• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

MMA Payout

The Business of Combat Sports

  • Home
  • MMA
    • UFC
    • Bellator
    • One
    • PFL
  • Boxing
  • Legal
  • Ratings
  • Payouts
  • Attendance
  • Gate

Bennett explains the need for Zuffa to co-promote

August 24, 2017 by Jason Cruz Leave a Comment

Earlier this week Nevada Athletic Commission Executive Director Bob Bennett explained why Zuffa needed to apply to be a co-promoter for Saturday’s Mayweather-McGregor fight.  He also offered an unfulfilling explanation of a promoter in Nevada.

Bennett’s explanation as to why Zuffa need to be a co-promoter for Saturday’s event is that it needed to pay Conor McGregor.  It pointed to a Nevada Athletic Commission regulation NAC 467.112(2) which prohibits a promoter from paying an unarmed combatant.  Here, Floyd Mayweather as promoter could not pay Conor McGregor due to this rule.  As such, Zuffa had to apply for the license.

In the interview with MMA Fighting, Bennett noted that Zuffa’s license as promoter does not specifically identify it as a boxing license but merely as promoter.  The importance of this is that it may or may not preclude Zuffa from availing itself to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.

Payout Perspective:

The timing of the application, the last commission hearing before the fight, seems curious to me considering Zuffa could have applied for this from the outset.  Moreover, it appeared that Zuffa would allow Mayweather and Showtime as the fight’s producer and PPV distributor to take the driver’s seat while Zuffa would assist on its platforms.  This new explanation seems viable, while at the same time seems to be a safeguard against any withholding of money by Mayweather Promotions.  At one point, I had believed that McGregor had his own promotion company affixed to this event.  Now, it seems that Zuffa is the one representing the MMA side of this fight.  It does seem interesting that Zuffa need not indicate what type of promoter it is.  Whether or not it is inferred that it is promoting a boxing match and automatically avails itself to the Ali Act is a question that I would like to be answered.  If it’s a loophole to avoid dealing with the Ali Act, it might raise some eyebrows.

Filed Under: Boxing vs. MMA, Mayweather-McGregor

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Featured

Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act of 2026 introduced into Senate with minor changes

Plaintiffs file Answering Brief in Cirkunov Antitrust Appeal

Jai Opetaia files a lawsuit against IBF

Parties in Mayweather-CSI Entertainment lawsuit provide joint letter to court

Plaintiffs highlight outstanding discovery in Johnson antitrust case

UFC 329 Payout Perspective

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

A 3 hour countdown show for #Summerslam on ESPN?

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Multiple teams have engaged the Seattle Mariners on a potential trade for right-hander George Kirby and get the sense he is available and could be moved before the Aug. 3 deadline, sources tell ESPN. Mariners have been listening on starters Emerson Hancock and Luis Castillo, too.

#Zuffa responds to Plaintiffs claims of missing evidence in Cirkunov antitrust lawsuit #UFC #TKO #MMA #sportslaw https://mmapayout.com/2026/08/01/zuffa-responds-to-plaintiffs-claims-of-missing-evidence-in-cirkunov-antitrust-lawsuit/

"Fresh off an 8 month prison sentence in Mexico..." on Daniel Rodriguez fighting in Serbia #UFC

100% #MMA @MMASupremacy

Got damn they sent Michael Chiesa to Serbia? #UFC

Load More

Copyright © 2026 · MMA Payout: The Business of Combat Sports