August 21, 2013
ESPN’s Josh Gross reports that Bellator will let Ben Askren leave for the UFC if Dana White wants the welterweight standout. Bellator head Bjorn Rebney told ESPN that it would not make an offer to Askren.
Askren’s last contracted fight was this past July. Similar to Alvarez, its believed that Bellator has the right to match any contract offered to Askren. However, it appears that it is passing. The news was surprising considering Askren’s record and perhaps not surprising considering Askren’s wrestling-heavy, grinding style which is not exciting. After a bitter legal battle with Eddie Alvarez,which ended in a settlement and Alvarez coming back to Bellator, the company has made a decision on Askren.
When asked about whether Askren would be on Bellator’s first PPV in November he indicated that there would be “no chance.” Thus, it was likely that the parting was mutual.
Askren has already been in contact with Dana White via twitter:
— Ben Askren (@Benaskren) August 21, 2013
Askren is a dominant wrestler and a personality but his style may have been a reason Bellator has decided to give up on re-signing him. However, Bellator needs top level talent for the company and the PPV. Askren is dominating and Bellator could have utilized this. Perhaps Bellator saw another Alvarez situation on the horizon and thought best to let him go rather than get embroiled in another costly lawsuit. We will see if Askren does end up in the UFC and how his talent does in the UFC’s welterweight division.
July 25, 2013
MMA Junkie reports that Bellator has signed Michael Chandler to a “long term deal” with the organization. According to Bellator, the signing makes Chandler one of the highest paid lightweights.
According to Bellator CEO Bjorn Rebney, Chandler will be with Bellator for a “minimum of eight fights.”
Ironically, Chandler’s deal was made easier due to the Eddie Alvarez lawsuit. Chandler defeated Alvarez for the Bellator belt.
Via MMA Junkie:
Of course, Chandler admitted, it helped that an ongoing legal battle between Bellator and Alvarez has made the details of the organization’s offer to the former champ public knowledge. It showed him what Bellator was willing to pay a man he’d already beaten, and informed his own notion of what he should expect to make for a new deal, he said.
Securing Chandler to a long term deal made sense for Bellator but did it for Chandler? The UFC is still the major leagues in MMA when it comes to competition and earning potential. No word on the type of money Chandler could be making but we may assume he’s one of the top paid in Bellator. It is interesting that Chandler (and his reps) would not have known the market for him but for the Alvarez contract becoming a matter of public record. While it’s likely that they would have known a ballpark figure, the documents produced in Alvarez’s lawsuit helped with filling in specifics. For Chandler, being the top guy in the lightweight division Bellator may be a good career choice provided he’s afforded sponsorship opportunities and other revenue streams. If Bellator/Spike contract with Chandler to help build his brand and grant him opportunities outside of the Octagon (e.g. Spike TV appearances, announcing, specials) the deal could help Chandler beyond the length of the deal.
February 18, 2013
The Eddie Alvarez-Bellator situation may be drawing closer to a possible settlement as Patrick English, attorney for Bellator, sent a letter to the Court requesting an extension of time to respond to Alvarez’s Counterclaims. The parties have agreed to the extension until March 1, 2013 and the Court approval should be a mere formality.
Mr. English attached a Consent Order requesting an extension of time for Bellator to receive an extension of time to file an Answer to the Counterclaim until March 1, 2013. Previously, Bellator had an extension to respond until Tuesday, February 19th. This second extension appears that the parties are willing to negotiate a settlement without further litigation.
Obviously, the Court’s denial of Eddie Alvarez’s Preliminary Injunction weighs heavy into the decision to settle the lawsuits without further litigation. At the preliminary injunction hearing, Alvarez’s attorneys failed to show the Court that it would have a reasonable probability of success on the merits and they failed to show that Alvarez would suffer irreparable harm. These were two of the four factors required to prevail on a preliminary injunction. If Alvarez would have succeeded, it would have been likely that he would have signed a contract with the UFC.
However, Bellator had a strong opposition brief which included two declarations which addressed the issues of the 1) right to match, 2) the Fox v. Spike TV comparison, and 3) the PPV issue. Prior to the preliminary injunction hearing, a Certification of MMA journalist Dave Meltzer was filed on Alvarez’s behalf. The certification rebuts the declarations filed by Bellator in its opposition to the preliminary injunction. The certification identified UFC PPV buy rates with the belief that Alvarez would have made more if he would have been allowed to fight in the UFC.
The Court did not agree with Alvarez’s argument that Bellator could not provide an identical match was a failure to match. The Court held this argument untenable although it did not discount that Alvarez could not win based on this theory. So, while Alvarez lost on this point here, he could win after the discovery phase.
As for the irreparable harm argument, the Court held that Alvarez’s argument that he would be harmed if he could not fight in the UFC on April 27th was speculative at best. There was no illegal restraint on Alvarez by Bellator and he could still compete professionally even if an injunction were not granted.
It will be interesting to see if the parties can come up with a settlement that would make both parties happy. The fact Alvarez lost the injunction does not make him bound to the contract offered by Bellator. He could continue with the lawsuit if he truly wanted to fight the issue. But,we might see some compromise in which Alvarez can be bought out of his contract after a certain number of fights if he truly wants to head to the UFC. If Alvarez did not want to stay, it would make sense for Bellator as I do not see the company wanting a malcontent with its new partnership with Spike. Maybe the number of fights with Bellator is reduced without a right of first refusal or matching rights clause so that he can fight elsewhere. However, Bellator may make Alvarez a solid offer as a way to make him happy and be a face for the company. He could be made one of the top (if not the top) paid fighters in the company. We should know by March 1st which way Alvarez goes.
January 12, 2013
Benson Henderson has received a new 8 fight deal with the UFC. The current lightweight UFC champion tweeted thanks to his manager and lawyer for hammering out the details last night.
No monetary terms of the deal have been released as the information was just passed along by the fighter via twitter. Henderson had been making $39,000 to show and $39,000 to win.
One may assume that Henderson’s new deal comes with the news of the Eddie Alvarez lawsuit which revealed, in specific detail, the compensation for the former Bellator lightweight.
— Benson Henderson (@BensonHenderson) January 12, 2013
— Benson Henderson (@BensonHenderson) January 12, 2013
UPDATED 1/12/13: According to Malki Kawa, Henderson’s agent, the deal was in the works for over two months.
— malki kawa (@malkikawa) January 13, 2013
Good move by the UFC to make sure one of its top stars, not to mention the lightweight champ, is kept happy. We’ve seen in other sports a player gets a deal and another player similarly situated gets upset at the other player’s deal. Here, it made sense to keep Henderson happy and the 8 fight deal ensures Smooth will be around for 2 or 3 more years. It would be interesting to know if Henderson’s agent or the UFC initiated the contract talks. Certainly, its an agent’s job that they look out for their client. Drew Rosenhaus is known for renegotiating with teams on the premise that his player “outperformed their contract.” As the UFC lightweight champ with 2 successful title defenses, one would have to say that Henderson has done his part. The UFC could have started talks with Henderson knowing that the Alvarez contract terms would be made public. Would make sense to bump Henderson to something comparable to that contract.
March 30, 2011
Yahoo! Sports is reporting that an arbitrator has ruled in favor of Top Rank Boxing in its fight to keep boxing star Nonito Donaire under contract. Donaire is currently the WBC and WBO Bantamweight champ.
Via Kevin Iole at Yahoo!:
Golden Boy signed Donaire after Donaire had declared that he was a free agent and available to sign with the promoter of his choice. Donaire filed suit in a Nevada court alleging that he is free of Top Rank, but Top Rank contends that is not the case. Petrocelli said Top Rank has yet to be served with Donaire’s Nevada lawsuit.
Top Rank signed Donaire to a three-year contract with a one-year option on June 26, 2008. But Donaire was on medical suspension for more than 300 days in the first year of the contract. Top Rank says there is a clause in its contract with Donaire that adds time onto the contract whenever a fighter is unable to perform because of suspension. That time clause is common in many fighters’ contracts.
As a result, Top Rank claims that its three-year contract thus runs into early June 2012 and that the one-year option, which it exercised, takes Donaire into June 2013.
The Fight Lawyer has a write-up on the breakup and a link to the legal papers.
Nonito Donaire is the best Filipino fighter in the world not named Manny Pacquiao. He is a budding superstar in the lighter weight divisions of boxing and is a hot commodity. Golden Boy is in need of a young, fresh star and Donaire could be the next Filipino sensation to hit it big.
Taking a look at the Complaint, the issue deals with the Promotional Rights Agreement. Donaire asserts that the contract guaranteed that he would be offered three fights a year but he was only offered two, two years in a row. Top Rank claims that Donaire was injured for 300 days which extends the contract. However, Donaire claims that his medical records will show he was not hurt.
If the arbitration decision holds up, it will be interesting to see if Donaire will abide by the terms of the contract and how Top Rank will use Donaire.
March 18, 2011
Zuffa v. Bellator/Pavia Litigation: Bellator Asserts Claim Against Julian Gregorio for Defamation & Some Theory of Misappropriation Based on Alleged Leak to Zuffa
Following up on my coverage of Zuffa’s lawsuit against Bellator and Pavia — – a post with earlier links is here and here is my most recent post on the Court’s denial of Bellator’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction — on March 17, 2011, Bellator filed its answer to Zuffa’s complaint and asserted a third-party claim, i.e. a claim against a non-party, against Julian Gregorio who is allegedly a citizen of the State of California and allegedly may have been a former employee of MMA Associates, of which Ken Pavia is the alleged “Principal.”
At the outset, in its third-party complaint Bellator describes why its CEO, Bjorn Rebney, “requested from Pavia certain documents used by the UFC in connection with fighters.”
Specifically, Bellator alleges as follows:
In the summer of 2010 Bjorn Rebney determined to review the sufficiency of documents used by Bellator. As part of that process he requested from Pavia certain documents used by the UFC in connection with fighters. At no time did Rebney request any document anticipated to contain trade secrets or information proprietary to Zuffa, LLC. Mr. Pavia requested confidentiality due to, as he put it, fear of retaliation by Zuffa for cooperating with Bellator. In any case, communications between the parties would be presumptively confidential. Zuffa has a reputation for ruthlessly attempting to block competitors in the MMA field.
Bellator next alleges that Pavia did send the documents but that it never used the documents:
Pavia did, on a confidential basis, send certain documents to Bellator. However, those documents were not confidential and contained no proprietary information belonging to Zuffa. The documents in question were sent on a confidential basis but were not confidential documents. The format of the documents in question was changed from a PDF format to a Word format, but no Bellator representative substantively reviewed those documents as of the time of filing of the Complaint to which this Third Party Complaint is directed. The documents supplied by MMA Associates were never utilized by Bellator in any way and in fact were not substantively reviewed by Bellator’s staff or by Mr. Rebney.
With respect to Mr. Gregorio, Bellator alleges (upon information and belief) that he was an employee of MMA Associates and that he allegedly “took privileged communications between the CEO of Bellator and the President of MMA Associates and, with the knowledge that he was not entitled to do so, transmitted same to representatives of Zuffa, LLC.”
Further, Bellator alleges upon information and belief that:
Gregorio informed representatives of Zuffa that Pavia and Bellator were conspiring to misappropriate Zuffa’s confidential information when this was untrue. This information was given either with knowing falsity or with reckless disregard of the truth. Gregorio informed representatives of Zuffa that Bellator misappropriated trade secrets of Zuffa. This information was false and was either known to be false by Gregorio or was given in reckless disregard of the truth.
Bellator asserts claims against Gregorio for defamation and some theory of alleged violation of Bellator’s right to privacy and confidentiality.
Quite frankly, I don’t understand the second claim — perhaps it is something specific to California or Nevada (or maybe Bellator is asserting a claim for misappropriation), but it is not really spelled out.
With respect to confidentiality, the apparent (to me at least) alleged basis for some kind of confidentiality or privilege is that “Bjorn Rebney, the CEO of Bellator, is an attorney-at-law[,] Ken Pavia, the principal of MMA Associates, is a law school graduate and, at the time of the matter complained of, was believed in good faith by Rebney to be an attorney-at-law[,] and MMA Agents has on its staff at least one attorney-at-law.”There is, of course, an attorney client privilege, but I don’t see how it attaches under these alleged facts. Certainly no explanation is provided.
Even so, I don’t understand why any communication between Rebney and Pavia would be privileged just because both went to law school.
While I know nothing about the third-party defendant, if he is in fact a resident of California (as alleged) my prediction is that we may see another jurisdictional motion.
Justin Klein is a partner of the law firm Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP in New York City where he concentrates his practice in commercial litigation and represents clients in the fight industry. He regularly addresses current legal issues that pertain to combat sports, including efforts to legalize MMA in New York, at his Fight Lawyer website. He is a licensed boxing manager with the New York State Athletic Commission as well as the founder and Chairman of the Board of the New York Mixed Martial Arts Initiative, a non-profit organization that gives inner city youth the opportunity to experience the emotional and physical benefits of martial arts training. Justin lives in New York City where he trains in jiu jitsu and boxing.
The information in this post and on my site consists of my opinion only, i.e., it is not the opinion of my employer or anybody else. In addition, and because this is my opinion, it is not intended to be (and is not) legal advice or an advertisement for legal services. This post provides general information only. Although I encourage interested parties to contact me on the subjects discussed in the articles, the reader should not consider information on this site to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship. I disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this post. Any e-mail sent to me will not create an attorney-client relationship, and you should not use this site or my site to send me e-mail containing confidential or sensitive information.
November 14, 2010
MMA Junkie reports on the latest developments involving Roy Nelson. Dana White announced that Nelson was pulled off the January 1st card as a result of a contractual issue with Roy Jones’ promotion company. Nelson will not fight for the UFC until those issues are cleared up.
Via MMA Junkie:
Nelson headlined a MMA/boxing hybrid card Jones Jr. promoted in March 2009 entitled “March Badness” and was defeated by former UFC heavyweight contender Jeff Monson via unanimous decision. According to the Florida State Boxing Commission, Nelson earned $30,000 for his efforts.
A few months after the loss to Monson, Nelson joined the cast of “The Ultimate Fighter 10″ and bested four opponents to win the reality show tournament. The heavyweight then knocked out rising prospect Stefan Struve in March but fell short in an August title eliminator bout against the red-hot Junior Dos Santos.
Bloody Elbow chimes in:
In sum, it appears that Nelson took $30,000 to fight Jeff Monson for Roy Jones, Jr.’s Square Ring promotion and apparently didn’t realize that contract gave Square Ring the option to match any future contracts Nelson was offered.
I’m surprised that Nelson fought for the UFC twice since the suit was originally filed and I’m curious as to what has changed to make Zuffa unwilling to book Nelson for further fights.
I agree with Bloody Elbow’s opinion here. It is surprising that Nelson fought twice for the UFC, with the UFC knowing that there was potential litigation out there. It may be that there was a recent threat of an injunction on the horizon which made the UFC go public with its reasoning for keeping Nelson off of UFC cards.
August 31, 2010
As Shine Fights prepares for its first event since its cancelled show on May 15th, there remain unanswered questions, unfinished business and owed money from the failed “Worlds Collide” event in Fayetteville, North Carolina.
Officially, Shine Fights’ May 15th event would have featured a boxer versus MMA fighter as Ricardo Mayorga was set to fight Din Thomas. However, boxing promoter Don King filed an injunction preventing Mayorga from fighting. Despite the injunction, the event could have gone forward. But, according to MMASpot.net, the North Carolina Boxing Authority shut down the event because it was discovered that Shine Fights did not have the requisite cash on hand for the fighter purses. The Authority indicated it was a state requirement for the purse money to be on hand prior to the event.
In its detailed account, MMASpot.net chronicles the problems leading up to the failed “Worlds Collide” event. Details reveal disorganization and chaos leading up to the May 15th event. Not only did Shine Fights misread the litigation threat posed by Don King, it financially overextended itself by failing to pay the venue and its fighters. According to Francis Gilpin of the Fayetteville Observer, the event venue in Fayetteville, the Crown Center, lost $42,000 in anticipation of the event. The article states that efforts to recover the money from Shine Fights have been fruitless.
In addition to the Crown Center losses, fight officials, a physician and staff were not paid. On top of this debt, fighter salaries estimated to be as much as $75,000 had not been paid.
Many fighters on the card that night speculate that the promoters never had the money.
Jamal Patterson, who received forty percent of his contracted “show” purse, echoes many of the sentiments shared by other fighters that are still seeking payment, “I don’t think they ever had the money. If they did it would have been at the arena. [Shine Fights CEO] Devin [Price] made promises that he couldn’t keep.”
Shine Fights CEO Devin Price told MMA Junkie in July that all contracts had been fulfilled. Price cited contractual language stating that Shine Fights, “in its discretion,” could pay fighters 25% of their stated compensation in the event of cancellation.
In an interview with MMA Weekly, Ron Foster, former matchmaker for Shine Fights spoke about the failed May 15th event.
Looking back on it all, Foster knows things could have been handled differently, but he doesn’t point fingers at anyone.
“Yes, I do believe that, but hindsight is always 20/20,” said Foster. “Of course you can look back at a situation after it has already happened and you can say ‘man if we would have done this different, if we would have just done that different,’ so hindsight is 20/20. It definitely could have been prevented.
“It wasn’t just negligence, it was the countless hours put into hyping up the fighters, it was everything. We put so much time and effort into everything; it wasn’t like we just overlooked small details. How does stuff happen that you just couldn’t prepare for?”
MMA Spot notes that some fighter contracts were never signed by Shine Fights officials:
One boxing commission official noted that in addition to the lack of payments to fighters, state commissions, and the venue, the fight contracts placed on file with the N.C.B.A. [North Carolina Boxing Authority] were not signed by the promotion. Whether intentional or unintentional the lack of a signature on the agreements leaves legal holes, in the event that a fighter did take legal action against the promotion.
The detailed account of Shine Fights failed event in May reveals that Don King should not be the scapegoat for the canceling of the event. Based on the accounts, Shine Fights did not have the financial backing to pull off the event. Even though Ron Foster claims that they did not overlook small details, failing to abide by the governing authority’s rules providing fighter purse salaries was a major oversight. It is not clear why the Crown Center has not sued Shine Fights for breach of contract and/or to recover money owed to it. Similarly, I wonder why the fighters and/or their agents have not tried to sue Shine Fights. One can only speculate, based on the portions of the contract released to MMA Junkie, that the terms in the fighter contract indicate that it was within Shine Fights’ discretion to pay fighters. It would be very interesting to see a fighter contract in its entirety to see the contract terms concerning cancellation.
A basic tenet of a written contract is that it must be signed by a party to the contract in order to make it valid (there are exceptions but are not relevant here). Shine Fights failure to execute its fighter contracts could show a glaring oversight or a willful omission. Certainly, the lack of signature could provide a loophole if a fighter does sue for breach of contract.
August 13, 2010
Earlier this week, Bellator Fighting Championship filed a lawsuit against the Ultimate Fighting Championship for alleged use of one of its contracted fighters. Bellator claims that Jonathan Brookins was under contract with Bellator when Brookins accepted a slot on Spike TV’s reality series The Ultimate Fighter. Brookins is a cast member of this fall’s Team GSP v. Team Koscheck season.
In addition to the UFC, Bellator has sued Brookins and his manager in the lawsuit. According to Bellator’s CEO, Brookins’ management team hid the fact that Brookins was going to be on The Ultimate Fighter.
Via MMA Junkie:
“We’ve been offering the fighter fights, and hindsight being 20-20, we were lied to by his management saying he was injured and couldn’t accept fights,” Bellator CEO Bjorn Rebney today told MMAjunkie.com. “We find out afterward he was filming and fighting on ‘The Ultimate Fighter’ – that he made the show and was in the house.”
Prior to The Ultimate Fighter, Brookins was allowed to fight for another organization on two occasions. However, Bellator approved the fights outside of Bellator.
Bellator claims that the UFC interfered with the contractual relationship Brookins had with Bellator by offering Brookins a spot in The Ultimate Fighter. In addition, Bellator claims that Brookins and his manager misrepresented that Brookins was hurt or unavailable to fight for Bellator in order to preserve himself for The Ultimate Fighter.
Brookins’ management states that Bellator verbally told Brookins that he was released from his contract.
This lawsuit is similar to the Tennesee Titans suing USC and Lane Kiffin when Kiffin hired Titans assistant coach Kennedy Pola. In that case, Titans head coach Jeff Fisher claims that he was not notified by Kiffin that Kiffin was pursuing Pola. It is unlikely that the UFC sought approval from Bellator to pursue Brookins once he made the show.
Bellator’s lawsuit comes just weeks after Zuffa, the parent company of the UFC sued Bellator. Coincidence? Bellator’s lawsuit will depend on whether it can be show that the UFC caused Brookins to break its contract with Bellator. Brookins’ contract with Bellator will be a key issue in this case. If this lawsuit proceeds, we might be able to learn more about the nature of fighter contracts. How long are fighter contracts? Is it a set number of fights or an annual contract? If Brookins was released from his contract, did it have to be in writing or was a verbal release sufficient? Are there penalties for breach specifically included in the contract? If so, does the fighter have to pay?
Ironically, Zuffa’s lawsuit against Bellator was based in part on the alleged taking of propriety information included in UFC fighter contracts.
Jason Cruz is a freelance writer and attorney licensed in Washington state and California (currently inactive). He holds a BA in History and JD from the University of Washington and a Masters in Journalism from the University of Southern California. A longtime MMA fan, he has written about the sport for various publications.
March 11, 2010
Dave Meltzer of Yahoo! Sports gives us an update on the fight status of Fedor Emelianenko and talks about the on-going renegotiations that are taking place between his M-1 management team and Strikeforce.
Kogan allowed that M-1 Global was disappointed in what happened with the promotion of the last fight, but was quick to say the problem wasn’t with Strikeforce. He said he was disappointed in media coverage of the event because the M-1 Global name in stories on the show wasn’t featured more visibly.
“The way the show was promoted, that was an issue to us, but we don’t have an issue with Strikeforce over it,” Kogan said. “M-1 isn’t a management company for Fedor Emelianenko. We are a fight promotion. We have done matches all over the world, U.S., Asia, Europe, Japan. But the media didn’t feature the M-1 name [in coverage of the November show]. Specifically, it wasn’t Strikeforce’s fault. They honored their agreement. The way the media perceived the event was it was Strikeforce. M-1 wasn’t promoted that much. That was an issue with us.”
The media perceived the event to be Strikeforce because it was Strikeforce. There might be a signed contract sitting in a filing cabinet somewhere that says otherwise, but let’s look at the probable truth: Strikeforce was likely the company that booked the arena, dealt with the commission, operated the event, made the matches, paid the fighters, negotiated the North American television distribution deal, and invited the press.
What exactly did M-1 contribute?
Even if that’s not the case – say M-1 was an equal partner with regard to responsibility – can anyone blame the fighters, the fans, or the media for still perceiving this as a Strikeforce event? We’re talking about a company that has been in operation for nearly 20 years; and, in the last five, has promoted countless of MMA shows under the Strikeforce banner. Now, all of a sudden, it promotes one single event that looks, feels, and tastes exactly as it used to, only it’s called something slightly different – a “co-promotion”. Is it still Strikeforce?
Therein lies the problem with M-1′s plan to leverage Fedor into building its own promotional brand: the infrequency, not to mention inadequacy, of simply slapping its brand onto a Strikeforce product isn’t fooling anyone. Not to mention the fact that Strikeforce is already having a tough enough time communicating its own brand message.
It’s bad enough for Strikeforce that many casual fans still refer to the sport as “UFC” – making it almost impossible to deliver a simple and concise message of differentiation in the first place – but now they’ve also got to decipher the meaning of “Strikeforce and M-1 Global present…”
What exactly does that mean? Why should it matter to the consumer?
I also find it interesting that, in the last two weeks, we’ve seen three different people from M-1 speak on the topic of Fedor – each one of them with a slightly more ambiguous and different answer than the last. Kogan’s “premature” comment is even less clear than Vadim Finkelstein’s “likely May” which is different than a loosely translated “probabl April” from Apy Echteld (whom, I’m told, may not even have anything to do with Fedor anymore).