UFC Understands Importance of Lobbying
by Luke Thomas on Feb 4, 2009 1:33 PM EST
in MMA News
Email
PrintThere is legislation pending in Congress that could grant the federal government oversight of boxing and it turns out the UFC has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to ensure such regulation, if it passes, doesn't affect MMA. To wit:
"Back then, it was no holds barred, marketed as two men walk in, one man walks out," said Delrahim, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Bush administration. Now, he said, it's a mainstream sport that is sanctioned and regulated by athletic commissions in 37 states. Delrahim said his clients don't care whether boxing is regulated, as long as their sport isn't included.
...
McCain, who is sponsoring the boxing legislation in the Senate, declined to be interviewed. In a statement, he said the bill would "better protect professional boxing from the fraud, corruption and ineffective regulation that have plagued the sport for far too many years and that have devastated physically and financially many of our nation's professional boxers."
The bill's House sponsor is Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican who often spars in the boxing ring. He said there was no intent to cover mixed martial arts when the bill was drafted, and he didn't think the legislation would apply to it.
"It took me awhile to realize just how popular Ultimate Fighting is," King said. "I'm not crazy about it, either. I may just be too old-fashioned." But he said he'd prefer to keep the bill focused on boxing, because adding mixed martial arts might complicate chances for passage.
For those who want to cry about the influence of lobbying in government, I sympathize with your disdain. However, allow me to sprinkle a dose of reality over this matter: nothing - and I mean nothing - gets done for interest groups or causes in Washington, DC without a significant lobbying effort. You may decry the state of matters, but they are what they are. Our Senators and Congressman will very likely not pay attention to you - and believe me, it's difficult for them to do so - unless there are professionals in place who know how to get their attention and make the requisite ask.
Hats off to the UFC for understanding how paramount it is to be involved in lobbying. Hopefully their efforts pan out and our sport continues to be protected from overreaching self-important senators.
41 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
no surprises here
You have to know though, lobbyists or not, if this boxing legislation passes, MMA will not be terribly far behind. Almost on a daily basis the arm of government intervention reaches further and further into the lives of Americans.
The best thing they could do is to let boxing continue to fail, until it hits rock bottom, and either disappears, or comes back more efficient and more organized. Instead, it sounds like there will be some kind of Federal boxing commission, aka, another tax payer funded bureaucracy. Is a Federal bailout of boxing next?
Highly doubt it
This is legislation being proposed by two crusty old politicians who also happen to be boxing fans in an attempt to reign in and prop up a sport that has been rotting and festering from the inside for years. By their own words, they could care less about MMA, and if you got them off the record, I assume they would consider it nothing more than a passing fad. MMA presents an entirely different promotion/organizational environment (at least right now), and I don’t think anyone in Congress has much interest in even proposing legislation to introduce federal regulation of MMA organizations.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Feb 4, 2009 1:58 PM EST up reply actions
Just so yo know, I share the love of the greatest sport on earth, but I guess I disagree with you on this. I’ve been a diehard fan of MMA goin on about 13 yrs now, and a supporter of the “Muhammed Ali Boxing Amendment” ever since I heard of it. It’s my understanding that the federal oversight commission, if created, would implement the amendment to MMA. Alot of detractors cry “interference”, and spout self regulation rhetoric, but seem to just be happy with the status quo. I, for one, have a hard time defending self regulation when the largest promotion spends millions on lobbying, marketing new European/South Asian/Central American territories, opening up new gym chains, and ripping fighters off for their ancillary rights for a video game. All the while the bottom fighter on their card makes $2000 to lose an National T.V.. To top it off this same company is now trying to implement 360 degree contracts to the fighters. Thus stopping the fighters from getting their own sponsorships. It obligates the promotion to provide sponsorships, but also give the promotion a cut of THOSE dollars. Meaning that ‘said promotion’ will control virtually every dollar the fighter makes, plus gets a cut. This has got to end, and unbelievably the MMA blog community remains largely ignorant of the fact that Senator John McCain, formerly OUR biggest enemy, is now the MMA fighter’s biggest protector at the federal level.
by bubbafat on Feb 4, 2009 1:11 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
the govt screws everything up
wars, healthcare, bailouts, welfare, steroid investigations…
Nothing the government sticks their hands in gets fixed. No reason to think they could improve boxing/mma. No fighter has to fight for the UFC. If there weren’t fighters who would fight for 2,000, then nobody would get paid that amount. If the fighters aren’t happy with their pay, they should do something about it. Start a union, protest, start their own promotion, go work somewhere else. If somebody is willing to get punched in the head on tv for $2,000 then so be it. I don’t want the govt, or my tax dollars regulating the product I buy, when I choose to buy it.
Agreed, but Dana fired Fitch for not signing over his lifetime video game likeness, what do you think would happen to anyone even talking about unionization?
That's great, but how does it affect Lyoto Machida?
that’s the idea of a union. If the collective group of employees feels mistreated, they can unionize to present a united front, and give equal leverage to fighters at all levels. If Kalib Starnes tries to start a union and wants to sanction stalling tactics, and none of the other fighters are interested, who is to blame? The UFC? Not sure about Nevada, but if the UFC were based in Ohio, they can fire at will as long as they are not discriminatory.
Unionizing doesn't work well against a monopoly
How well has unionizing worked against Walmart the ZUFFA of the big store world??
ZUFFA has 10X the market share that Walmart does of the retail world. If you unionize against ZUFFA they’ll breach your contract, release you to go fight nowhereville, drag your name and reputation through the mud – try and put whatever tiny organization you went to out of business and then fire anybody else that ever associated themselves with you too.
They’d probably kill your wife and kids too if they had to
Gimme 1 Round!
the point of a union is that they make it so Dana can’t fire everyone.
If every fighter got together and said, ’we’re not signing this, and if you fire anyone for not signing it we all quit" Dana wouldn’t be able to have fired Fitch.
The problem now, is that to do that, the fighters at the top will have to give up too much for the fighters at the bottom, and that’s why it’s not happening.
All the while the bottom fighter on their card makes $2000 to lose an National T.V.
That has always bothered me. I know that the UFC has shown a willingness to take care of seriously injured fighters(Corey Hill), but 2 grand hardly seems enough to cover the expenses of training let alone payment for getting kicked in the teeth.
That's great, but how does it affect Lyoto Machida?
Don’t forget that they make sponsorship money and who knows what else.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
zuffa now gets a cut of that
and its gotta be by a preapproved sponser thats probably already bribing zuffa to have their name on the broadcast
Gimme 1 Round!
I believe they sign on the dotted line saying they’re willing to get kicked in the teeth for $2000. I come to work every day and have jackasses shit on me for my measily pay. You don’t see me wanting the government come in and regulate my boss. (actually I wouldn’t mind it). See the thing is, if I get tired of being shit on I can say “screw this job” and find another line of work, just like the fighter that signed for the $2000.
MMA is like any other job that people actually dream of doing; until you hit it big you get paid dick. See artists, writers, and musicians; living in a van or the like is nearly mandatory. The value in doing a $2000 fight for the UFC is being a UFC fighter and getting that exposure. If you do well, you make more. Most of the pay comes from the exposure and the opportunities that come from fighting in the UFC.
Yeah, except to make it big isn’t as much to do with skill and talent, as it is with marketability… in the present system. I want to see the best, regardless of whether they speak English or even do a crappy interview. The UFC has complete control over THEIR product. Title fights are favourites( i know I’ll get slammed for that one, but true), strong arm tactics in their contract talks. We’re, essentially, seeing Don King without any reigns.
Who can support that? And as far as government screwing up everything it gets it’s hands on as far as regulation goes, self regulation helped us alot at Wall Street lately didn’t it? Self regulation helped with the predatory mortgage lending didn’t it? And Enron’s energy brokering deals? I don’t like it as much as the next guy , but in some fields it’s just plain necessary to get any accountability when their is imbalance or some sort of screw up.
I don’t want to get to far away from MMA, but regulation was/is certainly present in the examples you gave.
by Cannon Jacques on Feb 4, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
The current economic problems are largely a result of government intervention in the first place.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
yeah, not to get too far away from fighting, but without the government and/or FED creating the bubble, you don’t have excess money/credit lying around for “predatory lenders” to lend.
If a teacher passes out pixie sticks to a kindergarten class and leaves the room, and when she comes back, the room is destroyed, who’s fault is it?
btw
btw, the self regulation we’re referring to here, is us, the fans not paying for pay per views. If the people who support the sport, don’t like whats going on behind the scenes, we can elect to not buy the payper view. Losing business will speak much greater volumes than some washington bureaucrat telling Boxing, or MMA organizations what they can and cant do.
Main card (Televised):
205 lbs.: Lyoto Machida (13-0) vs. Thiago Silva (13-0)
205 lbs.: Stephan Bonnar (11-4) vs. Jon Jones (6-0)
155 lbs.: Nate Diaz (10-2) vs. Clay Guida (24-9)
170 lbs.: Karo Parisyan (18-5) vs. Dong Hyun "Stun Gun" Kim (11-0-1)
Under card (May not be broadcast):
170 lbs.: Jon Fitch (17-3) vs. Akihiro Gono (29-13-7)
155 lbs.: Manny Gamburyan vs. Thiago Tavares
170 lbs.: Chris Wilson (14-4) vs. John Howard (10-4)
265 lbs.: Jake O’Brien vs. Christian Wellisch
170 lbs.: Matt "No Regard" Arroyo (3-2) vs. Daniel Cramer (0-0)
If the average unknown under card fighter made, say $50000 to show, how many undercard fights do you think they would pay for? Two, maybe, and rely on padding if those two didn’t fill out a short main card?
Everything has tradeoffs; if unknown fighters get paid more, there will be less fights for them. I don’t think struggling new fighters as a whole would think that was such a great thing.
Sheesh. I’m not talking extremes here. $50000 where did that come from? I’m thinking $2000 to lose, plus a $2500 match by the promotion for insurance for each and every fighter. That’s, give or take, 50k each show(should be double) . Any insurance above that, the fighter can purchase themselves, but SOME coverage by the employer would be nice. Not just an arbitrary “We feel sorry for you Cory Hill” cash handout. That was more like a " Crap, how may people saw that?" cash handout. Plus, if they want exclusive contracts, don’t make them sign their character rights away. I mean, how much can they make off the video game anyways? And it’s just plain slimy. On top of it all, don’t touch their sponsors. Leave the fighters only other stream of revenue alone. That’s all I ask if they don’t want me to support the boxing amendment.
Lastly, they’ve been talking 1.3 million PPV buy’s. What I propose is small potato’s.
Sheesh. I’m not talking extremes here. $50000 where did that come from? I’m thinking $2000 to lose, plus a $2500 match by the promotion for insurance for each and every fighter. That’s, give or take, 50k each show(should be double) . Any insurance above that, the fighter can purchase themselves, but SOME coverage by the employer would be nice. Not just an arbitrary “We feel sorry for you Cory Hill” cash handout. That was more like a " Crap, how may people saw that?" cash handout. Plus, if they want exclusive contracts, don’t make them sign their character rights away. I mean, how much can they make off the video game anyways? And it’s just plain slimy. On top of it all, don’t touch their sponsors. Leave the fighters only other stream of revenue alone. That’s all I ask if they don’t want me to support the boxing amendment.
Lastly, they’ve been talking 1.3 million PPV buy’s. What I propose is small potato’s.
You didn’t say anything about insurance before; I took it as a general they aren’t getting paid enough sort of argument. The $50,000 number was my minimum of what I would consider decent pay for the amount of work these guys put into being ready for the fight.
I mean...
I don’t think undercard fighters deserve 200k a year….
I didn’t say anything about them making exorbitant amounts of money either. All I’m saying is the field should be balanced. Lorenzo Fertitta’s estimated earnings last year were the upside of 100 000 000 dollars. That is just from Station casino’s.And just Lorenzo, not Frank. With PPV buys estimated around the million mark the last couple’a shows I wouldn’t doubt if Zuffa made a clear 200 000 000 last year(EASY and I’m no economics expert). In my opinion a little more of that should filter down to the fighters. The excuse that they can’t afford insurance is a tough sell to me. I simply want much better regard/representation for the fighters from the BIGGEST promotion in the world.
And quit handing me rhetoric like “Everyone wants more money” when you’re the one with all the money.
Then it’s pointless talking with you.
How can you say that them not being able to afford insurance is a tough sell? Do you know what construction workers have to pay for insurance? Do you know how many of them are independent contractors who have to buy their own insurance because the main companies can’t/won’t pay for it? It’s very believable that they can’t afford health insurance for fighters.
this is the classic, collectivism vs individuality argument. You’re saying because Lorenzo and Frank made some great moves, and built something successful, that someone, who already benefits from the Fertitta’s should get to benefit more from them just because “they can afford it.” You’re suggesting the redistribution of wealth, through regulation, which is exactly what the government is doing now with all these bailouts. You want to take wealth from guys who are really really good at what they do (frank, lorenzo, and dana) and give it to guys who aren’t that good at what that they do, and take fights for $2000 a pop. Why? Why punish success and subsidize mediocrity? Just like the government is distributing tax dollars from successful people and businesses and giving it to failing businesses.
BTW. If the UFC is lobbying against this regulation. Does that mean it’s come full circle, and is running from regulation again? 2 steps forward 3 steps back.
I think they’re trying to avoid badly-crafted regulation that doesn’t really serve the needs of the sport. Not every regulation is a positive step, you know. Regulation isn’t a mythical cure-all.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Feb 4, 2009 5:10 PM EST up reply actions
That’s a gross over-simplification of the situation. The legislation was crafted specifically in response to the dynamics of the boxing world which have developed over decades. The dynamics of the business of MMA are very different. I have nothing against protecting fighters from swindling managers and bullying promoters, but I have no interest in:
A) any legislation that would treat all combat sports the same. Part of the reason that many boxing promoters fail in MMA is that they don’t understand the differences in the business, and I have a tough time seeing legislators, who are even further removed from the situation, avoiding making similar mistakes with more disasterous results. Besides, I work for a government bureaucracy, and I know first hand that they tend to be filled with well-intentioned people who are handicapped by prevailing political influence and a complete lack of competence…
B) any legislation that centralizes authority over the sport into a bureaucratic structure that has no stake in the sport beyond exercising that authority. I don’t see how it’s in the best interests of the fighters to have an oversight body that functions in that manner, and as I read this legislation (a caveat: as a Canadian, I don’t have the firmest grasp of American legalities, so I’m willing to be corrected on this), that’s pretty much what would happen for boxing. Boxing, splintered into rival promotions with corrupt relationships between shady managers, needs that oversight for the moment to have some sort of accountability established. I’m just not sure that MMA does.
Since any critique should include an alternative, here’s mine. My preference would be one of two models. First, a union-type alliance of “MMA workers”, though I wouldn’t restrict it to fighters but would include trainers and cornermen, etc., making it harder for a promotion to break resistance by just blackballing fighters. Second would be a centralized body of people involved in all levels of the sport acting as mediators for dispute resolution – think WAMMA with credibility, and less of a need to control the sport (acting as a resource and reactive body would be much better). But either of these would be years away even if the will to develop them existed; frankly, I’d rather wait to see things overseen properly and by those who are legitimately involved in the sport that see MMA crammed under sweeping, inadequate legislation. But I’m an anarchist, so I’m always looking for voluntary methods of regulation than the heavy hand of government.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
About the UFC ancilliary rights contracts...
Most athletes in NFL, MLB and NBA all pretty much sign away their likeness rights comparably to what the UFC is asking don’t they?
I mean UFC fighters can cut deals outside of the UFC just like athletes from other sports.
I don’t see it being that much different compared to other sports.
They also get
FAT royalty rights for the duration of it – and its not for LIFE. ZUFFA they don’t get jack for royalties and its for the rest of their lives
Gimme 1 Round!
IF GSP signed that shit
He can’t make “GSP’s TAKEDOWN!” Or whatever bullshit MMA game he wants to promote in the future
Gimme 1 Round!
The tone here seems all wrong. MMA is now and will continue to be regulated. The question is: who regulates, the state ACs or a new federal body? I think there’s a lot to be said for the uniformity and increased resources that a federal regulator would provide.
Further, this bill seems good in some important respects for the UFC— most obviously, a federal MMA authority would probably preempt the ability of state legislatures like NY’s to continue to ban MMA events. I think the real reason the UFC objects to federal regulation is the fear of a stronger overseer, one that might push for enhanced fighter protections that would cost the UFC money.
Finally, look at the other organizations objecting to the legislation: boxing sanctioning authorities like the IBF and the WBF. Demonstrably corrupt sanctioning bodies are enemies of this bill— why do you think that is?
you’ve missed the entire point of the “united states.” State governments are supposed to have more say for their citizens than the federal govt. If people in NY don’t want MMA, that’s their right. If the representatives of NY refuse to pass legislation in favor of MMA despite a majority of new yorkers supporting mma, then that is taxation without representation. Otherwise, if a majority of New Yorkers oppose MMA, then mma should remain banned in that state.
If you want representatives at a Federal level to preempt your local elected officals, then you’re missing the point of the United States of America.
Finally, if you suggest that it is wrong to oppose federal sanctioning of boxing because corrupt organizations also oppose the sanctioning then your argument is by definition fallacy.
you’re totally right. the UFC is fighting this bill for reasons of federalism. thanks for clearing that up.
and my logic is not: party X is bad, party X dislikes bill Y, so bill Y is good. what i’m saying is: what do these organizations stand to lose if the bill passes? i think the clear answer is that they lose some influence over boxing. i think it’s possible too that the UFC would stand to lose some influence over MMA if the bill were to extend to them.
by boxingstudent on Feb 5, 2009 9:36 AM EST up reply actions
What’s the least amount of money a player can make in any major sport, where there is a player’s association or union? What other football teams/orgs can a pro football player play with when contracted to a team(other than a farm team)? They make enough they don’t need to get their own sponsors right? I fail to see the similarities. Not to mention, any one of those players can file a grievance with the league(not an athletic commission) without fear of consequences. These guys are willing to fulfill their dreams without the money, it’s up to us to make sure some more of our PPV dollars get to them.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
