Diaz fined, suspended one year by the NSAC
May 21, 2012
MMA Junkie reports Nick Diaz has been suspended one year retroactive to February 4th per the Nevada State Athletic Commission ruling. In addition, Diaz was fined 30 percent of his UFC 137 fight purse which amounts to $60,000.
UPDATE: MMA Fighting reports that the Diaz legal team is considering a judicial review by the state district court of today’s NSAC ruling.
The NSAC determined Diaz had failed his UFC 143 drug test and was less than truthful on his pre-fight medical questionnaire.
Diaz’s attorney was unsuccessful in arguing that a showing of marijuana metabolites did not prove he had used it for in competition use and that the World Anti-Doping Agency code does not prohibit out of competition use of marijuana. Despite a medical witness on behalf of Diaz, the Commission handed down a 1 year suspension.
The Commission indicated that there’s a strict liability standard that makes an athlete responsible for what’s in their body. However, according to the report by MMA Fighting, the Commission inferred that it would have entertained a usage exemption for Diaz’s use of marijuana based on his past medical history.
Payout Perspective:
The suspension is another chapter in the tumultuous career of Nick Diaz. It will definitely hurt Diaz’s career and the UFC’s welterweight division. The Nate Diaz-GSP matchup would have drawn considerable interest especially if it would have been slated for GSP’s return at UFC 154 in Montreal (assuming that’s when he comes back).
The Diaz legal team put up a novel defense but in the end none of the legal wranglings could save Diaz from his fate. Worse for Diaz is that the legal efforts probably means a big legal bill in addition to his fine and suspension.
Maybe Diaz will focus his time on triathlons, boxing or help out his brother. But, if and when Diaz returns, hopefully he matures and gets his act together. He’s an asset to the UFC and that’s why the UFC hasn’t bailed on him yet.
Oklahoma PPV tax declared unconstitutional
May 17, 2012
MMA Payout has learned that the Oklahoma PPV tax has been declared unconstitutional by the state Attorney General of Oklahoma. The tax has been challenged by the UFC as it threatened litigation prior to a review of the issue by the Oklahoma AG.
In an email correspondence to MMA Payout, a representative from state representative Tom Newell’s office stated that after extensive research and legal analysis of the issue, an attorney on behalf of the Athletic Commission concluded that the law could not be successfully defended.
Representative Newell is sponsoring SB1533, a bill that would grant the Oklahoma Athletic Commission $200,000 to fund combat sports in the state. “SB1533 Oklahoma Athletic Commission PPV law is assigned to a conference committee with language deleting the unconstitutional fee. We don’t anticipate having any problems,” stated Representative Newell in an email to MMA Payout. Thus, despite striking down the tax, SB1533 should pick up for the loss of the tax revenue.
Below is the fiscal analysis from the Conference Committee Report from today:
The measure deletes the State Athletic Commission’s Gross Receipts Assessment as it pertains to certain telecasts and pay-per-views. Prevailing legal opinion is that these assessments are unenforceable therefore; the measure brings current statutes into conformity with the prevailing legal opinion. The Commission expects to loose (sic) approximately $240,000 annually in revenue as a result of the assessment no longer being collected; however this fiscal impact is not a result of HB 2746, but a result of the legal determination that the assessment is unenforceable. The measure has no direct fiscal impact on the State Budget or Appropriations
Payout Perspective:
MMA Payout will have more on this news in the coming days. It may have boiled down to an analysis of the Dormant Commerce Clause as it affected interstate commerce. According to representative Newell’s office, the tax had been thoroughly examined by the state’s attorneys to determine the constitutionality of the law. The good news is that based on SB1533 it looks like combat sports will continue in Oklahoma.
Mayweather-Cotto: 1.5 million PPV buys
May 12, 2012
An HBO press release indicated that the Mayweather-Cotto PPV scored 1.5 million buys last Saturday night generating $94 million in revenue.
According to all sources, the HBO number is verifiable as opposed to buy rates coming from promoters. The numbers generated come second only to the Mayweather-de La Hoya (for non-Heavyweights) fight which exceeded all PPV buys/revenue records.
Payout Perspective:
Darren Rovell stated via twitter that if Mayweather-Pacquiao ever happens an effort should be made to put it on network television. Rovell cites advertising and sponsorship would make it work. We assume this means that the money generated from ads/sponsors would exceed the money made from PPV. This is an interesting scenario. If the fight ever were to happen, it would definitely exceed all boxing records on PPV. Rovell also tweeted that if Mayweather-Pacquiao went to PPV it would make $200 million in revenue. It would also exceed the 2.4 million buys of Mayweather-de La Hoya. But, the Mayweather pay structure for his fights, the drug test issue and the unwillingness to compromise make all of this a moot point right now. Yet, it could be good for the sport of boxing. It would have people talking about the sport and could bring it back to prominence.
Considering that most did not believe Cotto had a chance against Mayweather, yet 1.5 million still bought the PPV shows that the public is still interested in big fights. Perhaps the undercard of Alvarez-Mosley helped a bit as well. It will be interesting to see how Pacquiao-Bradley does next month in comparison to Mayweather-Cotto.
King Mo Signs Unprecented Deal With Spike TV’s Bellator & TNA Wrestling
May 10, 2012
Former Strikeforce Light Heavy Weight Champion Muhammed “King Mo” Lawal announced today that he has signed a first-of-its-kind deal to simultaneously compete for Spike TV properties Bellator Fighting Championship (MMA) & TNA (Professioinal Wrestling).
In an unprecedented move, one of the biggest names in mixed martial arts, “King Mo” Lawal, has signed a deal to compete in Spike TV’s two major sports properties, Bellator Fighting Championships and TNA’s IMPACT Wrestling. “King Mo” will join the stars of TNA this summer and resume his mixed martial arts career next year when Bellator Fighting Championships moves to Spike TV from its current television home, MTV2. The deal was jointly announced today by Kevin Kay, President, Spike TV along with Bjorn Rebney, Chairman & CEO, Bellator Fighting Championships and Dixie Carter, President, TNA Entertainment.
“‘King Mo’ is an incredible athlete and a great addition to the Bellator family. He immediately adds prominence and star-power to our light heavyweight division,” said Rebney.
“‘King Mo’ is the perfect athlete for this type of alliance. He is the real deal in MMA, and his bold personality and world class wrestling accomplishments are unparalleled. I’m confident he will have a major impact in both sports,” stated Carter.
Lawal (10-1-1) launched his mixed martial arts career in 2008, and after four straight wins, he faced off against his toughest challenge, renowned fighter Mark Kerr. “King Mo” knocked out Kerr in the first round, and eight months later he defeated Gegard Mousasi in a Light Heavyweight world title fight. Lawal also holds an impressive KO victory against multiple Brazilian jiu-jitsu world championship winner Roger Gracie in September 2011.
“This deal is a dream come true for me,” Lawal said. “Bjorn and Dixie have given me the opportunity to engage in my two great loves, mixed martial arts and professional wrestling, at the same time. And, to have it all on Spike TV is really buttercream icing on a big ol’ cake – not that whipped cream stuff either!”
Lawal rose to grappling acclaim as a NCAA Division I All-American wrestler at Oklahoma State University in 2003 and a three-time U.S. National Champion (2005, 2006, and 2008) in the 84 kilogram division. In 2007, as a member of the US National team, he brought home a gold medal at the Pan American Games and a silver medal at the World Cup.
A native of Murfreesboro, Tenn., Lawal lives in San Jose, Calif. and trains with the prominent American Kickboxing Academy.
Payout Perspective:
There aren’t too many options for MMA fighters nowadays since Zuffa purchased Strikeforce last year. King Mo was one of those fighters that benefited from Strikeforce’s existence back when he was fighting for Sengoku in Japan and as a free agent, signed a flexible and favorable contract with the San Jose based promotion despite being courted by multiple promotions.
This time around, King Mo – who has had previous interest and has actually tried out for Professional Wrestling years ago – signs a simultaneous deal to compete for both Bellator and TNA. This is Spike TV’s pocket Aces, giving professional fighters another option to make a living within MMA in the sports and entertainment industry. Some who are purist MMA fans may cringe at the idea of MMA fighters also dabbling in Pro Wrestling, but this has been a constant in MMA for quite some time. From Dan Severn, to many Japanese fighters, to Josh Barnett, Pro Wrestling and MMA have gone hand-in-hand for quite some time. Plus, let’s not forget the UFC’s biggest PPV draw Brock Lesnar – who is now back with WWE – and Ken Shamrock who spiked up everyone’s interest in MMA when he signed with the UFC after competing in WWE.
The history has always been there and it has been a black eye to many that have wanted the sport to be legitimized by mainstream, but we are seeing something new here. Something innovative, if you want to call it. Spike TV is using both of their properties to not only cross-promote, but to embellish the partnership as an alliance and expand their audience. To not only grow Bellator and TNA as individual entities as a union, but to anchor the M18-34 flag on the Spike TV network. It’s innovative, it’s controversial, and its getting people’s attention. Its exactly what Spike TV want’s to do as it continues it’s preparations for the transfer of Bellator from MTV to Spike TV in 2013.
Jason Cruz:
This is a great move for all parties. Despite what MMA purists think about the move, TNA receives higher ratings (1.4 million viewer average) on Spike TV than TUF Live. This will help Lawal financially and as a brand. He’ll be unique and definitely receive some good storylines for the show. For TNA, it elevates its appeal as it tries to move on from the Hulk Hogans and Ric Flairs to a new generation of wrestlers. The pro wrestling company has been asked to retool its product by Spike TV and this is a step in that direction. It also helps that it is moving up in time slots on Thursday nights to avoid competition. As has been rumored, this could lead to Bellator moving to Thursday nights with TNA as a lead-in.
For Bellator, the addition of Lawal should bolster the brand when it makes its long awaited debut on Spike TV. The twittershpere is now speculating whether Rampage Jackson could jump to Bellator as well to create a Lawal-Rampage shootfight. It will be interesting to see whether we will see if Spike TV/Bellator/TNA adopts this strategy of signing fighters to do both (e.g. Josh Barnett).
UFC on FOX 3: Diaz vs Miller Overnight Ratings: 2.25 Million Viewers
May 6, 2012
TV By The Numbers reports on the overnight ratings for UFC on FOX 3, as it wins the time slot for adults 18-49 with a 1.0 rating and a 4 share with an estimated 2.25 million total viewer average (the numbers may be adjusted upwards due to the nature of live programming).
The report states the following:
FOX won a slow Cinco de Mayo in adults 18-49 with its broadcast of a UFC fight, while CBS was number one in total viewers.
.
The latest UFC on FOX bout scored a 1.0 rating among adults 18-49.
.
On CBS, 48 Hours Mystery was the night’s top rated show among adults 18-49, earning a 1.3 adults 18-49 rating, up from last week’s 0.9.
Payout Perspective:
The numbers are down from the first two FOX events. In November of 2011, UFC on FOX debut drew a 3.1 rating with 5.7 million viewers with a peak of 8.8 million viewers. Earlier this year, UFC on FOX 2 drew a 2.6 rating with 4.66 million viewers with a peak at 6.08M. The West Coast tape delay and overrun may help with the final tally for the ratings a little bit, but I don’t see it topping 3 million viewers this time around, which has to be considered a bad number for the UFC and FOX.
The UFC focused on putting on exciting match-ups this time around, but what they made up for in exciting fights, it severely lacked in star power as was the case for the first two shows. UFC on FOX 4 appears to be following a similar blueprint, as Brian Stann vs Hector Lombard has already been booked for the main event, but will have a much better co-main event with Lyoto Machida taking on Ryan Bader.
UFC left off of ESPN salary list for lack of information
May 3, 2012
Earlier this week, ESPN released its list of highest paid athletes in sports. Notably, the list left off the sport of MMA and specifically the UFC due to the fact that it could not confirm salary data.
MMA Fighting wrote that Dana White is right and wrong with not releasing fighter salary data. It states that White is right to withhold salary info because it is private. Presumably, it protects the privacy of its fighters by not telling everyone how much they make per fight. However, there is a reason to release salaries:
Football, basketball and baseball are mainstream because they’re big business. And part of the reason we know they’re big business is because players salaries are made public.
It then argued a reason to make salaries public is to entice up and coming fighters.
And make no mistake, there are plenty of possible MMA stars who are on football fields. In many parts of the country, football and wrestling work together to create quality athletes. But then what happens? As the athlete progresses, he starts thinking about his future. And where is there a better chance for a future? Of course most, if given the opportunity, will move on to football. Why? Because long-term, there is a chance for a windfall payday. Even if it’s remote, there is a chance.
It uses the Jones brothers as an example. Two of the Jones brothers are now in the NFL while Jon is probably the most famous as the UFC champ. This example is flawed considering there is no evidence that Jon Jones was good at football (or any other sport) and chose MMA instead.
Payout Perspective:
MMA Fighting’s argument that the sport of MMA could lose out on potential athletes because of the lack of salary information is improbable. Most likely athletes will choose their profession based on the best possible chance of making it in the professional ranks of the sport. There are examples of athletes choosing a sport and then reversing course. (NFL First Rounder Brandon Wheedon played baseball a couple years before going back to play college football and getting drafted.) But that example is beyond the scope of the theory that someone will actually choose a sport based on how much you could make. There are instances of former football players taking up MMA after their pigskin career is done. But, that is after their first career is over.
Moreover, it’s not plausible to think that someone would choose a career in MMA over a career in NFL because money in MMA is not as good as that in professional football. Even without knowing the salary structure in MMA, one need only look to the salaries that NFL rookies will make to assume that if you had a choice to play professionally or fight in MMA, one would choose the NFL.
Transparency of the UFC’s salaries lends credibility to the sport based in part on the fact that the other sports are willing to reveal the way it pays its athletes. For the UFC to say “it’s none of your business” makes it seem that it is hiding something rather than protecting the privacy of its fighters. The ESPN OTL report builds on the premise that it is hiding something. Like it or not, that is how it is perceived.
Golden Boy sets record highs for Mayweather-Cotto
May 2, 2012
The Sports Business Journal reports on Golden Boy’s haul of blue chip sponsors for this Saturday’s Mayweather-Cotto fight. Corona, not Tecate, will have the center of the ring as the beer sponsor recently signed with Golden Boy.
In addition to the new beer sponsor, “AT&T, DeWalt, O’Reilly Auto Parts, History Channel and the Mexican state of Puebla the CEO of Golden Boy Promotions (Richard Schaefer) estimates the fight will bring in about $2 million in sponsor rights fees and a promotional value of at least $8.5 million,” according to the SBJ.
Among the various promotions, the sponsorship activation includes DeWalt promotions in Home Depots, O’Reilly promotions at its stores as well as $1.5 million in radio ad buys, AT&T advertising its GoPhone and NCM Fathom advertising showing of the fight in theatres.
The sponsor fees and promo values are the most ever for Golden Boy as it overshadows its previous top fight ever of Oscar de la Hoya vs. Mayweather. Coincidentally, that fight occurred the first weekend of May as well. In addition, the fight had the biggest PPV buys ever with 2.4 million. This Saturday will likely not beat that record.
The ring layout for this Saturday’s fight.
Payout Perspective:
If the UFC wanted blue chip sponsors, maybe it should look to Golden Boy to find them. We are kidding of course. If your name is not Mayweather or Pacquiao, boxing would not see this amount of sponsorship money and promotional value. While we have debated whether boxing is dead, big name fights in boxing are still in the marketing budget for blue chip sponsors.
Despite the fact that the Mayweather fight is secondary to the hype surrounding the fight, we still see sponsors willing to spend big money to be a part of it. The activation involved is a sign that projections for buys in this fight should be robust. It also shows that no matter how much people hate Mayweather, he is still the top draw in boxing (dare I say the Brock Lesnar of boxing).
With Corona taking the center of the ring, it means no $25 rebates for the PPV as Tecate has done in the past. While Corona spends a lot on media buys but does not do a lot of activation surrounding events as Tecate has for promoting its fights.
White threatens no UFC in CA if AB 2100 passes
April 29, 2012
UFC head Dana White has threatened to cease holding events in the state of California if a controversial piece of legislation passes in the state. Assembly Bill 2100 was introduced last Wednesday and is supported by the Culinary Workers Union while opposed by the UFC among others.
Via San Jose Mercury:
(Assembly member Luis) Alejo wants to eliminate what he sees as abusive contracts, freeing up fighters to make Assembly Bill 2100 would prevent promoters from claiming unreasonable future merchandising rights, prevent unreasonable restrictions on fighters’ seeking outside sponsors and prohibit other onerous contract provisions.
Dana White told the OC Register:
“Do you know what’s going on in Sacramento, right now?” White said. “They are trying to pass this bill to raise our taxes and do a bunch of crazy (expletive) to us. They voted 4-2 for the bill. There were a couple of people not present to vote on it. If that thing passes we won’t do anymore fights in California. All kinds of crazy (expletive) they’re trying to throw in this bill for MMA. You know who’s doing it? The Culinary Union from Las Vegas. These guys have been (expletive) with us in New York, too. That’s why we’re not in New York. These guys got a bunch of lobbyists together to try to pass this bill against MMA. They are putting pressure on my partners, the Fertitta brothers, because they own the fourth-largest gaming company in the country and they are non-union.”
More info on AB 2100 can be found in our previous post.
H/t: Bloody Elbow
Payout Perspective:
Would it hurt the UFC economically if it did not run events in either New York or California? It’s an intriguing question considering the UFC derives most of its income from PPV revenues and many of its live events are expanding to new areas or in Las Vegas. The UFC is expanding internationally and could find new venues in the US to hold events. Still, not holding events in the two biggest states in America does seem odd. The self-imposed ban on the state of California would affect Strikeforce more than it would the UFC. Although the UFC held its biggest event in Anaheim (UFC on Fox 1), Strikeforce has held events in San Jose or San Diego more often than the UFC has held events in the states. Of course, we do note that UFC on Fuel TV 4 will be in San Jose and UFC on Fox 4 will be in LA. So, maybe the strategy is to stress the economic impact Zuffa creates in the state with the 2 upcoming events and threaten that this will all end if AB 2100 passes.
Blue Chip Sponsor Anheuser-Busch Warns UFC About Fighters’ Sexist, Homophobic Comments
April 27, 2012
AdvertisingAge reports that Anheuser-Busch, a major blue chip sponsor for the UFC, has “reprimanded the mixed-martial arts organization for remarks made by some fighters”. Multiple advocacy groups have recently criticized UFC employees and fighters for using comments described as “sexist and homophobic.”
A-B recently released a press release which stated the following:
“We’ve communicated to the UFC our displeasure with certain remarks made by some of its fighters, and they have promised to address this. If the incidents continue, we will act”
In a statement to AdAge regarding the A-B situation, UFC issued the following response:
With over 425 athletes on our roster, there have unfortunately been instances where a couple athletes have made insensitive or inappropriate comments. We don’t condone this behavior, and in no way is it reflective of the company or its values
…. unlike most other sports leagues, we encourage our athletes to engage online. It is part of our company culture, and whenever you are at the forefront of a trend or initiative, it comes with its own pitfalls. We will continue to embrace social media while looking for better ways to stay in front of the issues. This includes a mandate for our athletes to attend sensitivity training and a seminar on proper use of social media.
AdAge also cited three recent incidents that were documented in a letter by the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence. One involves UFC fighter Quinton “Rampage” Jackson urging Japanese fans to say homophobic statements, another of UFC fighter Rashad Evans hyping his fight against Penn State alumni Phil Davis inappropriately stating “I’m going to put those hands on you worse than that dude did them other kids at Penn State”. The last is not a fighter, but UFC announcer Joe Rogan, who used sexist and misogynist language against Yahoo Sports blogger Maggie Hendricks after she pointed out Rampage Jackson’s inappropriate behavior towards female reporters. Plenty of other instances regarding UFC president Dana White performing similar acts have also been reported within the last few years, but were not cited in the write-up.
The letter that caused a lot of the recent commotion for A-B and the UFC was a letter from the group Alcohol Justice, who titled it “An Open Letter to Anheuser-Busch InBev (ABI) Shareholders – RE: Opposition to sponsorship of the Ultimae Fighting Championship (UFC).
The letter states the following:
Dear Shareholder:
As fellow shareholders and as public health advocates, Alcohol Justice (formerly Marin Institute) asks you to vigorously oppose ABI’s sponsorship of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), the world’s largest promoter of violent cage-fighting events.
We believe ABI’s sponsorship of UFC must come to an end as there is a very tangible risk to the bottom line of dividends and stock price value as well as long term bad press as the relationship of this patently brutal blood sport to predatory marketing of Bud Light to underage youth are played out on the global stage of public opinion. It’s already being called “Blood Light.” This cannot be good for business, sales, or long-term profitability.
Alcohol Justice, the alcohol industry watchdog, has served as a leading research and advocacy institution for over 24 years. We monitor and expose the alcohol industry’s targeting of youth and minority populations, as well as the industry’s adverse effect on public health and the environment globally.
There is compelling evidence that exposure to alcohol advertising and marketing increases the likelihood of underage drinking. Since 2001, at least seven peer-reviewed, federally funded, long-term studies have found that young people with greater exposure to alcohol marketing — including on television, in magazines, on the radio, on billboards or other outdoor signage, or via in-store beer displays, beer concessions, or ownership of beer promotional items or branded merchandise — are more likely to start drinking than their peers.
As the primary sponsor of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), Anheuser-Busch InBev (ABI) is delivering harmful content to millions of underage youth. At center stage is the ever-present Bud Light logo, imbued throughout all of UFC’s violent events, including live fights, Pay-Per-View, and television broadcasts that reach 354 million homes worldwide. These homes are filled with children!
In addition, millions of UFC fans of all ages have access to live streaming of fights via Facebook, and limitless YouTube videos of bloody fights, promotions, and “pornohol” such as Bud Light Lime ads featuring UFC “Octagon Girl” Arianny Celeste topless, underwear-clad and rolling around in a bed of limes.
UFC President Dana White has been quoted as saying “our targeted audience is anywhere from age 17 to 35.” He and a number of UFC athletes have recently come under fire for sexist, homophobic, violent and derogatory remarks, including jokes about rape and sexual assault. As A-B InBev shareholders we should be outraged by this behavior.
Given that alcohol is the number one drug of choice among America’s youth, and the U.S. Surgeon General estimates that approximately 5,000 people under age 21 die from alcohol-related injuries involving underage drinking each year, board members, shareholders, and consumers will become more aware of the ethical ramifications that continued sponsorship of UFC will have on ABI. Do we really want Bud Light ads to be condemned for irresponsibly delivering harmful content to millions of youth, exposing them to people beating one another to a bloody pulp?
We believe this will lead to mounting litigations, inevitable regulatory and legislative actions, and growing concerns about the safety of youth exposed to harmful content by viewing UFC promotions. All of this can only hurt ABI’s reputation as a corporate citizen and its robust revenue.
As shareholders we have an obligation to help protect stock value by holding the corporation to higher standards of responsibility, especially those related to underage consumption and harm. We can insist that management address these ethical issues with more integrity by pulling its support of this graphic, violent, bloody sport. While the world may still want to enjoy a Bud Light, it does not need “Blood Light.”
Respectfully,
Bruce Lee Livingston, MPP Executive Director/CEO
***
That very same day, Business Insider Advertising also wrote a write-up titled “Budweiser Threatened To Pull Its Ad Dollars From The UFC After Seeing This Guy’s Nazi Tattoos”. They went to state that the statement released by A-B regarding the inappropriate language and behavior is “almost unheard of in sports sponsorship, where advertiser displeasure is usually delivered to media partners behind closed doors”. The website also stated “While the sport can’t be expected to be a bastion of Edwardian manners, it is not until you see a collection of the kinds of things said by UFC pros that you realize just how unprofessional the organization is. What follows is a slideshow of incidents in which offensive language and behavior is used in the UFC”.
This is not the first time A-B has reprimanded the UFC. If you recall back at UFC 100 – the biggest show in UFC history to date – Brock Lesnar stood on the Bud Light logo, pointed at it, and said he was looking forward to going home with his wife and “drinking a Coors Light because Bud Light won’t pay me anything”. That problem was dealt with behind closed doors as both the UFC and Lesnar were reprimanded by A-B and during the post-fight press conference, Lesnar issued an apology for his post-fight behavior and continued to answer questions as a Bud Light bottle was strategically placed in front of him.
Courtesy of Bleacher Report
***
Regarding who is responsible for triggering most of this recent bad press for the UFC, look no further than the Culinary Workers Union Local 226, who has had ongoing labor dispute with Station Casinos and UFC owners Lorenzo and Frank Fertitta – who are both firmly against labor unions. So far, the Culinary Union has been credited for keeping the UFC out of the state of New York for several years by backing anti-MMA legislators in the state, triggering a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation, writing letters to UFC advertisers and TV partners (FOX) informing them of the inappropriate language and behavior of the organization and its fighters, the creation of http://www.unfitforchildren.org/ (a website illustrating many of these examples), and just recently, drafting up a version of MMA Bill of Rights and presenting it in front of the Nevada State Athletic Commission and recently in front of the California State Athletic Commission.
In terms of the labor union’s efforts against the UFC owners, this week has been a rewarding one. The letters to UFC sponsors and multiple anti abuse and violence groups has increased the awareness of lack of etiquette it has haunted the UFC in the past, when they just weren’t quite mainstream enough for anyone to care. Landing the recent FOX deal and essentially putting all their main competitors out of business in recent years has caught the attention of mainstream groups in the last year. Earlier this week, the proposed Bill of Rights hearing in Sacramento (AB2100) passed committee on a 5-3 vote. This bill would essential give fighters rights – many derived up from the Ali Act in boxing – which the UFC greatly apposes. UFC representatives essentially told the committee that if the bill passed, it would essentially drive the UFC away from California, which would have a great economic impact on not only the fighters, but also on the state. It would also cause a heavy burden and expense on the CSAC, which they are not equipped to handle.
List of parties who are in favor and against AB2100 amendments:
Support: American Rights at Work, Arete Agency. California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union. California Conference of Machinists. California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO. California Police Activities League. California Teamsters Public Affairs Council. Engineers & Scientists of California, IFPTE Local 20. Fighters Online, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Jockey’s Guild, Mixed Martial Arts Fighters Association, Patient Networks, Professional & Technical Engineers, IFPTE Local 21, United Food & Commercial, Workers Western States Council, UNITE-HERE, AFL-CIO, Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132, two private citizens (Eddie Goldman & Juanito Ibarra)
Opposition: Goossen Tutor Promotions, Honda Center, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, HP Pavilion at San Jose, Ultimate Fighting Championship
…
Notice the opposition here.
- UFC is a given.
- Notice HP Pavilion in San Jose. Last year, the UFC’s purchased Strikeforce, which at the time was it’s main competitor, from the Silicon Valley Sports & Entertainment based out of San Jose, who also owns the San Jose Sharks and manages the HP Pavilion. The problem with owning Strikeforce was that it kept UFC out of San Jose, a hotbed for MMA at the time, due to the nature of being competitors. Part of the deal to sell Strikeforce to Zuffa was for the UFC to put on several shows at the HP Pavilion per year. Since the purchase, Zuffa has visited San Jose for UFC 139 late last year and is currently scheduled for the Strikeforce HW GP finale on May 19th. Another date for a smaller UFC show was discussed for July and another big UFC numbered event is in talks before the end of the year. A bill which would would drive the UFC away and it’s now close ties to the promotion would obviously be bad business for the San Jose based venue.
- The Honda Center is the other California venue listed as opposition. Interestingly enough, that’s the UFC’s preferred venue when visiting Southern California, where they can heavily push and market towards the Hispanic demographic as they did for Cain Velasquez against Brock Lesnar and most recently on their FOX debut against Junior Dos Santos. UFC’s plan was to host another big event at the Honda Center by the end of the year.
- The other is Goossen Tutor Promotions, which is partly ran by Dan Goossen, a boxing promoter and the manager of ex-boxing champ James Toney, who previously fought for the the UFC back in 2010 against Randy Couture back in 2010. Goossen negotiated Toney’s contract to fight in the UFC at the time. Goossen also wanted to do James Toney vs Tito Ortiz even further back in 2003-2004 and a previous Toney vs Couture bout about five years ago.
***
Looking at the Culinary Union’s efforts the past few years, it’s apparent that their efforts have focused on keeping the UFC out of New York, trying to do the same in California (one of their biggest current markets within the US), and impacting the relationship between their major blue chip sponsors is quite the strategic plan. All would impact the UFC’s bottom line. I’m not sure the labor union can continue to be successful and continue to lobby against the UFC for years to come, but they are doing something most other groups have failed to do in a very long time, and that’s pose a challenge. If they weren’t taken seriously before, I can assure you no one from Zuffa is laughing at their efforts now. At the very least, it causes a few annoying and pesky headaches here and there for the Fertitta brothers in hopes that one day both sides can come to an agreement. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that a compromise will be reached anytime soon.
Diaz sues Nevada State Athletic Commission
April 26, 2012
MMA Fighting reports that Nick Diaz has filed a lawsuit against the Nevada State Athletic Commission. In addition, Diaz’s attorney filed a preliminary injunction which would stay Diaz’s suspension related to his failed drug test from UFC 143.
Via MMA Fighting:
The suit is asking the court to immediately stay the summary suspension handed out to Diaz by the NSAC as well as to enjoin the NSAC from going ahead in any further disciplinary proceedings. Diaz’s complaint also asks the court to declare his due process rights have been violated by the NSAC’s failure to promptly convene a hearing to determine the merits of the disciplinary complaint against him.
Diaz vs. NSAC
Diaz’s attorney stated that according to statute, Diaz’s disciplinary hearing must have been heard within 45 days of the temporary suspension or it would consider the complaint dismissed. However, Diaz failed to appear at a temporary suspension hearing according to the NSAC.
Payout Perspective:
This will be interesting to see how the court rules on April 14th – the date of the preliminary injunction hearing. Diaz is not challenging the merits of the NSAC’s complaint, but the process. This could have major implications for the NSAC and athletic commissions on a broader scale as it relates to how it governs.
Diaz indicates that he is ready to fight immediately if the suspension is lifted. This could be helpful for the UFC for its late summer/fall schedule as a rematch with Carlos Condit would fill a PPV main event in prelude to a GSP showdown in Montreal.
UPDATED 4/29/12:
Diaz’s primary complaint is that the NSAC has not acted within the statutory regulations provided by the state of Nevada which relates to his other complaint of lack of due process. Essentially, Diaz states that the temporary suspension required the NSAC to have a full hearing on the merits of his drug test and subsequent suspension. That has not happened. The NSAC had served Diaz with an Amended Complaint which adds the fact that Diaz lied on his pre-fight questionnaire. The NSAC may argue that the amendment to its original Complaint equated to additional time required prior to a full hearing on the merits.
Another interesting observation is the explanation from Diaz’s camp that it did not challenge the initial “Summary Suspension” due to the reliance that it would receive a full hearing “in the near future.” Diaz’s legal counsel does a good job in laying out dates of its continued request to the NSAC as to when Diaz may receive a hearing.
It’s an interesting legal strategy and its plausible that the injunction may be granted.
