Former UFC Fighter Jon Fitch submitted a Statement at the Congressional Subcommittee Hearing on MMA as well as an op-ed piece in the Washington Examiner on the day of the hearing. Each supports the proposed legislation expanding the Ali Act.
The Statement submitted and filed for the Congressional Subcommittee Hearing last week was on MMAFA letterhead.
Fitch’s primary argument is that he was passed over for fights despite being the ranked number 1 contender in the UFC. He stated that he was criticized for “employing a tactical style” emphasizing his wrestling background rather than fighting in a more “exciting” fashion.
He cites being presented with a merchandising agreement by the promotion which required he give the UFC image rights “in perpetuity and for no compensation” for a video game. He was released by the UFC for a time due to his refusal to sign the agreement.
Unlike Marc Ratner’s description of the MMA business model, Fitch describes it as a “structurally flawed model inconsistent with sport and designed to achieve a monopoly over an entire sport.” Fitch gave the anecdote of winning the World Series of Fighting title and then being stripped of the title when “new investors” took over WSOF and it was changed into the Professional Fighters’ League. He “regained” the title at PFL’s first official event in July.
Fitch goes on to advocate for the amendment to the Ali Act arguing that “sport’s natural growth is stunted” due to the coercive “contractual practices” in the sport. He cites the lack of disclosure of fight purses by promoters which is required under the Ali Act. He notes the Chris Algieri situation as a prime example. We wrote about this in April 2016 and presented the problem with the Ali Act for boxers.
He also stressed that the Ali Act “requires rankings to be based on merit, not contractual subservience.” Here, Fitch emphasizes the need for objective rankings giving the analogy with Major League Baseball changing the World Series simply based on popularity of team.
In conclusion to his statement, Fitch reiterated the stunting of growth in MMA due to anti-competitive restraints and that when the restraints are removed, “deep-pocketed investors will be made in MMA.” He believes that the elimination of artificial restraints will cause organic growth benefiting all by increasing revenues for all in the sport.
Similarly, Fitch’s Washington Examiner op-ed was briefer than his Statement to Congress but touched on the same points including the rankings system and the fact that the titles do not matter. The opinion piece called for sanctioning bodies that would provide the fighter with consistency and ensure that the top contender would have a shot at the title.
Jon Fitch Statement by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd
Payout Perspective:
Fitch provides the fighters’ perspective of the MMA industry and it is vastly different from that of Ratner’s viewpoint of MMA. Ratner believes that MMA is devoid of the corruption that plagued boxing which led to the Ali Act. Fitch sees it differently. He provides a first-hand account of the issues he knows of in MMA including the issue with the UFC related to the forfeiting of his image rights for the EA video game and giving up his WSOF title when new owners took over. Certainly, you can point to the fact that neither addresses that he is a plaintiff in an antitrust lawsuit against the UFC which may sway the reader’s view when objectively looking at the opinion.
Leave a Reply