Will the Ali Act help protect MMA fighters?

May 2, 2016

With the recent news that there will be a proposed amendment to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act to include MMA fighters, I take a look at boxers that have tried to sue under the Ali Act over at The White Bronco.

The Ali Act which serves to protect boxers from unsavory business practices from the likes of promoters and managers has had a handful of lawsuits where a fighter has sued under the Ali Act.  By my estimation there has not been one where a boxer has prevailed.  Only in the case of Jeff Lacy (the name may sound familiar as he was the boxer Nick Diaz was allegedly going to box if his MMA career did not continue) was there a favorable finding from the court.

Andre Ward, Joseph Agbeko, Bermane Stiverne and Mikey Garcia are other fighters that have filed suit under the Ali Act but were not successful in court.  Of course, in the instances of Ward and Garcia, they were granted releases from their promoters but after extended litigation which sidelined their careers.  Stiverne was able to reconcile with his promoter, Don King.

One of the overarching themes in the litigation is the disclosure component of the Ali Act in which requires promoters to disclose its payouts to its fighters.  Most recently, Chris Algieri complained about this issue with his longtime promoter.

Payout Perspective:

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the proposed amendment and how much support it receives.  While the intent is good, the present Ali Act has its flaws which should be addressed if we are talking about amending the Ali Act.  Of course, we may see opposition to the Ali Act by those not wishing that MMA fighters are covered.

6 Responses to “Will the Ali Act help protect MMA fighters?”

  1. d on May 2nd, 2016 2:23 PM

    The Ali Act is a waste of time and obviously is ineffective. It also punishes lower tier fighters while rewarding the top draws with more money, so undercard fighters who are for this are supporting something that goes against their self interests.

    The class action suit going on right now against the UFC should be the focus which will change the manipulation and some of the Unconstitutional tactics White and co. have been using. Provided they don’t give the fighters too much leverage in whatever the ruling is.

  2. Jason Cruz on May 2nd, 2016 8:56 PM

    d

    What about what the UFC is doing is “unconstitutional”? What law are they breaking?

  3. d on May 2nd, 2016 9:41 PM

    Jason, by no means am I some Constitutional lawyer, so if I’m technically wrong about anything I’m posting, I wouldn’t be surprised. What I was talking about was the fact that they have been accused of violating anti-trust laws by a number of different people most notably within that suit. Many of the questionable tactics they’ve been accused of that fall under this category, like buying out nearly every legit contender-in doing so preventing competition, installing unlawful contract agreements like the Champion’s Clause, etc. seem legit.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but violation of anti trust acts can be seen as criminal and Unconstitutional, right?

  4. tops E on May 3rd, 2016 6:04 AM

    Ali act for mma

  5. John S. on May 4th, 2016 12:41 AM

    While both Jefferson and Madison wanted the Bill of Rights to include protection against monopoly they never did manage do get included, so any violations by the UFC would likely have to fall under the Sherman, Clayton and other antitrust legislation.

  6. d on May 4th, 2016 6:03 AM

    Gotcha on the anti-trust stuff, but I’m sure you could find something Unconstitutional under some of their operations like their connection to the NSAC and Nevada in general. Hiring Marc Ratner was very shady.

    To be clear, I’m not trashing them, because what McCain did was bs, not to mention NY, but it has gone both ways. I also wouldn’t want to see the fighters get too much leverage in their contracts like what we see in boxing these days, but some changes should be made.

Got something to say?