Over at Sherdog, Adam Swift (inadvertently) pokes a gaping hole in Couture's contractual - and thereby legal - options. The piece is long, detailed, and brilliant. It would be too long of a post for me to cover all the area laid out in the article, but suffice it say, Zuffa's contracts - while not air tight - don't leave a great deal of breathing room either. Notable quote:
The company exerts contractual power mainly in the form of clauses that allow for the term of a contract to be extended in any number of circumstances and in some cases indefinitely. As the promoter, Zuffa must live up to its end of an agreement, such as filling a specific number of fights during a certain term. But these clauses, many of which can be found in contracts of competing organizations, allow for the effective term of the contract to be largely at the discretion of Zuffa.
Couture has done enough. He's forced Zuffa's hand and possibly pushed them to think about how they write contracts in the future (or even in the present). That's enough. If he keeps pursuing this issue, he'll lose more credibility and entangle himself in a legal battle he has virtually no chance of winning.
Get the latest gear
