Inside the UFC's Lawsuit Against Quinton "Rampage" Jackson
by Michael Rome on Feb 19, 2010 7:49 PM EST
in MMA News
Email
Print
Seemingly slipping past everyone’s notice, on November 3, 2009, the UFC filed a lawsuit against Quinton "Rampage" Jackson seeking declaratory relief on Jackson’s contract in a Las Vegas courtroom. The complaint details the dispute with Jackson over his decision to pull out of UFC 107, as well as the communications between Jackson’s management and the UFC.
According to the complaint, on September 22, 2009, Jackson posted a blog on his website stating he was done fighting. The UFC took this to be an official statement of retirement, and exercised their right under the promotional agreement to suspend the contract pending Jackson’s return to the UFC. After sending Jackson a letter notifying him of the suspension, Jackson’s manager, Anthony McGann, responded with a letter stating that Jackson was ready to renegotiate his contract. The letter also threatens to proceed "in the courts" if Zuffa is unwilling to renegotiate.
The complaint asserts that Jackson is intentionally trying to extort the UFC into renegotiating his deal under threat of running out his promotional agreement. The UFC brought this action to get a declaratory judgment stating that Jackson’s refusal to fight and statements that he was "done fighting" constitute a retirement that allows them to exercise their rights under the promotional agreement, including the right to suspend the agreement and thus toll the term of the contract.
A letter from Jackson’s attorneys argues that retirement requires certain notice provisions under the promotional agreement, and because Jackson did not meet those requirements, his "blog" does not constitute a real retirement.
There has been no further action on this issue since the initial complaint.
To boil the dispute down to simpler terms, the issue is Jackson's current contract and when it ends. Jackson wants his period away from the UFC to count towards his contractual term; the UFC is arguing that since he retired they were able to properly suspend the term for that period.
101 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice job Mike. Where are the people who were denying Rampage’s beef with the UFC and subsequent holdout wasn’t about money?
by Jonathan Snowden on Feb 19, 2010 5:02 PM EST reply actions
It was very obvious that his whole retirement was about money. The fact that he still has fights on his current deal and wants to renegotiate is veeery close to extortion. I don’t see how anyone can find him in the right.
twitter.com/thisredengine
by Matthew Roth on Feb 19, 2010 5:05 PM EST up reply actions
Very obvious to who? Go back and look at the online commentary and take notice of how many who said money wasn’t a factor.
Follow me on Twitter: @MMANation.
I think after the initial blitz, it become more obvious. A lot of his complaining, at least in my mind, seemed very “I deserve this and I wanted treated like that!” sort of ranting… like he wanted money. The initial post didn’t seem so much, but it always seemed as if he was saying something about feeding his kids in other interviews as well.
Maybe I’m in the minority, but Rampage seems very much peeved about money a lot of the time. He might not directly say that, but some of the shit he says makes me think that.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Feb 19, 2010 5:08 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with you. Rampage has long complained or at least made compensation his issue. I’m just suggesting there were plenty who didn’t agree, which is rather baffling.
Follow me on Twitter: @MMANation.
This is true.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Feb 19, 2010 5:11 PM EST up reply actions
Luke, you’re always saying that you hate trolls and morons. Both of these groups would argue that it’s not about money. But to people who understand business don’t buy into the “he deserves more money just cause” argument. It’s always been about money. Shit he even said it was cause he was making more money making A-Team.
twitter.com/thisredengine
by Matthew Roth on Feb 19, 2010 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
So to recap
Rampage asking to re-negotiate his contract is extortion. The UFC not honoring a contract is smart business. Got it.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
by aaronb on Feb 19, 2010 5:59 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
How are they not honoring the contract? He decided to bail on a scheduled fight. Still has fights on the contract and wants to renegotiate his deal before coming back to fight. Please explain how this is not extortion.
twitter.com/thisredengine
by Matthew Roth on Feb 19, 2010 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
The UFC is honouring the contract.
The worst possible outcome for them is the court rules that Rampage didn’t retire, and thus his contract runs out sooner than the UFC would like.
But Rampage demanding renegotiation before then is extortion.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
The fact that he still has fights on his current deal and wants to renegotiate is veeery close to extortion.
I don’t know about that, contract renegotiations are a pretty normal thing in pro sports. NBA athletes will ink new contracts when they have a year or three remaining on their current ones. And UFC routinely renegotiates contracts well before they terminate.
I’m reading this as Rampage wants more money before returning to fight.
twitter.com/thisredengine
by Matthew Roth on Feb 19, 2010 6:07 PM EST up reply actions
There is a difference though
in the NBA or NFL a player can ask for more money and the team can grant it but the team can also say no.
If they say no and said player chooses to “holdout”, said player is fined everyday during that holdout.
In the UFC’s case if they say no to renogotiate, they either have to cut said fighter or said fighter holds out without getting fined and no consequences besides not getting paid.
Other pro sports give contract extensions, they rarely if ever raise the value of an existing contract.
by ufc4 on Feb 19, 2010 6:25 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
What?
So guys in other sports never get salary increases when they resign contracts? What sports do you speak of exactly?
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
Usually they resign at the end of their contract, not in the middle of it. You don’t say oh wait, I know I signed a document but I want more money so let’s renegotiate.
twitter.com/thisredengine
by Matthew Roth on Feb 19, 2010 7:04 PM EST up reply actions
Right
Apparently aaronb can’t read- I didn’t say they don’t get raises, but if they have a year left on their deal they don’t typically get a raise for the year that’s still left, they get a raise in the 4 or 5 years they add on to the contract.
NFL contracts
Since UFC and NFL contracts are both non guaranteed I consider them more similar that the other main sports. The NFL holdout routinely leads to néw contracts. Not contract extensons. See Josh Cribbs as a prime example. I still say that as long as the UFC can cut guys from contracts ay will. Fighters should be able to use their own leverage to get themselves paid.
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
The Difference is...
NFL players have somewhere else to go to get more money, another NFL team. UFC fighters do not. DW holds all the cards. Strikeforce does not and can not pay more.
I wish Bodog offered odds on who would win lawsuits.
by dumbwhiteguy on Feb 19, 2010 5:04 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
yeah, I also said a number of times that I would kill someone, but I never had the intent to do it. Unless Rampage officially told the UFC he was done, the UFC has no right in this lawsuit IMO.
Pain is Temporary
Pride is Forever
I think you are right that this is what it all comes down to. What constitutes notification. I would be surprised if the contract didn’t require written notification of a retirement.
by Jonathan Snowden on Feb 19, 2010 5:20 PM EST up reply actions
Also, technically if you threaten to walk out of a job technically that’s a resignation. Even just as a threat.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 19, 2010 7:53 PM EST up reply actions
Really? Rampage drops out of a fight to take what basically boils down to a leave of absence in order to act all the while saying he was done fighting, yet that time he spent away should count towards his UFC contract? I don’t think so.
by ufc4 on Feb 19, 2010 5:22 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I think so! lol, calm down dude, the UFC has the right to cut people from their roster if they want to, not to suspend their contracts and renegotiate them when there was no phone call nor emails, etc, from Rampage’s side telling them he was done. If they are mad at Rampage than cut him loose.
Pain is Temporary
Pride is Forever
This is the same shit as what happened with Randy.
If you paid someone to build you a house in 1 year would they be able to walk away at the end of the year without finishing the house?
He had a contract for x fights in a certain amount of time. The UFC wouldn’t be able to not give him all of those fights, why should he be able to walk away without fighting all of those fights?
I think this is much different than Randy, as Randy was trying to leave to fight for someone else.
Pain is Temporary
Pride is Forever
the UFC wouldn’t have a problem with that. Just like they didn’t have a problem with Randy taking those options.
of course, but the problem here is that the UFC suspended his contract, they didn’t cut him from their roster, so now they have to renegotiate and if they put a smaller amount, I can see Rampage taking it to the courts as well, and possibly winning it.
Pain is Temporary
Pride is Forever
yep, you’re right, I misunderstood that part. If the contract stays the way it is now, than it’s all good, Rampage doesn’t really have a say in getting more money.
Pain is Temporary
Pride is Forever
Yea, it’s stupid english, that’s why I came up with the Randy example. Rampage is trying to say the time he was retired should count towards the time on his contract, the UFC says it doesn’t, and they’re suing to get a court to agree to that before that time comes.
The time he was out counting toward his contract will be very simple. The question is whether or not he was “retired” pursuant to the language of his contract.
The only other detail is if his time filming a movie constitutes fulfillment of the contract. While other fighters have filmed movies, they were minor roles where they were not away for lengthy periods of time. So should the UFC be responsible while he’s off pursuing other opportunities.
twitter.com/thisredengine
by Matthew Roth on Feb 19, 2010 6:10 PM EST up reply actions
Not necessarily an issue.
If doing that didn’t violate the terms of his contract then they don’t have a leg to stand on. According to this article they are only trying to determine the status of his contract suspension; the suspension being based on his “retirement” via blog posting. This would be a breach of contract case if he was out doing something he wasn’t supposed to be doing. They just want his contract suspended during that time due to his supposed retirement. Therefore, whether or not he retired is (appears to be with the limited information) the only issue.
btw, no one is required to fight, even DW himself said this. The problem arises when someone is bind in contract and is trying to fight for another promotion, which was Randy’s case, it’s not Rampage’s…
Pain is Temporary
Pride is Forever
So what is Rampage’s case? I want you to pay more? It’s the same thing, they both wanted out of their contracts
the UFC is the one who supposedly suspended his contract, they are the one with the allegations. Rampage is not making the case here.
Pain is Temporary
Pride is Forever
There very well could have been a call or text from Rampage to Dana saying he was done.
by ufc4 on Feb 19, 2010 5:34 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
we don’t know that, plus, if all they got is “it was on his blog” that doesn’t really make me think he sent a text…
Pain is Temporary
Pride is Forever
But he didn’t just post something on his blog, he dropped out of a fight they spent months of time and a lot of money hyping.
by ufc4 on Feb 19, 2010 5:41 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
he can get out of a fight if he wishes to do so, and the UFC has the right to cut him from their roster if they wish to do so. All I’m saying here is that you were assuming he sent a text or something that we don’t know, all the complain says is that they read on his website that he was done fighting.
Pain is Temporary
Pride is Forever
I’m not assuming anything I’m just saying we don’t know most of the story so the blog could very easily not be the only thing they have against him. And I don’t get why you keep bringing up that the UFC could cut him, the contract gives them a lot more outs than it does the fighters.
by ufc4 on Feb 19, 2010 5:51 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
well if they had a text from Rampage I’d assume that weighs more in a courtroom than a simple blog, so the complaint wouldn’t just state “well, we saw on his blog him saying he was done fighting…”, they’d say, “we got a text from Rampage saying he wants to retire”.
Pain is Temporary
Pride is Forever
i'm kinda dense
but didn’t rampage say he was done (via website or whatever) , then drop out of his fight with rashad. I would think that constitutes that he doesn’t wan to fight anymore. My 2 cents
I take that back
his stated reason for backing out of that fight was shooting conflict with the a-team. Just ignore me, i’m here for my own amusement
The distinction here is that “should” has very little to do with it. If his contract laid out a retirement framework, then either he satisfied it or he didn’t. His antics, while a little juvenile, aren’t material to the case.
The thing is that even if the UFC loses in court, they’re still his boss, and it’s never a good idea to bite the hands that feed.
FYI threatening harm (if deemed credible by the person who received it) is a crime in many countries, such as Canada. Similarly the threat to retire, if it was deemed credible by the UFC (which it was), would serve as reasonable grounds to suspend the contract. So the UFC is well within its rights, and I would be willing to be the farm Dana wins.
I have a question, Rome...
Don’t contracts normally have retirement clauses that associate what constitutes a legal retirement from a contract or company? I thought some did. It seems like Rampage posting a blog wouldn’t legally hold up in court.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
I work in contract law and yes, usually that would be the case.
I don’t think the UFC is stupid enough, however, to just initiate legal action if they had no leg to stand on. Too expensive. Especially when it seems so clear to us, who have no idea what the contract says.
For the record...
I don’t think there’s enough information for anyone to choose a side yet. Filing a Complaint is very easy and can easily lead to absolutely nothing. This could just be posturing by the UFC to tilt negotiations their way.
Bullshit
This is the internet, I don’t need ANY info to choose a side.
by ufc4 on Feb 19, 2010 5:38 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
True. True.
I just think it’s funny how people get so worked up about a Complaint. A Complaint is such a basic, everyday legal document that it’s not even funny. I honestly think this is just posturing seeing as they haven’t proceeded past the initial stage.
Yeah but a complaint by the UFC against one of it’s biggest fighters isn’t so common.
by ufc4 on Feb 19, 2010 5:46 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Oh of course not.
But I certainly think it makes sense if I’m correct about the posturing, considering he has a scheduled fight during a contract dispute.
Oh definitely, I doubt this will ever end up in an actual courtroom but it’s still very interesting.
by ufc4 on Feb 19, 2010 5:56 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
UFC's lawsuit makes sense.
Think of it this way….
I’m a music promoter and I spent a ton of money promoting a concert. The artist decides to go do something else and cancels on me…. I would be pissed and sue for damages.
Rampage knew that he would fight Evans at the end of the show. He had been through the process in his lead up to the fight with Griffin.
By the way, He’s been dealing with the whole A-Team movie since late 08’. He could have given the UFC a heads up. He was talking about the movie on Jimmy Kimmel on June 6th, 2008. Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m31bNNNTTlw
by snakecharmer1340 on Feb 19, 2010 5:14 PM EST reply actions
I think this lawsuit has more to do with the UFC’s right to suspend his contract than him leaving to do the A-team. They can’t sue specifically because Rampage bailed out on them to do a movie.
Pain is Temporary
Pride is Forever
Right. It will come down to whether a blog post constitutes a notification of retirement.
by Jonathan Snowden on Feb 19, 2010 5:24 PM EST up reply actions
I know guys.
It’s an indirect way for the UFC to hold on to him longer. A legal F U to Rampage. That’s just as good as money to Dana and the rest of the UFC brass.
by snakecharmer1340 on Feb 19, 2010 5:28 PM EST up reply actions
I think what it will really come down to is whether they had any sort of contract (either written or verbal) for the fight with Rashad at 107. I would think the blog post coupled with him dropping out of the Rashad fight would present a pretty strong case for Zuffa.
by ufc4 on Feb 19, 2010 5:29 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
no they can’t, if they could they would have that option instead of the one they are currently using.
Pain is Temporary
Pride is Forever
Maybe I misunderstood you. No they can’t sue him for not fighting that particular fight but if he doesn’t complete the number of fights on his contract in the allotted time they can sue him.
by ufc4 on Feb 19, 2010 5:45 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
i believe they arent suing him because they dont want him to leave,just prolong his time there under his current deal.as for suing him for not fighting i would bet that they could because im sure they have a clause in their contracts about pulling out of a signed fight for other reasons rather than injury.
they aren’t trying to get money from him right now, they are jumping the gun and getting a judge to say when Rampage’s contract ends before that time comes. They want to get out in front so they don’t run into some crazy situation like they did with Randy (which was complicated by Mark Cuban doing his own legal wrangling to get the trial in Texas). Rampage’s people threatened to go to the courts, it makes sense for the UFC to make sure they have home court advantage.
Don’t forget that your concert was in the hometown of the headlining band.
by ufc4 on Feb 19, 2010 5:24 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
The UFC definitely isn’t interested in cutting Rampage a break after all they feel they’ve done for him through his personal problems through to trying to book Rampage/Rashad in Memphis.
Frankly I don’t blame the UFC and I’d be working hard to put the screws to Rampage for awhile, remind him of the things they’ve done for him.
I'm sure I'm not alone
in my belief that Quinton ‘Rampage’ Jackson is the finest legal mind america has produced since the heyday of John Jay.
I’m also sure that a purple striped kitty that lives on the moon controls my thoughts at night, though.
by some schmuck in texas on Feb 19, 2010 5:28 PM EST reply actions
This wont affect 114 and Rashad/Rampage right?
Because that’s all I really care about. It’s been way too long since we’ve seen Rampage back in action.
Yeah it certainly shouldn't.
I think if this was such a huge deal Dana would’ve already begun his smear campaign.
Legal stuff?
I like cupcakes.
Keep firing Assholes!
I don't know what I'm talking aboot.
by Ubernoober on Feb 19, 2010 6:34 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
We are free to enjoy any pastry treat we wish.
Keep firing Assholes!
I don't know what I'm talking aboot.
UFC contracts are pretty clear and Rampage is going to learn the same lesson Randy found out, you don’t fuck over the UFC without repercussions. It really does amaze me that guys in MMA don’t learn from history and keep repeating the same stupid mistakes.
Has anyone successfully challenged anything at all in a UFC contract? I can’t remember anyone winning one of these battles.
Just BE.
Nobody has really gone all the way through with it. The cases tend to settle.
by Michael Rome on Feb 19, 2010 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
Any think that maybe its not JUST about money, but as Rampage has said in the past, but about respect and treatment. To me its more about him getting out of his Contract early to either do more films without dealing with Dana’s shit, and/or he wants out to fight somewhere else for perhaps less, same or more money, as well as respect and how he’s treated. Sounds more like Hendo’s deal then Coutures to me.
“To boil the dispute down to simpler terms, the issue is Jackson’s current contract and when it ends. Jackson wants his period away from the UFC to count towards his contractual term; the UFC is arguing that since he retired they were able to properly suspend the term for that period”
No mention as to what he wanted to renegotiate, monetarily or time wise. Kinda waste of time either way imho. Much like their stance on eradicating all illegal streams an such…
How do you Know where Im at? If you dont Know where Ive been...Understand where Im coming from??
Anthony McGann, responded with a letter stating that Jackson was ready to renegotiate his contract
The UFC can’t stop him from doing movies. If he wants to stop fighting to do movies, he’s free to do so. The contract doesn’t need to end for him to do that (as we saw with the A-team). The only reason he wants his contract to end is to get a new one, which would mean more money from either SF or the UFC.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
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.
