• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

MMA Payout

The Business of Combat Sports

  • Home
  • MMA
    • UFC
    • Bellator
    • One
    • PFL
  • Boxing
  • Legal
  • Ratings
  • Payouts
  • Attendance
  • Gate

Bennett explains the need for Zuffa to co-promote

August 24, 2017 by Jason Cruz Leave a Comment

Earlier this week Nevada Athletic Commission Executive Director Bob Bennett explained why Zuffa needed to apply to be a co-promoter for Saturday’s Mayweather-McGregor fight.  He also offered an unfulfilling explanation of a promoter in Nevada.

Bennett’s explanation as to why Zuffa need to be a co-promoter for Saturday’s event is that it needed to pay Conor McGregor.  It pointed to a Nevada Athletic Commission regulation NAC 467.112(2) which prohibits a promoter from paying an unarmed combatant.  Here, Floyd Mayweather as promoter could not pay Conor McGregor due to this rule.  As such, Zuffa had to apply for the license.

In the interview with MMA Fighting, Bennett noted that Zuffa’s license as promoter does not specifically identify it as a boxing license but merely as promoter.  The importance of this is that it may or may not preclude Zuffa from availing itself to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.

Payout Perspective:

The timing of the application, the last commission hearing before the fight, seems curious to me considering Zuffa could have applied for this from the outset.  Moreover, it appeared that Zuffa would allow Mayweather and Showtime as the fight’s producer and PPV distributor to take the driver’s seat while Zuffa would assist on its platforms.  This new explanation seems viable, while at the same time seems to be a safeguard against any withholding of money by Mayweather Promotions.  At one point, I had believed that McGregor had his own promotion company affixed to this event.  Now, it seems that Zuffa is the one representing the MMA side of this fight.  It does seem interesting that Zuffa need not indicate what type of promoter it is.  Whether or not it is inferred that it is promoting a boxing match and automatically avails itself to the Ali Act is a question that I would like to be answered.  If it’s a loophole to avoid dealing with the Ali Act, it might raise some eyebrows.

Filed Under: Boxing vs. MMA, Mayweather-McGregor

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Featured

Senate makes mockery of Ali Act hearing

Wrestlemania 42 attendance dips from 2025

How will WWE’s big weekend turn out?

UFC 327 attendance, gate and bonuses

Plaintiffs seeking $270K from Dominance MMA

UFC Seattle attendance, gate and bonuses

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

Senate makes mockery of Ali Act hearing #boxing #TKO #UFC #Zuffa #ZuffaBoxing https://mmapayout.com/2026/04/22/senate-makes-mockery-of-ali-act-hearing/

People who do martial arts will laugh and tell me it’s fake. But then I ask them why they do martial arts? 😉

Fightful Wrestling @Fightful

Fox Sports Host Rob Parker Doesn't Understand How Grown Men Are Into Wrestling https://www.fightful.com/wrestling/fox-sports-host-rob-parker-doesnt-understand-how-grown-men-are-into-wrestling

I saw Tamaso at SeaTac airport last Thursday

Roman Reigns SZN 💥 @reigns_era

Good god.

#AEWDynamite

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Per WWE,

#WrestleMania 42 became one of the highest-grossing events in company history, with record or near-record performances across gate, sponsorship, merchandise, WWE World, On Location VIP experiences and digital.

WrestleMania Saturday was the most-viewed telecast of the

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

I should point out that according to those at TKO that the ESPN/MVPW boxing deal is a revenue sharing agreement similar to the original AEW/Turner deal in 2019 and not a full paying media rights deal which Top Rank had and wasn't renewed.

Load More

Copyright © 2026 · MMA Payout: The Business of Combat Sports