Well clearly he doesn't for obvious reasons... The UFC contracts violate several provisions within the Bill.

Dana White has recently said that the UFC will not host an event in California again if the CSAC Bill passes.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:


Section 18649 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read: 18649. (a) The commission shall revoke or refuse to renew the license of any mixed martial arts promoter that enters into a contract with a mixed martial arts fighter in the state of California if the contract contains one or more coercive provisions. A contract provision shall be considered coercive to the extent that it does any of the following: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Assigns any future merchandising rights to a promoter beyond the term of the promotional contract.
Fitch was cut from the UFC because he did not agree to sign a contract that gave the UFC merchandising rights of Fitch long after he retired from fighting. Personally i don't think is right for a promoter to keep merchandising rights of fighter without that fighter getting compensated for it.
(2) Automatically renews the contract or extends the term without good faith, arms-length negotiation.
I'm not 100% sure, but i think this brings into question the Championship Clause in the UFC contract. I believe this can allow Champions to negotiate with other promotions if they feel the UFC is not offering them enough.
(3) Grants the promoter a right to match the terms of a competing offer or contract.
This would allow fighters to freely pick what organization they want to fight for without another organization they don't want to be in force them to stay.
(4) Grants the promoter a right to enter into exclusive negotiations with a mixed martial arts fighter.
UFC contracts can't restrict a fighter from only been able to negotiate with the UFC. Fighters can negotiate with any organization.
(5) Restricts a mixed martial arts fighter from sponsoring another firm, product, or individual.
No more UFC taxing the fighters sponsors. Fighters can have any sponsor they want without the UFC telling them what they can and can't have on them.
(6) Requires a mixed martial arts fighter to relinquish any legal claims for negligence that the fighter has, or may acquire in the future, against the promoter.
Does not allow contracts that have any legal language that takes away the fighter rights to sue the promoter for negligence
(7) Restricts a mixed martial arts fighter from contracting with another promoter.
Fighters can negotiate with who ever they want without restrictions.
(8) Requires a mixed martial arts fighter to forfeit any rights as a condition precedent to the fighter’s participation in a contest.

UFC contracts can't take any right's fighters have.

U can read the whole bill here

\The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.

Log In Sign Up

Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Bloody Elbow

You must be a member of Bloody Elbow to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Bloody Elbow. You should read them.

Join Bloody Elbow

You must be a member of Bloody Elbow to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Bloody Elbow. You should read them.




Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.