ESPN executives warmed up to the idea of poaching UFC away from Fox, it would severely hurt Murdoch’s ability to demonstrate the long-time viability of Fox Sports 1.

Second: UFC and NASCAR drawing solid ratings on Fox Sports 1 while the rest of the programming tanks demonstrates that plenty of sports fans are aware of what Fox Sports 1 and they simply don’t want to watch the channel.

It also demonstrates that your average American sports fan is really only interested in one 24/7 TV sports channel. ESPN’s declining fortunes are due to self-inflicted wounds. There are sports fans who hate how hollow the network’s daily programming has become. It’s empty. It’s political. It’s a poor attempt at becoming a dumber, less sharper version of MSNBC. For the average American, sports programming is supposed to be a reprieve from politics. Instead, ESPN has gone full-throated on one-way politics.

Rupert Murdoch thought he could capitalize on this opportunity with his own sports network. He didn’t in the past with Fox Sports Net and he can’t now with Fox Sports 1. Best Damn Sports Show Period remains his greatest daily sports show accomplishment. Murdoch’s inability to capture sports fans who are sick of ESPN’s political agenda is a manifestation of two problems:

  1. Murdoch simply doesn’t know how to create a smart alternative to ESPN
  2. Americans don’t want two full-time 24/7 sports TV channels — they just want ESPN to clean their act up

In Rupert Murdoch’s world, politics are transactional. Murdoch wasn’t the driving force behind Fox News — Roger Ailes was. Outside of immigration issues, Murdoch largely has maintained a hands-off approach to Fox News. Murdoch maintains the New York Post simply as a matter of convenience if he has an axe to grind. He used the paper to shuttle Ailes out the door during the major sexual harassment scandal.

The great irony? The blueprint that made Murdoch the most money on American cable & satellite TV is the one he’s most resistant to use in competing with cable TV’s biggest giant in ESPN. Murdoch could have attacked ESPN by presenting Fox Sports 1 as the conservative alternative. He could have driven that wedge. Murdoch has chosen not to. In his 20+ years of trying to compete with ESPN, he’s used *every* tactic except the Ailes business model.

As a result, Murdoch is left with a sports channel that is wandering aimlessly and being single-handedly saved by a Mixed Martial Arts boss who is a full-throated Trump supporter. Without UFC, there is no reason to watch Fox Sports 1 and no reason for cable/satellite providers to keep the channel for a high carriage fee. The best Murdoch can do is fail with his channel while inflicting damage to ESPN. ESPN could wipe out his venture by poaching away UFC programming rights. UFC is in the catbird’s seat and can demand as much cash as they want from Murdoch in order to keep his channel alive.

Exit question: Would Murdoch consider making a deal with TNA if Dixie Carter’s out of the picture?

Topics: MMA, Media, UFC, Zach Arnold | 5 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

The dirty secret: Athletic commissions do not want the Ali Act amended for MMA

By Zach Arnold | September 10, 2016

All of the latest political trends represent a real roadblock in amending the Ali Act to cover MMA. If there is to be action on this front, the timing to make it happen needs to happen during the lame duck session of Congress from November 2016 ~ January 2017.

Let’s start from the top and work our way to the bottom.

Trump & Hillary will not be naturally inclined to support amending the Ali Act

If Trump wins the election, the political power of Dana White and Vince McMahon grows. They’re tight with Trump. He speaks their language. They know his language. Not only are they his friends, they’re entertainment bosses in ventures he has great personal interest in.

If Hillary wins the election, it gets more complicated but also more negative for the forces advocating change. The new owner of UFC is Ari Emanuel, brother to forever Clinton-fixer Rahm Emanuel. The Clinton Machine sticks together, especially when there’s a lot of money changing hands. It would not be surprising to see Rahm Emanuel leave Chicago and head back to DC under a Hillary Clinton administration. Additionally, there isn’t a national vocal outcry on a mass scale to amend the Ali Act for MMA. Politicians are not going to spend their political capital on this front.

The UFC will spend money to kill this attempt to amend the Ali Act

UFC has reportedly spent $100,000 in lobbying efforts to stop House Resolution 5365. Given UFC’s brutal lobbying experience in Albany, the company understands that DC lobbyists will play the game and ask for more money in order to stop momentum that may or may not exist.

The threat posed to UFC has nothing to do with giving athletic commissions more power. It has everything to do with giving fighters a private right of action to file a lawsuit in Federal court to get out of an adhesive contract. That alone is worth millions of dollars to UFC. Our initial estimate for UFC lobbying efforts in New York was $7 million dollars.

If UFC is going to spend $7 million dollars lobbying in a state like New York, it means they will spend that kind of money lobbying for business interests involving athletic commissions.

For two major reasons, athletic commissions don’t want an Ali Act for MMA

Without UFC events coming to states like California or Nevada, it means lost revenue. Boxing is still king but Al Haymon’s business model has brought a lot of uncertainty as to what the financial model for boxing will be in the future.

UFC has power because they are a promoter that runs big events. However, standard promoter power is not the reason athletic commissions want to keep in the UFC in their good graces. There are two significant reasons why athletic commissions do not want to see the Ali Act amended for MMA.

First, the major source of UFC’s political power involves their efforts in lobbying state capitals across America. They have top lobbying firms, like Platinum Advisors in Sacramento, on retainer. The minute something needs to get done on behalf of Andy Foster of the California State Athletic Commission or the powers-that-be at the Florida Boxing Commission, UFC writes the check to their lobbyists to get things done.

This is the undercovered story of the new century regarding the rise in UFC’s power. Bob Arum, Oscar De La Hoya, Richard Schaefer, and Al Haymon do not play the lobbying game. Much to their own detriment, they have sacrificed building political power because they are cheap. UFC had to hire powerful lobbyists in order to build political influence and build their business model. That pro-active approach has now put UFC in a political position that boxing stakeholders cannot obtain overnight.

UFC is the power broker for the Andy Fosters and Bob Bennetts of the world. Without UFC, they don’t have job security and stability. Without UFC’s lobbyists, these athletic commission bosses wouldn’t possess the ability to promote and enact their agenda. Self-preservation matters. If UFC doesn’t want the Ali Act amended for MMA, then the commission bosses better get on board if they want gainful employment — especially after they retire from athletic commission work and want a job with UFC.

A terrible but useful analogy: Look at the athletic commission bosses as combat sports versions of Bashar al-Assad and look at UFC as Vladimir Putin.

Russia has every interest in keeping Assad in power for their business interests. The Russian Navy is in Tartus. In return, Assad wants the Russian fleets to help him in military matters in order to keep his political power in Damascus. This kind of symbiotic relationship is exactly the kind of business and political relationship UFC maintains with the major athletic commission bosses.

Second, athletic commission bosses do not want to see the Ali Act amended to cover MMA because they don’t possess the legal backgrounds to make sound decisions when contract & arbitration disputes land on their desk.

The minute there is a contract dispute, athletic commission bosses call the state’s Attorney General’s office. The AG’s office immediately starts racking up the billable hours and what should be a simple task ends up in a costly fight. California recently attempted to shift the costs of arbitration hearings onto the participants involved. Nevada has recently used commissioner Pat Lundvall, a licensed attorney, to help in contractual disputes involving Nevada fighters and promoters.

In short, the bosses appointed to run athletic commissions do not possess the knowledge or confidence to make the right legal decisions. In California, the commission has the right to appoint independent legal counsel separate from the Department of Consumer Affairs or the AG’s office. Andy Foster has chosen not to go down this path.

For politicians in state capitals who grossly interfere in commission matters for little rhyme or reason, having non-state agency attorneys who possess legal knowledge as executive directors on a athletic commission is considered a dangerous thing and immediately makes such individuals a target for getting axed. See: New York.

Conclusion: Without financial assistance from the UFC, athletic commission bosses fear instability and lack of job security because of UFC’s willing to spend money on lobbyists to keep the current political system in place. The same athletic commission bosses fear that expanding the Ali Act would bust their budgets in legal disputes. The UFC fears that an expanded Ali Act would weaken the strength of their contracts. The major politicians have individual reasons as to why they would naturally be inclined to reject amending the Ali Act for MMA. The clock is ticking.

Topics: CSAC, MMA, Media, UFC, Zach Arnold | 2 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Heading for the exits: UFC fighters are “interchangeable” but what about management?

By Zach Arnold | August 31, 2016

Joe Rogan signaled that he would leave UFC after the company was sold to Ari Emanuel. He decided to stick around for at least one more year. Now veteran matchmaker Joe Silva is reportedly leaving.

WWE discovered that you can move on when wrestlers leave but when management & on-air talent like Jim Ross & Pat Patterson leaves, you’re left with the Michael Coles of the world.

A change in personnel is natural given the $4 billion UFC sale but there is something to be said for a brain drain. Yes, Dana White is the top matchmaker and face of UFC, but Joe Silva and Sean Shelby micro-managed a roster with hundreds of fighters and were put in a position of constantly looking for the next diamond in the rough. Try booking 800 fights in a calendar year and see how you hold up.

These changes come against the backdrop of UFC looking for a new television rights deal. The odds seem strikingly in favor of UFC staying married to Fox Sports. UFC isn’t just a cornerstone for Fox Sports 1 — they’re practically the damn reason the channel still exists. Top flight Fox Sports 1 programming is barely able to hit 6-digits for cable ratings. UFC programming on Fox, for a disappointing show, draws 700,000 viewers. The numbers UFC is able to pull on Fox Sports 1 are nothing short of incredible.

What it exposes is that there is plenty of awareness of Fox Sports 1 but nobody wants to actually watch the channel. The Colin Cowherd & Jason Whitlock experiment has gotten off to a rough start. The Skip Bayless & Shannon Sharpe era will likely do the same. Take a look at the amount of retweets and reader activity on Skip Bayless’s Twitter account now versus what it was when he had his ESPN muscles. It’s striking. Without UFC programming, there really isn’t a justification for Fox Sports 1 to exist as a channel.

Ari Emanuel knows this. Dana White knows this. It’s why the $4 billion price tag isn’t as big of a gamble as you might think. The business side looks prospectively great but change is coming. Our UFC comfort creatures are departing. The whole business of MMA is rapidly changing. We are now in a world where Sherdog no longer employs Sherdog (Jeff Sherwood) or Greg Savage.

Corporate MMA is here to stay. Just ask the boxing promoters in New York how the new MMA insurance law is going to cripple their business. Here come the anti-trust lawsuits.

Topics: MMA, Media, UFC, Zach Arnold | 1 Comment » | Permalink | Trackback |

UFC 202: Will the Conor McGregor/Nate Diaz trilogy fight be at 155?

By Zach Arnold | August 17, 2016

Ticket sales weren’t so hot heading into the Conor McGregor/Nate Diaz re-match at UFC 202. There was more interest online than locally in Vegas. That changed.

Then there was the water bottle session at the Wednesday presser, resulting in Dana White claiming he would fine both fighters “massively” and efforting settlement offers with spectators.

The weigh-ins Friday featured police all over the stage when McGregor and Diaz did their celebratory posing for the media and fans. WWE wrestlers went after McGregor verbally, including Brock Lesnar who said that his turds are bigger than McGregor.

Heading into fight time, Conor McGregor was a very slight favorite. The late money from bettors started to come in on his side, making him a -130 favorite. And then the fight happened and it was everything you expected it to be. The 170 pound weight distinction made this a challenge for both men. They went the distance, they went 5 rounds, and McGregor won a majority decision in a fight that could have been genuinely scored either way.

The fight played out exactly the way that the EA Sports simulation on ESPN on Friday demonstrated. Scarily so.

Gate was $7.7 million with 15,600 in the arena.

This fight saved Conor McGregor’s career. It also made Nate Diaz, bizarrely, an almost sure-fire lock for the UFC Hall of Fame. For UFC, their hopes of pushing McGregor back into Featherweight at 145 and Diaz at LW (155) just got postponed again. They cannot resist promoting a third and final fight between these two men. There’s too much money at stake.

Everyone walks away making money with an option of making even more money. The question is what the agenda is after the trilogy. Those thoughts will have to be delayed now.

Topics: MMA, Media, UFC, Zach Arnold | 14 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

The price tag of a $4 billion UFC sale: competing fighter union proposals

By Zach Arnold | August 11, 2016

The irony of Nick Diaz’s attorney being part of a new UFC Fighters Union is super delicious. Lorenzo Fertitta cashed out just in the nick of time, as he always does.

The Professional Fighters Association is being headed by Barry Bonds’ agent, Jeff Borris. It allegedly has the support of former baseball Godfather, Don Fehr, who is the king of hardball.

The question then becomes: where do fighters race to first? PFA or Rob Maysey’s MMAFA organization and his fighters engaged in an antitrust lawsuit against UFC?

After you answer that question, then there’s a next series of questions:

Bonus question: Should unionization become successful, how much longer before UFC starts raising prices on everything in order to justify rising costs of doing business?

Topics: MMA, Media, UFC, Zach Arnold | 4 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

How do you lose $430 million in a year? Al Haymon’s PBC could become boxing’s MySpace

By Zach Arnold | August 8, 2016

The fight business is littered with skeletons of dead corporation bankrolled by money marks but Gary Shaw took it to the next level. Gary Shaw spent over $50 million dollars in Elite XC but at least we got Kimbo Slice, Nick Diaz, and Gina Carano out of the deal. Megane Super, the Japanese eye glass company that bankrolled Japan’s top independent fight promotions in the early 90s, burned through tens of millions of dollars.

Never in Gary Shaw’s wildest dreams could he imagine a rival boxing promoter finding the mother of all honey holes and ending up with a result comparable to Rupert Murdoch’s $580 million dollar purchase of MySpace.

Noted fight writer and Pepperdine professor Paul Gift dropped a gigantic stink bomb on Monday:

According to Mr. Gift, Kansas hedge fund Waddell & Reed has supposedly lost $434 million dollars in their boxing venture with Al Haymon in a single year. Addendum: The professor stated that he is basing this off of the recent financials/valuations released by Waddell and off of claims from the shareholder derivative lawsuit.

Al Haymon settled a lawsuit with Bob Arum and has an antitrust lawsuit with Golden Boy which appears to be on the back-burner for the time being. While both of those lawsuits undoubtedly revealed interesting information in discovery for amended complaints, neither lawsuit posed the kind of serious threat to Al Haymon’s financial backing like the recently filed shareholder derivative lawsuit in Kansas against hedge fund Waddell & Reed.

The shareholder derivative lawsuit, which we wrote about three months ago, features some of the biggest legal heavyweights from New York City and Los Angeles fighting over Waddell & Reed shareholders petitioning a Kansas court to order the hedge fund to recover investor money set aside for Al Haymon’s assorted companies in an LLC shell called Media Group Holdings. The lawsuit claimed that Waddell & Reed put $925 million dollars in the LLC to do business with Haymon.

A major court hearing will take place on October 26th regarding a motion to dismiss the shareholder derivative lawsuit. If the motion to dismiss fails, a discovery & deposition bonanza will take place. Even under an agreement of confidentiality, the pressure will build on the hedge fund and Haymon.

Paul Gift’s bombshell of the hedge fund reportedly re-evaluating their investment in Al Haymon’s companies by $434 million dollars in a year is going to rattle some very important decision makers. The clock is ticking.

The network television suits taking Haymon’s money bought into his dream of a UFC-style operation for boxing. They believed that Haymon was the guy who had the cash and the fighters to take out the establishment players in the boxing industry. With an alleged $925 million dollars in funding, there wasn’t much (if any) risk for networks to do business with Haymon. Haymon had the perfect marketing pitch for the suits and the masses — he was going to be the guy who would cure all of boxing’s political and business failures. Take Bob Arum and Oscar De La Hoya out in order to book the super fights that the public wasn’t getting.

And now reality has sat in, confirming the worst suspicions a lot of boxing fans had when Al Haymon made his push on network TV and ESPN. Antitrust lawsuits, allegations of Ali Act violations, and now a mother of a shareholder derivative lawsuit amidst Paul Gift’s claim that the hedge fund backing Haymon reportedly re-adjusted their investment valuation by $434 million dollars in one year on his venture.

Topics: Boxing, Media, Zach Arnold | 16 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Every new report surrounding Brock Lesnar, UFC, and USADA is confirming many suspicions

By Zach Arnold | August 7, 2016

Confirming the suspicion of many fans, Marc Raimondi at MMA Fighting is reporting that UFC’s drug testing agent USADA did not request an expedited drug testing result for Brock Lesnar’s pre-UFC 200 fight tests. Combined with the previous news of UFC giving Lesnar a waiver from USADA’s four-month drug testing window before fighting in the UFC and Lesnar reportedly not being drug tested by WWE in his contract because he’s not a full-time performer… you have the perfect storm that permanently tainted UFC 200.

Jeff Novitzky is quoted in the MMA Fighting as stating that the cost of UFC’s yearly drug testing program would double if every fighter had their drug testing samples expedited for analysis. While this logic may be grounded in mathematical fact, it doesn’t address the elephant in the room — we’re talking about Brock Lesnar.

Brock Lesnar was the rainmaker that made UFC 200 palatable on a mainstream scale. He was the guy. To not expedite his drug testing results in particular and reportedly give him a USADA four-month waiver from drug testing immediately created the kind of “us vs. them” ill will that we have seen on display from fighters like Mark Hunt since Lesnar failed two USADA test for estrogen blockers.

As more questions are answered surrounding what happened with Brock Lesnar at UFC 200, it becomes that much more difficult for ownership to scapegoat Lesnar and put 100% of the blame on him for this mess.

What can fighters do to attack other fighters from drug usage? This question creates constant fear and frustration. Michael Bisping is a UFC champion now. Could he have become a champion much sooner in a UFC environment with more aggressive drug testing? As for Mark Hunt, what can the guy do other than publicly protest? It was allegedly the only way he could even get a phone call to try to ease his fears and dampen his raw anger. Hunt could theoretically turn around and sue Lesnar for negligent misrepresentation in Federal court but does he have the appetite for such a fight?

The worst part of this story involving UFC, Lesnar, and Hunt is that Hunt has to sit around and wait to see what the administrative punishment and/or remedy is going to be long after the fight took place. Since UFC 200, the company has been sold, Lesnar is back in WWE land, and Hunt can’t wipe away the image of his loss no matter what an athletic commission says regarding an L on his record.

Topics: MMA, Media, UFC, Zach Arnold | 4 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Embroiled in one anti-trust case, UFC finds itself lobbying California anti-trust defense bill

By Zach Arnold | August 2, 2016

It sounds innocuous enough — Senate Bill 1195. A peak inside the bill reveals a fascinating but nebulous venture to protect California’s Department of Consumer Affairs from anti-trust violations.

The question is why UFC, according to Sacramento lobbying records, spent $40,000 through their lobbyist Platinum Advisors in Sacramento to get involved in a fight involving powerful nursing associations.

The Department of Consumer Affairs is one of California’s most powerful bureaucratic behemoths and the State Athletic Commission is under DCA’s umbrella. So is the board for registered nursing, the medical board, the contractor’s licensing board, and many other powerful agencies. The state’s governor chooses the political appointments of who oversees DCA.

Senate Bill 1195 in California is a response to try to protect the board and bureaus under Consumer Affairs’ umbrella from anti-trust lawsuits. The impetus for such action is based on a 2015 Supreme Court case called North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners vs. Federal Trade Commission. The FTC targeted the North Carolina Board for having active dental licensees occupy a regulatory board that made business decisions that the Feds viewed as anti-competitive and suppressing business competition. The FTC attacked North Carolina’s claims of legal immunity from Federal anti-trust claims.

SCOTUSBlog explains the questions at heart:

Antitrust immunity generally covers non-state actors only if the state both (1) clearly articulates the anticompetitive policy, and (2) actively supervises the policy. This case deals with the second requirement. If a professional licensing board is a state agency, must another state actor supervise the agency in order for the agency to be immune from the antitrust laws?

California’s Senate Bill 1195 attempts to address the Supreme Court ruling by offering the following:

SB 1195 initially zoomed through the state Senate but stalled out in early June after the California Nurses Association protested the bill for prohibiting active licensees from being active on their professional board. SB 1195 was placed in the state Senate’s inactive file

Why is UFC getting involved in a California anti-trust fight?

UFC’s lobbying records in California do not state a reason as to why they spent $40,000 last quarter to lobby for SB 1195. Therefore, the following is an educated guess as to what is happening here.

The Supreme Court decision in the North Carolina/FTC case attacks immunity for not only states but also personal liability protections for any state board or bureau member involved in an anti-trust lawsuit. This would include both members and Executive Officers.

In Sacramento, UFC is Andy Foster’s lobbying muscle. The UFC fuels the political fire. UFC carries great clout in California even if they don’t bring major shows to the state. Without their money and top lobbyist Tim Lynch at Platinum Advisors, Andy’s political power would be minimal at best. How significant is the lobbying power of Platinum Advisors? 35 year old former PA lobbyist Melinda McClain was appointed to Governor Jerry Brown’s office two weeks ago after being the deputy director of legislative and regulatory review at… the Department of Consumer Affairs.

Connect the dots. The State Athletic Commission often goes along with what UFC wants introduced or enforced on regulatory matters. If a licensee or a business in California thinks they are getting screwed by the State Athletic Commission on behalf of UFC’s business interests, the Supreme Court ruling opens the door for anti-trust lawsuits against the state of California and individual Athletic Commission board members or operatives. The motive becomes very clear as to why UFC would spend the cash to lobby for SB 1195. They are already dealing with one anti-trust lawsuit and don’t want a second potential anti-trust case involving political players they control.

SB 1195 is a largely cover-your-ass measure to re-introduce state immunity from such anti-trust lawsuits. What the politicians didn’t count on was the powerful California Nurses Association jamming things up. CNA and other powerful entities see SB 1195 as a “camel’s nose under the tent” bill that would strip the state boards of their power and concentrate all the decision making in the hands of one person who would be under enormous political pressure. That man is Awet Kidane.

You would think that a compromise will eventually arise to address this anti-trust immunity issue raised by the Supreme Court. However, the state and members of its various boards are now vulnerable to anti-trust lawsuits until a legislative fix is passed to address immunity. The longer this drags out, the more paranoid businesses like the UFC will become in how they politically operate in states like California.

Topics: CSAC, MMA, Media, UFC, Zach Arnold | 1 Comment » | Permalink | Trackback |

Los Angeles judge rules against California State Athletic Commission, AG over abuse of due process

By Zach Arnold | July 24, 2016

The state of California abused due process and inflated a drug suspension against Bellator fighter Alexander Shlemenko for failing a steroid test, this according to Los Angeles Superior Court judge Robert O’Brien.

One year ago, the California State Athletic Commission in conjunction with the Department of Consumer Affairs and the Attorney General’s office (Jim Ledakis) administratively prosecuted Alexander Shlemenko on four different nine-month charges in order to construct a three-year steroid suspension. This suspension technique was unheard of for past California drug suspensions.

It was a classic case of disparate treatment in order to go after Shlemenko on moral grounds under the color of law. Shlemenko initially received one suspension notice and requested for an appeal in front of the Athletic Commission board. After requesting an appeals hearing, Andy Foster and the state of California increased the penalties for Shlemenko’s suspension to 3 years and a $10,000 fine. They gave Shlemenko only five days of notice of these increased penalties.

The California State Athletic Commission made it very clear during an acrimonious appeals hearing that they knew Shlemenko was going to file a petition in Los Angeles Superior Court for a writ of mandate to appeal the increased suspension of three years after he had appealed his initial drug suspension. Athletic Commission chairman John Carvelli, a major state dental political player (Liberty Dental) and point man for Governor Jerry Brown, railed against Shlemenko and his attorney Howard Jacobs:

“The commission has upheld the violations and the ruling of our Executive Officer. You did not come and ask to work with us. You did not come and present any mitigating circumstances or information for us to consider. You chose to have an attorney come and lay down a bunch of conclusions and accusations and propositions on processes and missing samples. Perhaps it may have not been the best, and I’m giving you my subjective analysis now, best way to approach this body. You certainly have your rights in a court in law. I wish you all the best.

Shlemenko was forced to file a writ of mandate and pay all of the attorney fees up front in order to fight the state of California for abusing his due process rights. Most fighters do not have the financial means to pay that kind of a bill. Last week, Los Angeles Superior Court judge Robert O’Brien issued a seven page ruling that slapped down the state of California for knowingly abusing Shlemenko’s due process rights in order to make a moral statement about his drug suspension. Judge O’Brien hammered Andy Foster, John Carvelli, Gary Duke (DCA), and Jim Ledakis (AG):

Due Process

In their initial letters imposing discipline, the Commission stated that Petitioner’s license was suspended for the remainder of its term, or until February 28, 2016 (i.e. just under one year), and imposed fines totaling $10,000. The Commission, after a hearing, eventually imposed a three-year suspension in addition to the fines.

Petitioner argues that this violated “fundamental administrative principles” because the Commission increased the punishment following his appeal. The Commission counters that the imposition letters did not create a penalty “ceiling”, rather, the Commission was free to increase or decrease the penalty at will. The Court agrees with Petitioner’s contentions.

Petitioner has not identified any authority requiring the precise penalty to be disclosed. However, at least one appellate decision has held that a court can vacate administrative penalties where there has not been fair and adequate notice. See Tafti v. County of Tulare (2011) 198 Cal. App 4th 891, 901. The Court agrees that under the circumstances of this case, it violated Petitioner’s due process rights to increase the proposed penalty by three years. Petitioner could not have known that by appealing the suspension of his license he was reopening the issue of the length of suspension. The Commission does not cite any authority or precedent that would allow them to increase the penalty from the original term of approximately one year. Indeed, a three-year penalty was not even discussed until the closing briefs on the penalty issue, and by that time Petitioner was unable to respond. Accordingly, the Commission violated Petitioner’s due process rights by imposing a suspension that was longer than originally noticed.

Shlemenko will be eligible to fight in the United States. He had been fighting overseas while being suspended by California.

Two weeks ago, Andy Foster received a raise to a little over $120,000 by the Department of Consumer Affairs and the state of California (level H for Exempt employees).

Topics: Bellator, CSAC, MMA, Media, Zach Arnold | 4 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

UFC’s Clintonian Presidential triangulation on stopping the Ali Act for MMA

By Zach Arnold | July 13, 2016

Last February, we discussed America’s 2016 yuge nightmare between Hillary Clinton & Donald Trump. Part of that equation would be the proxy war in Nevada involving the casino magnates on Trump’s side versus the labor unions who have been a thorn in the side of Station Casinos and UFC.

Dana White would publicly back Donald Trump. It was a no-brainer. The reason was simple. Trump is one of the biggest fight fans in the world and has been for decades. UFC does not want the Ali Act amended to cover Mixed Martial Arts because it would change how they do business and give fighters a private right to sue in Federal court to break out of an overly adhesive contract.

The proxy war would be a big risk for alienating UFC fans given that the majority of UFC’s business demographic are males 18-to-34 years old who are very active online. The online audience is overwhelmingly liberal on social media. It was also a heavy pro-Bernie Sanders demographic, which is not exactly the most enthralled with Hillary Clinton.

This is the excuse that will allow Dana White to support Donald Trump publicly and speak at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. Trump and White yugely respect each other. They are two peas in a pod. And Dana White was an integral part in selling the UFC for $4 billion USD. Trump loves an American billionaire. He needs all the support he can get from younger voters. He currently is trailing significantly in this demographic.

Dana will scratch Trump’s back and Trump will, theoretically, scratch Dana’s back if he gets into office and has the Ali Act amendment on his desk to sign or veto.

Surely this would be a hugely risky public relations and political move to make… until you consider that the new owner of UFC is Ari Emanuel, the brother of senior Clintonista Rahm Emanuel (mayor of Chicago). The Emanuels carry great political sway in the world of the Clintons and that sway could very well kill an amendment to the Ali Act either in Congress or on the desk of a President Clinton. Ari Emanuel didn’t just spend $4 billion dollars in buying the UFC only to watch the financial business model rapidly change overnight with fighters obtaining basic legal rights.

Forget the putrid lobbying efforts currently underway on Capitol Hill to try to dissuade conservatives from voting on amending the Ali Act. The UFC is playing both ends against the middle with both Trump & Hillary. This strategy works if they can get the Ali Act amendment stalled through the lame duck session.

Topics: MMA, Media, UFC, Zach Arnold | 17 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Why Fox Sports is a lock to retain UFC television rights after the $4 billion sale

By Zach Arnold | July 10, 2016

The long-rumored sale for UFC has finally happened. Lorenzo Fertitta and the Fertitta family is cashing out. Dana White will remain as the public face of the company. Joe Rogan is likely out as well. The price tag of sale is estimated to be $4 billion dollars. The Fertittas always win. Onto the NFL and Las Vegas next.

As for what it means to new ownership, the television landscape UFC encounters is a far different one than the landscape UFC cashed in on years ago with super agent Ari Emanuel. Emanuel helped the UFC land on Fox and now he’s part of William Morris which has taken over ownership of UFC.

There are two major stories of interest that will impact the future of UFC on American television.

UFC is the only program that consistently draws six-figure ratings on Fox Sports

According to a recent report from Awful Announcing, the UFC is the only program that consistently draws six-figure ratings on the fledgling Fox Sports 1 channel.

Chael Sonnen started out with a bang on Fox Sports 1 and ever since then it’s only been the UFC that has drawn good ratings on the network. Fox Sports poached away Debate King Jamie Horowitz from ESPN and has pushed talk format with Katie Nolan, Clay Travis, Colin Cowherd & Jason Whitlock, and now the new duo of Skip Bayless & Shannon Sharpe. Bayless may be the first non-UFC personality to crack six-figures consistently on Fox Sports but that remains to be seen. Nobody else has been able to accomplish this.

This is both remarkable and scary. UFC fans obviously had little trouble finding Fox Sports. It’s the rest of the network that is a mess. The network has shifted more towards live programming in an attempt to attract more consistent viewers. Copa America viewership was great. The problem is that the live TV audiences are not carrying over to Fox’s shoulder programming. Fox shifted away from Sportscenter-type shows and has now moved to Embrace Debate in order to bring internet flame wars to television. Fox Sports banked on Colin Cowherd’s interview with Donald Trump a few months ago drawing eyeballs and instead they got 81,000 viewers. A Trump speech on a Youtube live streaming channel gets that same number.

Which means UFC is *the* cornerstone for Fox Sports 1 and will remain the cornerstone. Fox needs UFC for its survival to remain on cable & satellite packages if it wants any shot of getting carriage fees. Deals are coming up soon for both Fox and UFC. They need each other badly right now.

The other problem is that UFC is running out of competitive alternatives to Fox Sports 1.

ESPN is shedding households at a scary rate and lost nearly 500,000 households in one month

In a sports weekend full of drama and activity, one story flew under the radar that will carry far more importance than any NBA Summer League game or UFC PPV.

According to Nielsen, ESPN lost over 450,000 TV households in the last month. ESPN still is in 89 million US TV households but the trajectory of their household numbers is declining. Losing 450,000 households in a month is not simply a decline — it’s a five-alarm fire.

Youtube is now expected to get into the sports media landscape by streaming their own sports programming. ESPN has desperately tried to capture cord-cutters through their ESPN App and Sling TV but is losing the overall war. Awful Announcing cites a report claiming that ESPN will try to go Over the Top but without access to NFL or MLB content. What’s the point?

ESPN’s financial model is based entirely on rights fees from cable subscribers regardless of how good or bad their ratings are. They make at least $6 a month from each cable subscriber. $72 a year. Losing a million households in a year equals a loss of more than $70 million USD. If ESPN loses more than a million households in a year, the long-term financial prospects are brutal. If ESPN lost three million households a year, the losses would be over $210 million USD yearly. There is no amount of production cutting that Bristol could do to save costs. They’ve already done their blood letting. They’ve created a preposterous imbalance of paying “talent” like Stephen A. Smith $3 million a year while paying interns on the cheap. At some point, something has to give.

Thanks to ESPN’s profligate spending on the NBA, the NBA salary cap is exploding and marginal basketball players are getting huge contracts because NBA owners thought that installing “max deals” with a salary cap would keep mega-stars from mega-bucks. Instead, ESPN is paying out the ass to keep the NBA and guys like Tim Mozgov are the ones cashing in. Only in America.

The long and the short of it is that ESPN, despite Disney ownership, is suffering from a depressing long-term prognosis. It still makes a lot of money but the gravy train is going to come to an end. It means the golden age of sports league getting monster TV contracts is over. ESPN ditched their boxing series in order to take Al Haymon’s money for an awful televised product. ESPN wants in on UFC but is no longer in a position of strength when compared to Fox Sports. Fox Sports is on a murder-suicide pact with ESPN and will spend Murdoch mad money to keep the UFC.

The next shoe to drop is Disney ownership of ESPN. Do not be surprised if Disney sells ESPN soon.

Conclusion: The sale of the UFC to Ari Emanuel’s enterprise combined with ESPN’s declining fortunes makes Fox Sports largely a lock to retain the television rights to UFC programming.

Topics: MMA, Media, UFC, Zach Arnold | 25 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

The real power player this UFC 200 weekend was USADA and the impact of drug testing on UFC’s business

By Zach Arnold | July 9, 2016

A million different storylines coming out of an insane Las Vegas week for UFC.

Brock Lesnar saved UFC’s ass and in the process reportedly made $12 million

Vince McMahon was losing leverage and interest with Brock Lesnar. Lesnar wanted more money. His latest WWE run was blah. WWE booking is crap. The win over Undertaker at Wrestlemania led to a match with… Shane McMahon.

Yeah, you could see why the most impatient man in the world would get impatient in a hurry.

McMahon had to give into Lesnar’s wish to return to UFC. Lesnar wanted to revive an old challenge and make more money in the process than he was currently doing with WWE. UFC needed a boost for their 200 card, which looked great and stacked on paper but needed that mainstream boost. Lesnar was the easy answer.

The price tag for UFC was enormous. They had to play ball with WWE. WWE, in the end, didn’t do much to help out UFC. UFC did absolutely nothing to take advantage of WWE’s media platforms to push stars like Sage Northcutt or Paige VanZant. Was that due to fear of Vince raiding them?

UFC made it hard on Lesnar by booking him against Mark Hunt. Lesnar proceeded to flash UFC 1 level skills with UFC 200 level athleticism to get a unanimous decision win and a likely booking for UFC’s Madison Square Garden debut. The same building which WWE owns exclusive wrestling event booking rights to.

Is Brock Lesnar worth $12 million dollars a fight? He’s worth $12 million to UFC right now because there is so much turmoil right now with fighters getting suspended, staying on the sidelines, having business disputes, or just getting injured. With all the of the chaos surrounding a potential/pending sale of the company, the most important thing UFC needs is a face and Brock Lesnar is that face. Everyone knows who he is.

Parity is a killer, even if it benefits UFC’s business model of stunting fighter pay

Holly Holm dethroned Ronda Rousey. Miesha Tate beat Holly Holm. Amanda Nunes submitted Miesha Tate. The 135 pound women’s division is a gigantic mess. And who knows what UFC management is thinking right now in regards to how they should book Cris Cyborg in the future?

There’s the heavyweight scene with Stipe Miocic as champion in Believeland. He gets Alistair Overeem next. Cain Velasquez won at UFC 200. Brock Lesnar won at UFC 200. The Heavyweight picture remains a convoluted mess.

On the flip side of parity, you have total dominance. Too many divisions where the competition has thinned out and champions who are miles ahead of their top challengers. Joanna Jedrzejczyk gassed out Claudia Gadelha and will likely get Rose Namajunas. Mighty Mouse. Dominick Cruz.

The end result is either complete lack of depth or toss-a-coin outcomes. There’s no middle ground right now. It makes things hard(er) for Joe Silva.

The ghost of USADA and drug testing is the big story coming out of UFC 200

Continue reading this article here…

Topics: MMA, Media, UFC, Zach Arnold | 20 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Jon Jones is the stupidest high-level main event fighter ever in MMA history

By Zach Arnold | July 6, 2016

We know the history with Jon Jones. We know the recent troubled history of his brother Chandler. There are plenty of examples of poor judgment that have brought negative attention to that family.

Jon Jones is the most physically-gifted talent ever in the history of Mixed Martial Arts. The only thing to match that level of physical talent is the level of his stupidity. DUI crash. Getting into an altercation with an aggressive cop. Not fighting Chael Sonnen. And now screwing up a sure fire rematch win against Daniel Cormier at UFC 200, an event that the company (which has given Jones so many do-overs and second chances) was building their calendar year around.

An USADA anti-doping notice of violation. As dreadful as a company telling you that you have been “future endeavored.”

Dana White’s head looked like it was going to explode. ESPN broke into their Dwyane Wade shocker with an even bigger Jon Jones doping shocker. UFC 200 has fallen apart not once but twice in the time span of three months. No Conor McGregor vs. Nate Diaz rematch. No Ronda Rousey return. Brock Lesnar in a precarious match against Mark Hunt without WWE waving their marketing pom-poms. Even with the most stacked, greatest-of-all-time top-to-bottom competitive fight card in UFC history, Jon Jones managed to screw it all up — again.

Let the Nevada State Athletic Commission drop the hammer on Jon Jones with their newly updated suspension regulations. And then send Jon Jones on his way out of the door. He’s not worth the trouble no matter what.

This is the kind of thing that erodes fan confidence not just with promoters but also fighters. I can already hear the pro-drug usage crowd crowing about how UFC implementing a drug policy is at fault here. In a twist of cruel irony, it was Chael Sonnen (Mr. Testosterone) on ESPN delivering the Jon Jones doping eulogy and proclaiming that you could somehow allegedly tell Jones was doping by looking at him with his shirt off.

This was the proverbial cherry on the crap sundae that has surrounded the birth, development, and execution of UFC 200.

Topics: MMA, Media, UFC, Zach Arnold | 29 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

« Previous Entries