Josh Barnett and UFC parting ways

June 21, 2018

Josh Barnett is negotiating his release from the UFC due to the lack of trust he has in USADA.  Barnett received an admonished but no suspension for a flagged drug test administered by the UFC’s third party anti-doping officiant.

Barnett was the first UFC fighter to “prevail” in an arbitration for a failed test.  The former UFC heavyweight champion was able to prove that he did not knowingly take a banned substance.  This was due in part to a detailed accounting of supplements which led to the finding that a supplement by tbe name of Tributestin purchased at a store in Los Angeles contained Ostrine (a banned substance) although it was not labeled on the product.  He has filed a lawsuit against the drug maker which appears to be the reason for the flagged test.

“I don’t’ feel comfortable giving the control necessary to USADA that would continue my career in the UFC,” Barnett told ESPN.com about his pending release.  Barnett had been with the promotion 5 years after leaving the company in 2002.

Payout Perspective:

It would seem that Barnett would be Bellator-bound if he wanted to continue to fight.  The circumstances surrounding Barnett’s departure are a first and may bring more scrutiny to the UFC’s Anti-Doping Program.  It is a requisite to be registered with USADA to be a UFC fighter, and due to the issues Barnett faced with the provisional suspension and subsequent arbitration, he has drawn a line regarding the policy which is costing him his job with the UFC.

World Series of Fighting and PFL file appeal against former officers of WSOF

June 20, 2018

The World Series of Fighting litigation continues in Nevada.  Despite re-emerging earlier this month as the Professional Fighters’ League, the lawsuit(s) continue over the power struggle between individuals, entities and now with a new investment group, more litigants. In this instance, the lawsuit hinges on a licensing agreement which contained an arbitration provision.

The licensing agreement between the parties described below is related to a prior Settlement Agreement and Operating Agreement between the two sides.  As you might infer, this business divorce is a mess.

There has been a plethora of lawsuits filed by different people and entities and this one is the latest involving the inception of WSOF.  The lawsuit in question pits rival entities over the split up and sale of World Series of Fighting when it was sold to investors that repackaged it as the PFL.

In this lawsuit plaintiffs are WSOF Global and its head Vince Hesser and Zion Wood Obi Wan Trust (Zion) and Shawn Wright (collectively referred to as Plaintiffs).  The defendants include MMAWC, LLC doing business as World Series of Fighting, MMAX Investment Partners, Inc., doing business as PFL, Bruce Deifik, Carlos Silva, Nancy and Bruce Deifik Family Partnership and Keith Redmond, Inc.

The lawsuit claimed that MMAWC, LLC, which did business as WSOF experienced several financial shortfalls during 2012 to 2015.  The plaintiffs had made “extensive loans” to the promotion to allow the promotion to continue and operate.  But, WSOF refused to repay the loans.

Zion Wood Obi Wan Trust Complaint by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

Additionally, Shawn Wright and Vince Hesser had written agreements with WSOF for other contractual payments and worldwide licensing.  WSOF Global had acquired rights to the intellectual property of WSOF overseas and had invested in the brand under the assumption it was planning to expand.  But, WSOF refused to honor the terms of the agreement per the Complaint.  Zion’s membership interest was 10.5% and WSOF executed agreements that it was non-dilutable.

The dispute was thought to have been resolved after the organizations entered into a Settlement Agreement.  As part of the agreement, Zion agreed to reduce its 10.5% non-dilutable interest in WSOF to 4.50% of the total outstanding ownership units in WSOF, which interest shall remain non-dilutable.  But, Zion believed that Bruce Deifik created a new entity and put all of the WSOF assets into the PFL organization.

Zion did not have an interest in the “Successor Company,” PFL.  As a result, it believed that its shares were being diluted.

The Complaint stated WSOF sold the company for $15 million, but without input from Zion and WSOF Global, Inc., who held shares in the WSOF.  Additionally, Plaintiffs claimed it was being shut out from finding out the real value of the deal which would help them assess the purported amount that they would have been entitled.

The Complaint also mentioned a WSOF event in New York City on New Year’s Eve 2016.  The WSOF reported $0 income from broadcasting rights to New York State.  But, it reported to Zion that they spent $190,000 in broadcasting revenue from NBC to the NYC event.  This would be inconsistent reporting.

But, the big issue here is the licensing deal between Vince Hesser, the owner of WSOF Global, and WSOF.  An Amended Master License Agreement gave Mr. Hesser the exclusive right to license the WSOF brand outside the United States.  A dispute arose over the licensing agreement and was thought to have been subsequently settled.  WSOF Global claims to have rights that “consist of over 100 international events per year, at a cost to produce of tens of millions of dollars, which dwarf the mere 8-10 events per year” from WSOF.

But, when the WSOF sold to PFL, it failed to comply with the licensing agreement.  The obvious breach was the change of the name to the Professional Fighters League which plaintiffs claimed damage them.  The PFL did not grant WSOF Global the right to use the PFL name in the Settlement Agreement and Amended License Agreement.

Prior to the name change, WSOF Global claimed that it was working on a sports partnership to bring MMA content to China.  It claims it received $16 million to further the promotion of WSOF in China and to promote foreign fighters in their events alongside Chinese fighters.  This would appear to be part of the damages to be claimed in this lawsuit.

WSOF stated that the parties should be compelled to arbitration to resolve these disputes and pointed to the clause in the Amended Licensing Agreement.

The arbitration clause in the parties’ licensing agreement compels the Court to dismiss this case and force the parties to arbitration.  But, the plaintiffs contend that they did not specifically authorize the arbitration agreement.  Under the state law in Nevada, a party must grant “specific authorization” that they have agreed to their arbitration provision otherwise it is void.  Plaintiffs cite the lack of specific authorization in the contract to show that the arbitration provision was void.

In its reply to the opposition of moving the case to arbitration, WSOF argued that the parties jointly drafted and authorized the agreement which included the arbitration clause.  Thus, despite WSOF’s assertion that Plaintiffs had knowledge of the clause and the opportunity to point out the issue, it did not.  Moreover, it agreed to the overall agreement.

The Court found in favor of Plaintiffs’ arguments and voided the arbitration provision and denied WSOF’s motion to compel arbitration.  Shortly after the ruling, WSOF filed to appeal the decision.

In its appeal statement WSOF noted, “When the parties finalized the Arbitration provision, however, the parties did not include language and initials or separate signatures to further manifest their agreement to the Arbitration provision…”

WSOF Case Appeal Statement by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

Despite the fact that WSOF believed that the Arbitration provision should have been allowed, the Court found it void due to the lack of a “specific authorization.”

The appeal will be heard in the state appellate court in Nevada.  The lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada.

Payout Perspective:

While there is the possibility that the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit may amend its RICO claim, it was dismissed by the Court.  However, the case is not going to Arbitration due to the fact the Court voided the provision.  While WSOF may allege that having the parties sign a section consenting to Arbitration is duplicative if you consider they signed the Agreement.  Also, in this instance, the parties allegedly collaborated on putting together the Agreement.  Yet, the Nevada state rules are explicit that there must be a specific authorization which appears to be more than just signing the contract overall but making an affirmative concession to the clause.

As it goes for the overall transaction, it appears that Hesser and Wright are creditors to the WSOF entity and were not privy to the sale of assets to the successor company, PFL.  While there was a transaction to do business under the WSOF brand, there was not one to do under any successor brand.  It would seem that either poor business acumen, lack of communication or a bad business deal has transpired.  Maybe all of the above.

One thing is for certain, both sides have shown errors in contractual drafting.  Plaintiffs should have included clauses that would have protected itself form any sale of assets from the debtor (i.e., WSOF).  For WSOF, it should have drafted an Agreement in compliance with the Nevada state law that would ensure specific authorization for Arbitration.  While Arbitration may have been a faster, cost-efficient way to resolve a dispute, it looks like this case will be litigated.  But first, the appeal.

MMA Payout will keep you posted.

Plaintiffs in UFC Antitrust Lawsuit oppose sealing of documents

June 19, 2018

Plaintiffs in the UFC Antitrust Lawsuit are opposing a Motion to Seal brought by Zuffa to seal documents in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion to Certify Class and Related Materials.  The opposition is the first in this litigation which has gone without any challenges to the redaction and/or sealing of documents.

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Seal by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd


Plaintiffs cite 4 points why the Court should deny Zuffa’s Motion to Seal:

  • The materials Zuffa seeks to seal are not trade secrets, but rather largely, outdated aggregate data, and Zuffa would suffer no competitive harm if they were disclosed;
  • Zuffa’s justifications for sealing do not satisfy the applicable “compelling reasons” standard;
  • The right of the public, the press, the named Plaintiffs, and Class members to access judicial materials is especially robust….; and
  • Zuffa is attempting to gain an advantage by overdesignating materials that support Plaintiffs’ claims and their motion for class certification, when Zuffa has selectively revealed similar information that served Zuffa’s purposes.

Plaintiffs argue that Zuffa’s claim that redacting certain section of its documents “could permit..competitors to gain unfair insights into Zuffa’s strategic business practices and gain an unearned advantage in competition” is a red herring.  It contends that it is sealing information to control the flow of information to the public, the press, the named Plaintiffs’ and the class members, and prevent Plaintiffs from telling their side of the story to the public.  It’s not that its protecting its trade secrets argues plaintiffs it is concerned about the public learning about its misconduct.

Focusing on the issue of unsealing documents for the media, John Nash of Bloody Elbow sent correspondence to the Judge Richard Boulware requesting access to certain documents including portions of the expert reports that were redacted. Nash pointed out inconsistencies with what was being redacted, withheld for public consumption with what was allegedly trade secrets.  Zuffa’s counsel responded to the letter indicating that the likes of Nash, Paul Gift and yours truly had ample information to pontificate on the subject.  It claimed that the information sealed was trade secrets and precluded from public consumption.  Zuffa argued that the right to access of pleadings was not absolute.  Nash responded with a detailed letter outlining the reasons why certain sections should not be redacted.  The letter also cites a federal court judge order from last month in which it sanctioned attorneys for frivolous motions to seal.  The pertinent section that is applicable is as follows with emphasis being ours:

At the hearing on the order to show cause, there was discussion of the fact that attorneys – particularly attorneys for corporate clients – are under great pressure to file motions to seal information that their clients would prefer to keep secret, even if there is no legitimate basis to keep the information secret. This is no doubt a significant issue for corporate lawyers, but the answer is not to file frivolous sealing requests. The answer is to firmly explain to their clients that litigation is a public process, and that the public has the right to know what the litigation is about, subject only to very limited exceptions. Mere embarrassment to a corporation is not one of those exceptions

In that case, the Judge fined the law firm filing frivolous sealing requests $500 per lawyer involved (which was 5) for a total of $2,500.

2018-06-10 S Grigsby Ltr to Judge Boulware Re J Nash Email by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

Response to Ms Grisby Jun 10 2018 Letter by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

Payout Perspective:

According the plaintiffs’ motion, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming “a strong presumption in favor of access” by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard.  While the disclosure of information might prove embarrassing, incriminating or put the party in a false light, it is not a reason to seal information from a public court filing.  From a media perspective, it is hard to be accurate if the information is not provided.  One need only look to Zuffa’s attorney proclaiming an industry insider report that UFC 225’s buy rate was less than 150,000 was a “material misrepresentation” and off by six figures.  But, the attorney did not correct the information with accurate data.  A later report, noted that the buy rate including streaming and traditional PPV buys was 250,000.

The federal court order from last month is persuasive considering the overarching theory is that sealing documents has “very limited exceptions.”  The burden is on Zuffa to show why they are allowed to redact certain sections.  Previously in this lawsuit, these types of motions were not opposed and therefore the court did not really examine the information sealed.  Now, it appears that the Court might review the redacted sections.

The motion creates more work for Zuffa and plaintiffs with another motion to handle.  However, this is not a frivolous motion from the perspective of the media.  There are a lot of instances where things like this go by without being questioned.  Here, at least there will be some examination as to the veracity of what can and cannot be sealed.

The Interview: USF Law Student Zachary Tomlin

June 17, 2018

I had the opportunity to speak with University of San Francisco Law School student Zachary Tomlin.  He recently won an award in the annual Sports Lawyers Association student writing competition for a paper he wrote about the NLRB and the UFC.

Tomlin SLA Submission by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd


During my talk with Zack, we reference an 11 part test applied by the NLRB to determine whether or not workers are employees or independent contractors.

The NLRB 11 Factor Test

  1. Extent of control by the employer
  2. Whether or not the individual is engaged in a distinct occupation or business
  3. Whether the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision
  4. Skill required in the occupation
  5. Whether the employer or individual supplies instrumentalities, tools, and place of work
  6. Length of time for which individual is employed
  7. Method of payment
  8. Whether or not work is part of the regular business of the employer
  9. Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an independent contractor relationship
  10. Whether the principal is or is not in the business
  11. (New:) Whether the evidence tends to show that the individual is, in fact, rendering services as an independent business

Also discussed is the NLRB decision in the case of the Northwestern Football player case.  The board unanimously decided to decline jurisdiction.

The Velox decision is below:

Administrative Law Judges Decision in re Velox Express, Inc. by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

I also apologize for the abrupt ending.  I am still working on my editing skills.

UFC calls report of UFC 225 PPV buys “material misrepresentation”

June 15, 2018

The UFC has refuted an LA Times report that UFC 225 scored just less than 150,000 PPV buys.  UFC attorney Hunter Campbell told the LA Times that the number was a “material misrepresentation” of the actual buys and short by “something in excess of six figures” although he did not provide an actual figure.

UFC 225 featured Robert Whittaker taking on Yoel Romero in a non-title middleweight fight after Romero missed weight.  It also had Colby Covington take on Rafael dos Anjos for the interim welterweight title.

The report of less than 150,000 buys would be a disappointment for the UFC considering it was one of the better cards this year.

Payout Perspective:

In general, the legal definition of a material misrepresentation is the act of intentional hiding or fabrication of a material fact which, if known to the other party, could have terminated, or significantly altered the basis of, a contract, deal, or transaction.  But, truth would be a defense to a claim of material misrepresentation.  Moreover, the UFC would have to prove that the industry source intentionally knew the PPV price and then gave a false number.

Having an attorney come out to refute a report and then provide the legal term “material misrepresentation” is a bit ominous.  Certainly, if the reports were not true, its within the right of the UFC to respond.  But, to provide a response with actually correcting the number seems short of a full explanation.  Being “six figures” short could mean that it did less than 150,000 as well as doing six figures more than 150,000 buys.  The inference here in the response is the possibility for legal action if there are inaccurate reports.  But, how do we know that they are inaccurate if not provided the real number.

Jury finds in favor of CM Punk in defamation trial brought by WWE doctor

June 5, 2018

Chicago Tribune reporter Gregory Pratt reports that a jury has found in favor of CM Punk and Colt Cabana in the defamation trial brought by WWE physician Chris Amann.  Per Pratt, the jury deliberated a couple hours before rendering their verdict.

After the podcast, in February 2015, Dr. Amann had sued Punk and Cabana after an infamous podcast where Punk did not hold back in giving his opinion of the physician’s treatment of an injury he sustained.

The doctor brought the suit in Cook County Circuit Court (IL) alleging that Punk and Cabana had made defamatory statements regarding his professional duties as a medical doctor for the company.  Specifically, it was Punk that gave his opinion of the doctor during the podcast.

SI posted an excellent legal analysis of the potential issues of the lawsuit prior to the verdict.  It gave the overarching issue of whether podcasts could be subject to defamation claims.

In closing, the lawyers for the WWE physician requested $3,989,000 in damages which amounted to $1 for ever person who downloaded Cabana’s podcast episode plus additional punitive damages.

Payout Perspective:

Testimony during the trial about the lump on the back of CM Punk appeared to be the key issue.  It was what Punk complained about during the podcast and there was testimony by Punk’s wife (A.J. Lee), massage therapist and others that corroborated Punk’s claim.  Although he may have sensationalized the issue on the podcast, the jury ultimately determined that he was telling the truth and was giving his opinion. Truth is an ultimate defense to defamation.  Notably, SI indicated that Punk was appearing in character on the podcast, which I am not sure was the case and I’m not clear if that hinged on the analysis.  As we know with litigation, it is not over until its over.  There are post-trial motions and the possibility for appeal.

As for Punk, he has his second fight of his UFC career this Saturday in Chicago

Plaintiffs file Reply Brief supporting class certification in Antitrust lawsuit

May 31, 2018

The Plaintiffs in the UFC Antitrust lawsuit have filed its Reply Brief in support of its motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs Reply ISO of Class Certification by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

Zuffa Oppo to Class Cert by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

The four factors for class action certification are the number of potential members of a class, the commonality of questions of law or fact, the typicality of the claims or defenses of the class and the adequacy of the representative classes.  In its, opposition brief, Zuffa took aim at the four factors in concluding that Plaintiffs have not served

Plaintiffs stress “four fundamental errors” in its reply brief.

First, Zuffa errs that there can be no legal challenge to its business practices.  Plaintiffs cite illegal conduct that allowed Zuffa an advantage in its industry.  The Plaintiffs rebut Zuffa’s assertion that wage level is the only way to evaluate compensation citing that its use is a way to masks Zuffa’s abuse of monopsony power.  Again, this is the overarching argument between wage level which measures compensation in dollars versus wage share which measures compensation as a percentage of revenues.

Second, Plaintiffs argue that Zuffa misunderstands the antitrust violation which is a scheme to acquire and maintain monopsony power.

Third, plaintiffs claim that Zuffa failed to respond to the ways in which they show common impact.  Plaintiffs claim that common evidence was capable of proving widespread harm across a class, courts usually certify classes in antitrust cases.

Finally, Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the class as it refutes Zuffa’s claim that challenges the typical damages may have left some proposed class members uninjured.  In refuting this argument, Plaintiffs argues that there is no law which must show all class members were harmed to satisfy the typicality requirement.

Zuffa also argues that since Plaintiffs are ex-fighters, they will not protect the interests of the current Fighters.  However, Plaintiffs cite case law stating that former employees may represent present employees.  Plaintiffs also cite the “transitory” nature of a fighters’ career.  Since they are independent contractors, it would be easy for Zuffa to insulate itself from a class action lawsuit as the promotion could release a fighter it believed would be part of a lawsuit.  Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that former fighters have less of a concern with retribution from the organization versus a current fighter bringing a lawsuit.

Payout Perspective:

As in most Reply Briefs, Plaintiffs support its initial motion while rebutting opposition from Zuffa’s response to the motion.  As will be one of the bigger issues in the “battle of the experts” is the calculation of damages through wage share or wage level.  Plaintiffs endorse the wage share model to determine whether fighter wages were suppressed through illegal conduct versus Zuffa’s claim that wage level should be used to evaluate whether there were any factors to show such illegal conduct on the part of Zuffa.  Of course, each version supported by the party helps their respective viewpoint.  The Reply addresses Dr. Singer’s expert report and his theory of Zuffa’s Foreclosure Share – the proportion of fighters subject to its exclusive contracts – affects its Wage Share.  Dr. Singer’s theory of liability model suggests that Zuffa’s Exclusive Contracts are part of an unlawful scheme which correlates with underpayment of fighters due to illegal foreclosure (i.e., the measure of damages).  MMA Payout will keep you updated.

Catching up with Zuffa’s Reply Briefing in Antitrust Lawsuit

May 30, 2018

As we prepare for another filing in the UFC Antitrust lawsuit this week, MMA Payout takes a look at the briefing in supporting the motion to exclude plaintiffs’ experts.

Earlier this month, Zuffa filed briefs in support of its Motion to Exclude the testimony of Dr. Andrew Zimbalist.  They seek to exclude the testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert case which allows the Court to determine whether certain expert testimony may be used at trial prior to trial.  The standard for admissibility is based on 5 factors which look to the scientific means of the method and whether they are generally accepted within the industry.  Zuffa argues that Dr. Zimbalist’s expert testimony as indicated in his submitted report conducted “no analysis and used no standards in his yardstick method.”

Zuffa Reply ISO Motion to Exclude Zimbalist by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

Zuffa argues that there are standards for the ‘yardstick method’ which Dr. Zimbalist uses, but he chose not to do so.   Specifically, Zuffa argues that Dr. Zimbalist did not conduct an empirical analysis of product markets, business models, revenue sources, or inputs.  According to Zuffa, Dr. Zimbalist did not consider any of the other factors that must be assessed using the yardstick method including “demand conditions or whether the comparators stand in the same relative position in their markets.”

In its analysis, the Dr. Zimbalist is measuring damages by wage share.  However, Zuffa argues that this measure is not accurate since it neglects to use individual salaries.  Zuffa argues, “[i]t is highly speculative for Dr. Zimbalist to assume without foundation that these hundreds of negotiations would add up to a similar wage share as the contractually define wage shares collectively bargained by the unions in the comparator sports.”

Zuffa goes on in its brief to argue that Dr. Zimbalist’s comparison to boxing is premised on faulty data as he uses Golden Boy to measure the entire boxing industry.  Zuffa argues that Dr. Zimbalist utilized data from another’s expert report in Golden Boy’s lawsuit against Al Haymon without independently verifying the data.

Finally, it argues that Dr. Zimbalist’s expert reports do not support Dr. Hal Singer’s expert reports and analysis and vice versa.

In supporting its motion to exclude Dr. Singer, Zuffa argues once again that wage share is not an acceptable practice for measuring damages.  Specifically, Zuffa takes issue with a regression analysis performed by Dr. Singer in his model.  Zuffa argues that the expert report finds anticompetitive effect which “directly contradicts” the fact that actual compensation has increased.  Second, the regression analysis performed by Dr. Singer shows that there is no anticompetitive effect and there is no relationship between the conduct and actual wages.

Zuffa Reply ISO Motion to Exclude Dr. Singer by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

The reply briefing to plaintiffs’ opposition to exclude their retained experts’ reports are based on the difference regarding wage share and actual wages.  The assertion by Zuffa is that “an analysis of wage share does not provide a reliable means of inferring anticompetitive effect, antitrust injury or damages because it cannot distinguish between a decrease in wage share as a result of the challenged conduct and a decrease as a result of legal and procompetitive business developments that increase overall revenues.”  Zuffa argues that there is no case law or economic literature supporting a regression analysis with wage share as a dependent variable inferring anticompetitive conduct.  Defendant also points out that the method would assume that a mandatory share of revenue is allocated for compensation. Yet, Zuffa compensates athletes based on “its perception of the athlete’s value and market forces, leading to a wide range of athlete compensation.”

Zuffa also argues that Dr. Singer’s reports do not show causality between his findings an the alleged anticompetitive conduct.  Zuffa claims that Dr. Singer’s regression analysis does not answer the key question of what proportion of increased revenues are attributable to athletes.  Rather, Dr. Singer relies upon economic theory which cannot replace Daubert standards according to Zuffa.

Ray Borg goes after former managers with commission complaint

May 29, 2018

MMA Junkie reports that Ray Borg has filed a complaint against the New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department alleging that his former management team was never licensed as a coach or manager.  His former management team sued Borg for unpaid commissions.

Junkie has a copy of the Amended Complaint filed by Wild Bunch Management, LLC in the Second Judicial District Court in the State of New Mexico.  Borg filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint on May 16, 2018 per court records.

The New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department oversees the state’s athletic commission and licenses athletic trainers.  Prior to his official court response, he filed the complaint with the commission claiming he committed multiple breaches of a management contract and was treated unfairly.

Payout Perspective:

The commission complaint is ancillary to the lawsuit filed by Borg’s former management although it seems like a scorched earth strategy as he claims in the complaint that his former manager held unsanctioned fights known as “smokers” illegally.  These claims are unlikely to deflect the claims made against Borg, but it will show that the flyweight is not the only one that may have been in the wrong.

UFC issues statement on Nick Diaz

May 27, 2018

The UFC has issued a statement on Nick Diaz in light of his arrest in Las Vegas on Thursday night related to domestic violence allegations.

Via UFC.com:

“UFC is aware of the recent arrest of middleweight athlete, Nick Diaz. The organization does not tolerate domestic violence and requires all athletes to adhere to the UFC Fighter Conduct Policy. Every athlete is deserving of due process and this situation, as with any official allegations, will be duly reviewed and thoroughly investigated by an independent party.”

Payout Perspective:

Despite not being active, Diaz is one of the more popular figures in the UFC.  The UFC understands this and it will be interesting to see how this issue is handled.  While there are rumors of the incident surfacing, its ultimately up to legal authorities in Vegas as to whether there is enough information to prosecute Diaz.  The UFC will give Diaz the benefit of the doubt, but there should be a point where the company must draw a line.

 

 

Next Page »