Will there be punishment for Diaz, McGregor after UFC 202 press conference?

August 18, 2016

The water bottle flinging episode which ended the UFC 202 press conference on Wednesday provided some buzz for an event that lacks previous big fights.  But, will Nate Diaz and Conor McGregor be punished for their actions.

If you have not seen the press conference, McGregor showed up about 30 minutes late to the press conference.  Diaz, Anthony Johnson and Glover Texiera were present and on time.  Shortly after McGregor made his appearance, Diaz left with his team. Shouting and finger gestures were exchanged and that’s when the throwing of objects began.

According to the NAC 467.885(5), the Nevada Athletic Commission “may suspend or revoke the license of, otherwise discipline or take any combination of such actions against a licensee who has, in the judgment of the Commission:

  1. Conducted himself or herself at any time or place in a manner which is deemed by the Commission to reflect discredit to unarmed combat;

The UFC Code of Conduct states that the company can impose discipline for “Conduct that imposes inherent danger to the safety or well-being of another person.”  In addition “[c]onduct that undermines or puts at risk the organization or promotion of a UFC event, including without limitation, failure to deliver, engage in or otherwise execute any and all promotional responsibilities…” Also, “Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the UFC.”

You can say that McGregor and Diaz’s actions yesterday were violations of all of the above.  While it may have been an indirect way to promote the fight Saturday, it put at risk those that were nearby.

Short plug, I was on with Josh Nason of The Wrestling Observer and we talked about the press conference in depth as well as the UFC 202 card.

Payout Perspective:

I don’t expect the revocation of a license but a fine will likely occur.  What will be interesting the commission hearing which will likely happen as a result.  Obviously, there’s a part of MMA fandom that likes to see this intensity.  But, when does it become sideshow, not sport.  I understand that this is a part of the promotion but the throwing of objects can carry liability if a bystander were to be hit or injured.

Legal letter-wrangling goes on in Wilder-Povetkin lawsuit

August 8, 2016

The letter-writing battle between parties in the Wilder-Povetkin lawsuit is heating up as the parties have exchanged terse letters with the court about Wilder’s Motion to Dismiss the Povetkin lawsuit.

For background on the lawsuit, you can look here.  Long story short, a bout between Deontay Wilder and Alexander Povetkin set in Russia for this past May was called off by the sanctioning body due to the fact that Povetkin tested positive for Meldonium.  While the positive drug test is a factor in the subsequent events that transpired, it was not the key trigger which the parties are seemingly battling over.

At this point, the parties are fighting over Povetkin’s request to release over $4 million in funds lodged in an Escrow Account related to the WBC calling off the fight.  Wilder’s attorneys notified the escrow agent not to release the funds.  Povetkin’s attorneys claim that this was against the terms of the agreement and as a result it constituted a breach which triggered a liquidated damages clause of $2.5 million.  Povetkin’s attorneys also claim that the fight was called off due to the fact that Wilder never intended to go to Russia for the fight.  Thus, it was Wilder that breached his contractual duty to the escrow agreement as well as the bout agreement.  In addition, Povetkin filed a defamation claim against Wilder and his promoter as a result of the comments regarding failing a drug test.

While the Motion to Dismiss was filed in late July, the court in which the lawsuit is assigned has a rule in which the parties must submit a 3 page letter as part of Pre-Motion Conference prior to filing of a Motion to Dismiss.  The letter is to outline the reasons for the motion and give the non-moving party a chance to amend (change based on the argument) the Complaint.  Povetkin’s attorney identify this misstep last week as well as arguing its claim to the court.

While Wilder’s attorney gloss over their missteps in a letter to the court dated August 5th they take direct aim at Povetkin’s attorneys for its substantive arguments to the Court.  Povetkin’s attorneys responded to the letter and requested a Pre-Motion Conference.

Wilder's letter to court Aug 5, 2016

Letter From Arnold and Porter.08.05.16

Rules of Practice by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

Deontay Wilder files motion to dismiss against Povetkin, World of Boxing

August 4, 2016

Deontay Wilder and Lou DiBella have filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims of Alexander Povetkin and his promoter.  The motion reflects what might be a long, hard fight in court.

As you may recall, in June Wilder and his promoter, Lou DiBella and DiBella Entertainment filed a lawsuit against World of Boxing,  LLC (“WOB”) and Alexander Povetkin in New York.  The lawsuit claimed that Povetkin breached a Bout Agreement when Povetkin tested positive for Meldonium, a banned substance.  Due to the finding, the World Boxing Council (“WBC”) issued a ruling that the fight, set for May 21, 2016 in Russia, would not go forward.

When news of the positive test surfaced, Wilder’s attorney notified the Escrow Agent, that the  $4,369,365 deposited by Povetkin’s promoters should not be disbursed back to World of Boxing until a joint instruction from the parties “or a non-appealable order from a court of competent jurisdiction” advised the Escrow Agent it could disburse the funds.

Shortly after Wilder’s lawsuit, WOB and Povetkin filed 3 counterclaims.  Two claimed breach of contract regarding the Bout Agreement.  It claimed that Wilder was never in Russia on the date of the fight and this was the reason for the WBC announcing a postponement.  Secondly, it claimed breach due to the fact that Wilder’s attorney instructed the Escrow Agent not to release funds.

The third allegaton for defamation claims that Wilder’s camp stated “falsely” that the fight was “canceled rather than postponed.”  Also, there are accusations that Wilder’s camp stated Povetkin “cheated” due to the Meldonium finding.  Notably, the Meldonium issue is downplayed in the motion.

Wilder submitted a declaration which claims that he was in England training for his fight when he learned of the drug test but did not intend to return to the US until after an announcement from the WBC.  He claims he did not travel home until May 16, 2016.  He includes his boarding pass home as evidence.  They also submit the declaration of the travel agent that arranged Wilder’s flight back to the United States.  Wilder’s attorneys also cite a tweet from Povetkin’s promoter which stated that the fight was not going forward prior to the WBC announcement.

This evidence is meant to prove that Wilder’s absence from Russia during the timeframe of the fight did not cause the postponement of the fight.

As for the defamation claim, Wilder’s attorneys cite the fact that “truth is an absolute, unqualified defense” to a defamation claim.  In addition, opinion or rhetorical hyperbole is not actionable.  It also argues that WOB and Povetkin cannot prove that any statements made were done with “actual malice.”   This would relate to the comments about the positive test regarding Meldonium.

Wilder’s attorneys argue that Povetkin, as a public figure, must show the statements were made with knowledge that the statements were false or with reckless disregard of its falsity.

WOB and Povetkin’s complaint cite 13 statements of purported defamation.  Each of which Wilder’s attorneys strike down.

In addition, Wilder’s attorneys argue certain procedural issues which would preclude the lawsuit from going forward.

Memo of Law – Motion to Dismiss by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

WOB and Povetkin’s attorneys argue that the motion was filed in violation of the court rules in a letter to the court.

Letter From Arnold and Porter

Wilder’s attorneys were out of town and indicated that they would respond once they are backwhich is Friday, August 5th.

Letter From Judd Burstein

MMA Payout will keep you posted.

UFC 201: Payout Perspective

July 31, 2016

Welcome to another edition of Payout Perspective.  This time we take a look at UFC 201 at the Philips Arena in Atlanta, Georgia.  The main event featured Robbie Lawler taking on Tyrone Woodley for the welterweight title.

The wait was worth it: Woodley new WW champ

Tyron Woodley waited almost a year and a half for his shot at the welterweight title.  What was almost a nothing fight for the first minute exploded quickly as Woodley laid the hammer down on Lawler.  It has to be one of the bigger upsets in some time.  Then again, it’s yet another title change in the UFC.

So does Nick Diaz actually get the first shot at him?  It’s the “money fight” and could happen sometime this fall.  But, doesn’t Lawler deserve a rematch?  While he got caught, I doubt this could happen in another fight.  Lawler should still be near the top of the rankings for this division.


Karolina edges out Rose for chance at Joanna

Karolina Kowalkiewicz defeated Rose Namajunas in the fight of the night.  We now get an interesting all-Polish for the women’s strawweight title.  Hopefully, the UFC can build this fight for women’s MMA as well as its international expansion.  Certainly, this fight with Joanna Champion should take place sometime this fall in Poland.

Attendance and gate

It’s not surprising that this event drew less than the prior two PPV events in Atlanta.  The previous two: UFC 88 and UFC 145, had highly anticipated fights in Evans-Liddell and Evans-Jones.  The UFC did draw a 1 million gate.  Specifically, 10,240 for a gate of $1.07M.


Bonuses of $50K each went to Rose-Karolina, Woodley and Jake Ellenberger.  Rose-Karolina earned the Fight of the Night while Woodley and Ellenberger scored the Performances of the Night for their respective stoppages.


The usual UFC sponsors were in the octagon including Bud Light, Toyo Tires, Harley Davidson, UFC Fight Pass, MetroPCS, and Monster had the middle of the octagon.  QT, a software company, shared the post with Monster’s logo.

Also in the octagon was signage for UFC 202 August 20th for Diaz-McGregor.

EA UFC2 had the prep point.

Tyron Woodley wore Monster head phones to the ring.  This is something you rarely see any more.

Notably, MusclePharm was all over the UFC Embeddeds.  Matt Brown even drove a car with the MP logo on the side.

Odds and Ends

On Friday, UFC 201 drew 500,000 google searches which is corrected from our original report that it drew just 50,000 searches.  Still, it did not feel like strong momentum going into this.

Another thing going against this card was that the UFC Prelims were moved to FS2.

Recall this was to be a double title night with Demetrious Johnson defending his title against Wilson Reis.  Johnson was injured, so Reis was bumped off the main card.  He did record a submission victory over Hector Sandoval.

Why do fighters still strip down at the televised weigh-ins if their official weigh-ins were earlier that morning?  No need to be in your underwear in front of the crowd.  You can just wear your fight shorts.

It was interesting that Pat Barry, Rose Namajunas’ boyfriend and coach was not a part of the UFC Embeddeds.  Rose talked about this prior to the fight.

Speaking of the UFC Embeddeds, this is the first time that I thought most of them were bland.  However, the one thing that I enjoyed (aside from the Woodley kids) was that we were introduced to Karolina Kowalkiewicz.  The other thing we may have learned from the video series is that Coy Wire and Robbie Lawler look alike.

Ian McCall received his win bonus and show money after Justin Scoggins could not make weight.  McCall remained an alternate on the card which may explain him receiving the win bonus.  It’s the first time I’ve heard of a fighter receiving a win bonus when they did not fight.

Did Reebok get Erik Perez an official Lucha Libre mask?

Jake Ellenberger was going to be cut but was given one more chance.  He won with a liverkick that stopped Matt Brown.  It’s not his last fight after all.


This PPV felt like the “forgotten PPV” as it is sandwiched between UFC 200 and UFC 202 (featuring the rematch between Diaz-McGregor).  Both of these PPVs will draw over 1 million buys while 201 will fall far short of that.  While Robbie Lawler is an exciting fighter and produced some great battles.  Does it equate to his PPV average of 333,000 buys?  Perhaps.  But with the UFC seemingly promoting UFC 202 prior to UFC 201 even happening (e.g., Nate Diaz on Conan as well as the promos starting earlier), the PPV likely drew 285,000-300,000 PPV buys.

Moody’s details UFC Holdings, LLC acquisition

July 26, 2016

In a press release sent out last week, Standard & Poor’s Global assigned a rating for the debt involved in the acquisition of the UFC by a group led by WME-IMG.  Moody’s Investor Service has sent out its own press release with more details related to the leveraged debt in the acquisition.

Per the July 22, 2016 release, Moody’s assigned VGD Merger Sub, LLC (aka UFC Holdings, LLC) a B2 corporate family rating and the proposed $150 million revolver and $1,300 million first lien term loan a B1 rating.  The rating is assigned to those investments with a high credit risk and are based on speculation.  The outlook, per Moody’s is seen as stable.

While Moody’s has a pretty optimistic outlook on the future of the company, it will not adjust the rating any time soon until the debt leverage is reduced.

UFC Holdings, LLC will be the rated entity after the transaction is complete.  The Moody’s release broke down the money covered in this transaction:

  • $1,420 million in new equity
  • $325 million in rollover equity from management and existing investors
  • $400 million of preferred equity
  • $1,300 million in new first lien term loans
  • $500 million second lien term loans or unsecured debt.

When the company determines if the $500 million will be in the form of a second lien term loan or an unsecured note, Moody’s will assign a rating to the debt offering.

Moody’s expects that the UFC will maintain a “good liquidity profile over the next twelve months with an expected cash balance of about $30 million following the close of the transaction and an undrawn $150 million revolving credit facility due 2021.”

Similar to the Standard & Poor’s projections, Moody’s cites the upcoming rights fee agreement as a positive for the company when considering its prospective business outlook.  Despite the high debt, analysts believe that this shall contribute to an ascending EBITDA.

Also to note from Moody’s:

WME Parent is subject to a $175 million contingent acquisition payment upon the achievement of $275 million in EBITDA (but not earlier than June 30, 2017) and $75 million payable upon achieving $350 million of LTM EBITDA (but not earlier than December 31st 2018).

The stable outlook reflects Moody’s expectation that UFC’s EBITDA will continue to improve following a strong year in 2015 driven by PPV revenues, increased digital revenues, and contractual domestic and international television rights fees. While leverage is very high, we expect it to decline below 7x by the end of 2018.

The report warns of a possible downgrade if leverage is not below 7x by the end of 2018.  It also states that there would be negative rating pressure if fee cash flow is used for returns to equity holders instead of debt repayment.

Payout Perspective:

The report notes that the legalization of MMA in New York and the success of UFC Fight Pass improved the outlook for the company.  The fact that the UFC is the largest MMA organization in the sport is a positive for analysts that see “high barriers to entry” to competition.  It also cites a strong brand and “its large contractually bound pool of fighters with superior opportunities for exposure and profit.”  The report also notes that the UFC has mitigated its concern over injured fighters which caused a downturn in PPV revenues in 2014.  Overall, despite the amount of debt used to purchase the UFC, it is seen as a good prospective purchase with the belief that the company will continue with its improving revenues.

UFC on Fox 20 draws 2.44M viewers in overnight ratings

July 24, 2016

UFC on Fox 20 drew 2.44 million viewers in overnight ratings per Television By Numbers.  Its strong showing helped Fox win the night in network ratings.

Per TV By Numbers it drew a 0.9 rating and 4 share in the adult 18-49 demo.  UFC on Fox 20 went up against The Bourne Identity on NBC, 20/20 on ABC and Angel from Hell on CBS.  Although The Bourne Identity drew more viewers (2.93M) and 20/20 drew more in the 9-10pm block (2.98M), its strong showing in the adult 18-49 demo won the night for the network.

The event improved on last year’s overnight rating as UFC on Fox 16 drew 2.29M viewers and improved to 2.8M in Live + SD ratings.  2014’s July show on Fox drew 2M viewers and ended up with 2.5M viewers.

UFC on Fox 20

The event was headlined by Holly Holm taking on Valentina Shevchenko in a women’s bantamweight matchup.

UFC on Fox Ratings
Overnights Live + SD
UFC on Fox 1 5,700,000
UFC on Fox 2 4,570,000
UFC on Fox 3 2,250,000 2,400,000
UFC on Fox 4 2,360,000 2,400,000
UFC on Fox 5 3,410,000 4,400,000
UFC on Fox 6 3,770,000 4,220,000
UFC on Fox 7 3,300,000 3,700,000
UFC on Fox 8 2,040,000 2,380,000
UFC on Fox 9 2,410,000 2,800,000
UFC on Fox 10 2,550,000 3,220,000
UFC on Fox 11 1,990,000 2,500,000
UFC on Fox 12 2,020,000 2,500,000
UFC on Fox 13 2,270,000 2,800,000
UFC on Fox 14 2,820,000 3,049,000
UFC on Fox 15 2,430,000 2,745,000
UFC on Fox 16 2,290,000 2,800,000
UFC on Fox 17 2,280,000 2,781,000
UFC on Fox 18 2,430,000 2,685,000
UFC on Fox 19 2,130,000 2,500,000
UFC on Fox 20 2,440,000


UFC Holdings, LLC issues credit facility, given ‘B’ rating, outlook ‘negative’ per S&P Global

July 23, 2016

Per a Standard & Poor’s Global press release Friday UFC Holdings, LLC will issue a $1.45 billion first lien credit facility.  The company was assigned a ‘B’ rating on the WME-IMG acquisition.  The outlook is projected as negative per the Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings report.

The financing for the deal to acquire the UFC will consist of the $1.45 billion credit facility which will consist of a $150 million revolver due 2021 and a $1.3 billion term loan B due 2023.

S&P Global Ratings assigned its ‘B’ corporate credit rating to UFC Holdings, LLC.  It issued a ‘B+’ issue-level rating to the company’s $1.45 billion credit facility.

The negative outlook reflects significant leverage with the UFC which is based on EBITDA growth to reduce leverage over the next few years (i.e., revenue is predicted to grow to offset the debt load currently taken on).

Recognizing that the revenue from its events fluctuate throughout the yar, the rating is given to ensure the “UFC can reduce total lease and preferred stock-adjusted debt to EBITDA to below 8x” before revising the outlook to stable.

Per S&P Global Ratings credit analyst Emile Courtney, “The ‘B’ corporate credit rating reflects very high anticipated adjusted leverage to complete the acquisition, partly offset by good EBITDA coverage of cash interest expense and an adequate liquidity profile.”

Analysts believe that the company’s EBITDA has a “plausible and robust growth path.”  Similar to the SBJ article, the belief is that future media rights revenue will increase with the next television deal.

Notably, the opinion of analysts is that “the risk of marquee fighter injuries, which caused a significant more than 40% decline in EBITDA in 2014, will likely be partially mitigated in future periods due to “a strategy of marketing multiple fights at events and planning back-up matches and fighters in the event of injuries…”  The report also states that “remedial training and safety actions” have taken place so that less injuries occur.

Payout Perspective:

The report essentially rates UFC Holdings, LLC the way it does because the acquisition by WME-IMG is predicated on loans and the speculation that the UFC revenue (which remains volatile, yet optimistic) will increase.  What is interesting is that the report is bullish on UFC events.  While the volatility of the events (i.e., injuries causing cards to change or fights cancelled) have been a concern with its credit rating in the past, this report implies that the UFC has changed its strategy by promoting multiple fights on a card as well as promoting more safety precautions in training.  The UFC has invested in helping fighters train smarter.  Despite the need to shift fights due to injuries (and now USADA flagging fighters), the report seems to believe that it has improved upon making changes last minute.  The underlying notion here is that the UFC brand is much stronger than the individual fighters.

Bellator files Cross-Complaint against Light

July 20, 2016

The Zachary Light-Bellator lawsuit in California is getting personal.  Bellator has filed a Cross-Complaint against Light stating that he stole money from the company and did not pay back a loan given to him due to the fact he was in financial trouble.

Light filed the lawsuit claiming wrongful termination back in May in Los Angeles Superior Court.  Bellator was granted an extension to respond to the Complaint and it’s also filed its own Complaint against Light filed July 12th.

The cross-claim digs right into Light stating that Light told Bellator, that, “despite his sizable income, he had difficulty managing his family budget and was experiencing financial distress.”  Bellator loaned Light $9,403.00 and entered into a written agreement to pay back the loan.  Bellator attached a copy of the alleged agreement as an Exhibit to its Cross-Complaint.  The company also claims that Light stole $4,600 in cash from VIP ticket sales from Bellator 136.  Bellator claims Light now owes $5,050.00 plus interest.

Conversion, the civil claim alleged by Bellator, is essentially stealing.  It also claims theft under California law and a breach of written contract which alludes to the purported failure of Light to repay the loan.

Bellator claims that as part of his job, Light “would collect the money he received from the sale of consignment and VIP tickets in connection with Bellator events, and remit the money to Bellator personnel shortly after he received it from purchasers.”  He would then give the money to Bellator’s Chief Financial Officer, Michael O’Roark or Jane Estioko, Manager of Talent Relations.  However, Bellator claims that Bellator remitted to Bellator “at least some of the money” he failed to give “thousands of dollars he collected.”  The Monday after the event, Bellator 136, Light did not report for work citing medical reasons.

With respect to his financial issues, Light and Bellator entered into an “Authorization for Deduction” on December 18, 2014 for $6,974.57 in which he would repay the loan in monthly installments of $240.50 from his paychecks.  It also appears that Bellator was charging him interest on this loan.  The exhibit to the Cross-Complaint is below.

Zach Light Payment

Payout Perspective:

Light will have an opportunity to respond to these allegations.  Obviously, these claims were filed as a result of Light’s lawsuit.  The lawsuit is turning personal as Bellator infers the fact Light has had financial difficulties throughout.  The loan was from December 2014 and the alleged theft occurred in April 2016.  Were there any other issues in between this time that Bellator is holding back for the lawsuit or are these two issues the only claims against Light?  Certainly Light will deny both claims.
The one question is why would Bellator give Light the responsibility of handling money on the company’s behalf if it believed he had an issue with finances.  MMA Payout will keep you posted.

The fallout from Brock Lesnar’s potential drug violation

July 18, 2016

On Friday, Brock Lesnar was flagged by the United States Anti-Doping Association (USADA) of a potential violation of the UFC anti-doping policy due to an out of competition test from June 28, 2016.  Although testing results of Lesnar’s “B” sample are yet to be revealed, the fallout from Lesnar’s appearance hurts the UFC and possibly the WWE.

On June 5, 2016, it was announced that Lesnar would fight at UFC 200 on July 9, 2016.  The signing was unprecedented because he was under contract with the WWE.  Yet, the WWE granted Lesnar the chance to fight in the Octagon once again.  Despite the fact that the WWE has its own drug testing policy (known as the Wellness Policy – Lesnar has never been flagged for a violation), Lesnar was tested by USADA eight times in just the month lead-up to his fight against Mark Hunt.  He took 5 tests in the first two weeks after it was announced he was returning.  Multiple tests came up clean.

Despite the tests, the UFC policy handled by USADA dictated that a returning athlete to the UFC most give the company four months written notice so that USADA can put the athlete in the pool of those it may selectively test.  But, the UFC anti-doping policy allows an exemption for a returning athlete that may be subject to drug testing.  Per 5.7.1 of the UFC anti-doping policy:

An Athlete who gives notice of retirement to UFC, or has otherwise ceased to have a contractual relationship with UFC, may not resume competing in UFC Bouts until he/she has given UFC written notice of his/her intent to resume competing and has made him/herself available for Testing for a period of four months before returning to competition. UFC may grant an exemption to the four-month written notice rule in exceptional circumstances or where the strict application of that rule would be manifestly unfair to an Athlete.

The key sentence here is the last sentence:  “UFC may grant an exemption to the four-month written notice rule in exceptional circumstances or where the strict application of that rule would be manifestly unfair to an Athlete.”

Since the UFC Anti-Doping Policy did not begin until July 1, 2015 and Lesnar’s last fight in the UFC prior to UFC 200 was December 2011, he was considered a new athlete.  There has not been an official statement as to whether the UFC granted the 4-month exemption due to an “exceptional circumstance” or if it was “manifestly unfair to an Athlete.”  Of course, either waiver could be easily explained.

But, one has to think that Lesnar and the UFC had contemplated his return as he had been training prior to the June announcement of his return to the Octagon.  One might suggest that Lesnar could have notified the UFC of his return in the requisite 4 months to allow for the proper testing to occur.

However, it would seem that the parties wanted the Lesnar announcement to be a surprise.  Recall, that Ariel Helwani and others from MMA Fighting were thrown out of a UFC event and Helwani was banned for life due to his report of Lesnar’s return prior to the UFC’s opportunity to make it themselves.  Helwani along with his colleagues were reinstated a couple days later.

Notwithstanding the notice issue, let’s take a look at what Lesnar could face as a result of testing positive for a banned substance.  First, Lesnar’s “B” sample, a second sample taken to determine the validity of the finding in the first sample, must confirm the initial finding of a banned substance.  If this happens, Lesnar will face discipline from Nevada and the UFC per the anti-doping policy.

Since the infraction took place in Nevada, Lesnar will have to appear before the Nevada State Athletic Commission to address the drug test failure.  At that time, we should know what drug(s) Lesnar tested positive for in his out-of-competition sample.  In 2015, Nevada adopted guidelines for combat sports which included a 36-month suspension and 50-75% of the purse for a first-time offender for someone taking anabolic steroids.

In addition, the UFC anti-doping policy would discipline Lesnar.

Under Section 10 for Sanctions on Individuals, Section 10.1 specifically states:

An Anti-Doping Policy Violation occurring during, or in connection with, a Bout may, upon the decision of UFC, lead to Disqualification of all of the Athlete’s results obtained in that Bout with all Consequences, including, without limitation, forfeiture of title, ranking, purse or other compensation, except as provided in Article 10.1.1.

Read broadly, under the UFC-USADA Anti-Doping Guidelines, Lesnar could have his purse for the bout and “other compensation” taken from him.  It would hurt enough that Lesnar would lose out on his $2.5 million reported purse but “other compensation” could mean money he makes from his PPV “upside.”

Not only could that happen, but the section further states that UFC could fine Lesnar up to $500,000 per Section 10.10 of the UFC-USADA Anti-Doping Guidelines.  In addition, he could have his win against Mark Hunt overturned to a no decision per discretion of the Nevada State Athletic Commission according to section 467.850.  This would not sting as much since Lesnar did not have a win bonus to forfeit.  Regardless, he still could have a substantial amount of money taken away.

The monetary fine would be the hardest penalty for Lesnar.  The $2.5 million is the largest reported payout for a UFC fighter in its history.  But, Lesnar was going to make more from his PPV guarantee.  It is being reported that the UFC 200 PPV drew 1.1 to 1.2 million PPV buys.  In most markets, the PPV for UFC 200 was $59.99 HD and $49.99 SD.  Lesnar was projected to make $3-5 million in addition to his $2.5 million.

Mark Hunt, Lesnar’s opponent has demanded that he receive half of Lesnar’s $2.5 million or else he is requesting his release from his UFC contract.  Hunt, who made $700,000 for taking on Lesnar, will be disappointed to learn that under the UFC-USADA guidelines, any money forfeited by an athlete would be under the UFC’s discretion “to be applied to offset the costs of the Program or given to anti-doping research.”

The UFC could also fine Lesnar pursuant to its Code of Conduct which imposes discipline based on misconduct.  Under its Code, “misconduct” may include, “Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the UFC.”  A violation of its drug program could fall under this.

There is precedent for a fine as Jon Jones was docked $25,000 for failing a drug test in December 2014.  Of course, Jones’ drug test failure was for cocaine use.  We note that the detection of this drug was done out of competition and should have not been tested for according to the rules.

Lesnar’s only statement related to Friday’s news of his potential violation was a vague “we’ll get to the bottom of this.”

The WWE does not seem to be concerned with the potential violation and has indicated his next appearance will be at its big event Summerslam, August 21st.  They have not addressed the potential violation.  From its perspective, its an MMA matter, that a WWE matter.

However, the question looms as to whether a Nevada State Athletic Commission suspension would affect his wrestling career.  Some state athletic commissions oversee professional wrestling.  Most commissions honor suspensions of an athlete in other states.  Would a suspension in combat sports carry over to professional wrestling?  We will see.

Show Money Episode 11 talks about the UFC sale

July 17, 2016

I hopped on with Paul Gift and John Nash of Bloody Elbow to discuss the UFC sale and the future impact.  We also learned at the end of the episode that Brock Lesnar was flagged for a potential UFC anti-doping policy violation.

« Previous PageNext Page »