MMA News Forums » MMA Forums » General MMA Forum

[pa99fighter]

Republican House of Representatives candidate and - of course - highly respected middleweight Matt Lindland believes there is something very wrong with the contracts from MMA’s top organization.

"The UFC contracts are illegal. Based on the Muhammad Ali (Safety) Act, you cannot be the promoter and the manager at the same time,” Lindland said, “If they are telling you who and when you are going to fight, they are the manager as well as the promoter.”

I am definitely not a lawyer so it is hard to fully judge the validity of the statement, but in reading the Act, Lindland does make a few good points on how much control an organization can have over a fighter.

Lindland also said that one fighter in particular is planning to test the Act in court.

I believe that is what Randy (Couture) is saying as well.”

Source:Five Ounces of Pain | Matt Lindland claims UFC contracts are illegal
Pretty Interesting.

[hunterkiller]

From what I've seen, the UFC offers guys fights and they either agree or refuse.

We all also know from the Tito-Dana feud that as soon as Dana became President, he excused himself of being Tito's manager.

[2mcgrath]

yeah thats what i thought,they line the fights up and the fighters managers arranges things,and ethier the fighter will accept the fight or he wont

[Dan0]

I think those distinctions (Promoter/Manager)are state dependent on the states SAC requirements.

[the_dark_angel_4ever]

Didn't Vera just refuse to fight Machida (justifiedily so)? Fighters always have the option to refuse a fight for any reason they like. It might not make them popular with the bosses but that's life. They aren't FORCED to fight anyone. Most are just happy to fight all comers and as often as they physically can to help perfect the art of MMA and for the paycheques.

I think all that tobacco is seeping into Matt's brain.

[jkilla374]

I'm not too sure on this either, but...

my guess is that the lower tiered fighters have a better argument as to the legality of the Ks.

Hear me out:

Perhaps UFC's policy is to offer potential fights, and the fighters technically have the right to refuse the fights...

However, what if a fighter can prove that upon not accepting a fight, which is their alleged right, they are "punished" by not being offered fights at all, offered worse fights, or offered "non-TV" fights. If I were a fighter in this situation, I would argue that there really isn't a "real" choice to turn down fights; I would argue it is only something the elite fighters get to exercise without incident.

This is all my opinion and/or how I would argue; and to be clear, I have never read the Ali Act.

[Killinginthenameof]

Originally Posted by jkilla374

I'm not too sure on this either, but...

my guess is that the lower tiered fighters have a better argument as to the legality of the Ks.

Hear me out:

Perhaps UFC's policy is to offer potential fights, and the fighters technically have the right to refuse the fights...

However, what if a fighter can prove that upon not accepting a fight, which is their alleged right, they are "punished" by not being offered fights at all, offered worse fights, or offered "non-TV" fights. If I were a fighter in this situation, I would argue that there really isn't a "real" choice to turn down fights; I would argue it is only something the elite fighters get to exercise without incident.

This is all my opinion and/or how I would argue; and to be clear, I have never read the Ali Act.

the UFC would like you to not think they would get punished....but this would mostly likely happen. just like with your daily jobs...your boss asks you to perform a task and if you say "NO", it'll affect you come next raise.

this brings to mind Khalib Starnes. the guy didn't want to get his ass handed to him and end up losing money because of medical insurance coverage. so he ended up running around the ring to avoid damage. i guess in the end he did what was best for him and his family, but he didn't look good in the process.

[Thomasp420]

Cant a fighter choose not to sign a contract?? How can a voluntary contract be illegal if the fighter isn't under duress. He sounds more like a dem to me.

[jkilla374]

Originally Posted by Thomasp420

Cant a fighter choose not to sign a contract?? How can a voluntary contract be illegal if the fighter isn't under duress. He sounds more like a dem to me.

You don't know anything about contract law.

If a contract has an illegal provision, is contrary to public policy, etc.; it doesn't matter who signs it, how sophisticated they are, etc.

In other words, if we have a written contract where I agree to kill your wife/brother/whatever in exchange for $5,000, and I do kill them, but you don't pay the $5,000; I am not going to be able to enforce this contract.

That is an extreme example, but if Lindland is correct that the Ali Act forbids the type of contract UFC is using, it doesn't matter that it was signed by the athlete and/or his manager.

[SickNasty]

Lately, with the conflict between some fighters and the organization's management, do you guys think that a fighter association should be implimented? kind of like how the mlb and nfl have players associations?