« Nevada’s athletic commission demanded USADA & UFC provide its contract. So where is it? | Home | Take Mark Hunt’s legal threats against UFC seriously but don’t fall for the racketeering ploy »
A vulgar push of false hope for amending the Ali Act during a prospective Hillary presidency
By Zach Arnold | October 27, 2016
Wikileaks shows the Clinton/Emanuel connection strong as ever
UFC’s new ownership has nothing to worry about in regards to the Ali Act being amended to give MMA fighters a private right of action to sue over coercive contracts. That’s because the new owner is Ari Emanuel, brother to long-time Clintonworld henchman Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel orbited into President Obama’s first term and exited quickly to become mayor of Chicago… until Hillary figures out a path to get into the White House. Should Hillary return to Washington DC, Emanuel will be right in the thick of the action.
Which should completely kill off the impending narrative that a Democrat administration in DC will be more considerate of amending the Ali Act than a Trump administration. Except that it won’t (for various reasons).
A LIST OF WME 2016 POLITICAL DONATIONS (OPEN SECRETS)
A LIST OF UFC 2016 POLITICAL DONATIONS (OPEN SECRETS)
We already know that Trump will not amend the Ali Act to cover MMA. Hillary won’t amend it, either. It creates a scenario where fighters are going to have to find creative legal ways to combat their decreasing rights under William Morris ownership. Georges St. Pierre indicated that he’s a free agent from UFC but yet backed off publicly this week on the animosity. Highly unlikely that he’s going to put up a protracted legal fight.
Then there’s Ronda Rousey. She’s represented by William Morris. They now own the UFC. How is this going to play out? It’s very unlikely that she’s going to legally challenge WME for not having her best business interests at heart. Under the bylaws of the Nevada State Athletic Commission, there’s a very fair argument to make that Rousey’s agreement with WME is a conflict of interest given WME’s new ownership of UFC. But Nevada’s athletic commission isn’t going to rock the boat with UFC. They need and want lots of money after getting kicked off the state’s general fund and being placed into self-financing.
Additionally, athletic commissions in America secretly don’t want the Ali Act amended.
Any remaining hope for increasing legal rights of MMA fighters leads back to the anti-trust lawsuit in Nevada. That process could still take years in the courts. It could also get killed in a summary judgment hearing by UFC. Even if the plaintiffs survive summary judgment, the pressure will be intense by the Federal court in Las Vegas to push for a settlement.
Then there’s the effort by Lucas Middlebrook, estimable attorney, to create a union for fighters. The argument against that effort by Rob Maysey, a leader in the antitrust lawsuit, is that a union would create a scenario where fighters could not pursue antitrust legal action against UFC because of a prospective collective bargaining agreement.
Bottom line? There’s never been a worse time for UFC fighters in terms of their legal rights. The freedom to contract means the freedom to give away your freedoms. The simplest answer in combating a lack of legal rights is the path of least resistance and that means fighters choosing to fight outside of UFC.
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 2 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Great article Zach. It will be interesting to see if we are going to have an increase of more fighters choosing to fight out their contracts and take their chances as free agents. But if you are a fighter that makes a decision to sign a contract extension with Zuffa. You forfeit the right to complain about it later.
Last week in Nevada, obama said… “Demoncrats are good for Nevada” and talked about gambling etc…