Rob and host Bob Carson discuss the need for fighters to band together for the betterment of the sport. Rob gives several compelling reasons as to why this is the case. If you want to know one of the keys to the future development of the sport, give this show a listen.

http://carsonscorner.podomatic.com/

Share This:

More »

Prayers to Jessica Bednark and her loved ones, and admiration to the owners of Forty Thieves Clothing for this generous act.  You can purchase clothing at the link below.

WWW.FORTYTHIEVESCLOTHING.COM

Share This:

More »

http://nhbnews.podOmatic.com/entry/2009-04-26T00_29_41-07_00

Or download the show here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?rdztbjlt32r

Visit Eddie Goldman at:

http://eddiegoldman.com

Visit Bob Carson at:

http://carsonscorner.podomatic.com

Share This:

More »

On this edition of No Holds Barred, host Eddie Goldman speaks with Rob Maysey, the founder of the Mixed Martial Arts Fighters Association (MMAFA). This organization seeks to establish an association of mixed martial artists and their trainers, similar to other such organizations which already exist in many professional sports.

Share This:

More »

“Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”

-Justice Louis Brandeis

INTRODUCTION TO WAMMA

In the first installment of this article which can be read here, boxing’s history with the “sanctioning body” was examined.  Instead of restoring integrity and legitimacy to the sport, these self-proclaimed reformers brought scandal and disrepute.  These sanctioning bodies provide virtually no service other than publishing “independent” rankings, and extract sanctioning fees from the purses of fighters-a practice which has been called “legalized extortion.”  The sanctioning bodies are not accountable to anyone, and influence peddling and outright lobbying by promoters is common place.

WAMMA, however, promises to bring the sport of MMA to “unprecedented levels of integrity, legitimacy and prosperity.” Indeed, a good deal of WAMMA’s marketing strategy is focused on the integrity of the individuals involved.  In its presentation materials presented to the Association of Boxing Commissions in July of this year, WAMMA states that it is “comprised of successful, highly ethical, entrepreneurs suited to guide the operation of a MMA association and sanctioning body” for MMA.

David Szady, a 33-year veteran of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, brings “unquestionable integrity” to the table for WAMMA.  Szady, current CEO of WAMMA, stated that one of the reasons he became involved with WAMMA after a long career with the FBI was “to bring that face of integrity, to create transparency within the MMA world and to create and add to the legitimacy” of the sport of MMA.¹ WAMMA’s focus on integrity in its marketing efforts parallels the formative years of the IBF, which was founded by a longtime homicide detective and Commissioner of the New Jersey State Athletic Commission.

Szady and Michael Lynch, an attorney and current Chief Operating Officer of WAMMA, promise to take only the virtuous elements of boxing’s model.  Interestingly, two partners in WAMMA, attorney Fred Levin, who represents famed boxer Roy Jones, Jr., and Kay Stephenson, a former coach in the NFL, attempted to form a similar sanctioning body in boxing several years ago.  According to Pat Militich, a spokesman for WAMMA, their efforts in boxing failed because “in the boxing world, things were so entrenched that it was very difficult to get this done.”²

In MMA, by contrast, the sport is in flux, and no sanctioning bodies currently exist.  According to WAMMA, this is exactly why it will emerge as the one and only sanctioning body.  Szady explained that WAMMA is hoping “to get out there in front of this, as fast as we can, with the most reputable people in the world to rank the fighters and with a sanctioning body that’s recognized by the promoters as the sanctioning body.”³ By being ahead of the curve, WAMMA seeks to be the one and only sanctioning body for MMA, and avoid the plagues caused by the “alphabet-soup” in boxing.  Militich agrees, stating “coming together with WAMMA — that one sanctioning body that can help unify all of this — makes perfect sense to me. To be honest with you, there’s no need for another sanctioning body after this happens.”⁴

WAMMA recently crowned its first “undisputed” champion in heavyweight Fedor Emelianenko, who dispatched Tim Syvlia 36 seconds into the first round at the Affliction Banned event.  Danny Acosta of Sherdog.com called this development the “most positive precedent in MMA since rules and weight classes were instituted,” and declared that the belt around Fedor’s waist is a “direct call to make MMA a unified sport, to create battles between the best of the best.”⁵

Despite the blessing of Danny Acosta from Sherdog.com, is WAMMA likely to be the “reform” body it touts itself to be, leading MMA to “unprecedented levels of integrity, legitimacy and prosperity?”  And has WAMMA, as it promises, taken only the good from the boxing model, and left all the problematic features of the boxing sanctioning body behind?

CORPORATE STRUCTURE OF WAMMA

Michael Lynch explained that WAMMA is a for-profit corporation funded by “over 50 confidential angel investors.”  As a private company, the identity of the investors remain confidential.  Interestingly, WAMMA states that a large percentage of its financing comes from “active participants” in the business of MMA.

WAMMA:  SANCTIONING BODY AND RANKINGS

WAMMA’s stated goal is simple, to crown an undisputed champion in each of 7 weight divisions (soon to be 9) based upon its rankings system.  WAMMA states that it has “developed a strong, neutral, unbiased ranking committee and ranking methodology” that is the “gold standard” for the sport of MMA.  “We feel like this will be a great thing for the fighters, the promoters and the fans of this sport, to finally start having ranked fighters from all organizations competing for a unified title,” said WAMMA CEO Dave Szady.⁶ WAMMA stresses that it has assembled an “objective ranking board comprised of 20 of the most knowledgeable MMA media in the world.”⁷ A review of the rankings board members is notable in part for whom is not included, as well as inclusion of other members who are new to the sport of MMA.⁸ One might even say that the panel has been assembled, at least in part, to obtain access to and favor from media outlets and to appease promotional interests.

In response to whether its rankings committee members are truly independent, Lynch states, “yes, the ranking board members are independent of WAMMA.”  Independence from WAMMA, however, in no way equals objectivity.  Independence can be compromised in a myriad of ways, including employment with existing promotions, media outlets, and sports agencies.  The current composition of WAMMA’s ranking board indicates conflicts exist in each of these areas.  Additionally, the rankings committee chair, Sam Caplan, receives compensation from WAMMA.⁹ Finally, WAMMA states that a “large percentage” of its financing “has come from active participants in the business” but will not reveal the identity of these investors.¹⁰ Who are these active participants in the MMA industry that are investors in WAMMA?  Are they media outlets?  Promoters?  MMA instructors?  Agencies?  All of the above?  WAMMA won’t say.  Thus, additional conflicts may also be present.

Lynch, however, emphatically defends WAMMA’s rankings objectivity.  “I simply don’t see any bias against the UFC or any promotion whatsoever. In fact, in regard to the UFC our rankings scream pure objectivity, as evidenced by the fact that Zuffa fighters dominate the WAMMA rankings even though the UFC is not participating with WAMMA at this time,” declared Lynch.  WAMMA has not published any rankings criteria, but according to Lynch, “WAMMA certainly wouldn’t be opposed to doing so.”

WAMMA: RECOGNITION BY PROMOTIONS

A number of industry sources indicated to this author that WAMMA, in exchange for the right to sanction the title bout between Fedor Emelianenko and Tim Sylvia, paid Affliction MMA a fee of $200,000.  WAMMA emphatically denies this claim.  WAMMA stresses that it is “not associated with any individual promotional group,” and is committed to having “WAMMA Champions across promotional lines.”  WAMMA publicly declares “100% support” from Adrenaline MMA, the promotion of promoter-manager Monte Cox.  Adrenaline MMA and Monte Cox, according to WAMMA, are “a key player in WAMMA relationship building.”  Adrenaline MMA’s support for WAMMA is interesting.  Tim Sylvia, a fighter managed by Monte Cox and signed to the Adrenaline MMA promotion, indicated that his title fights (in the event he defeated Fedor) would likely be in the Affliction promotion, with non-title bouts occurring in Adrenaline MMA.¹¹

In addition to Adrenaline MMA and Affliction, WAMMA declares the full support of HDNet Fights and Strikeforce, each of whom are said to be committed to having WAMMA champions across promotional lines.¹² According to the renowned John McCarthy, virtually all promotions except the UFC will benefit “if they can have a fighter, fighting on their promotion that is recognized as the truly best fighter in the world at whatever given weight class.”¹³ McCarthy continued:

“Right now Affliction has Fedor Emelianenko fighting on their promotion and he is the WAMMA Heavyweight champion of the world after his 36 second destruction of Tim Sylvia.  Everybody that knows this sport and is being honest would say that Fedor is the best heavyweight in the world at this time hands down. . . So right now if you want to see the best Heavyweight fighter in the world fight you go to Affliction not to the UFC.  That is the way all of the promoters besides the UFC want it because it adds legitimacy to their promotions, it shows people that are not the hardcore fans of the sport that there are other promotions putting on high caliber fights with great fighters, so all other promoters are behind WAMMA being recognized as the sanctioning body that recognizes the true world champion.”¹⁴

As for the UFC, WAMMA indicates that they “have the utmost respect for all that they have done in the sport and we hope that one day they will recognize the value of having cross promotional champions and producing WORLD champions and not just promotional champions.”¹⁵ However, Dana White, President of the UFC, has continuously blasted WAMMA stating that the for-profit sanctioning body is “exactly what this sport doesn’t need.  They’re just another group of guys looking to make some money and get a piece of the pie.”¹⁶ White later said that “sanctioning bodies are what killed boxing. They’re a virus in this sport.” As to whether the UFC would ever participate in WAMMA’s sanctioning body, White adamantly declared that the UFC “will never be involved.”¹⁷ “Sanctioning organizations are the biggest problems with boxing,” said White. “They’re corrupt.”¹⁸

The UFC’s refusal to recognize WAMMA is entirely predictable, as John McCarthy correctly states:

“The UFC is not going to support WAMMA anytime soon.  The WAMMA organization does nothing for the UFC and only hurts them.  The UFC wants to be the start and the end for a fans interest in MMA.  They are already the “Brand” when it comes to Mixed Martial Arts.”¹⁹

Indeed, while it would be a welcome occurrence, it is inconceivable that the WAMMA founders expected the UFC’s cooperation with and recognition of WAMMA.  By recognizing WAMMA, the UFC would be legitimizing fighters contracted with other promotions with absolutely no benefit to itself.  As John McCarthy states, the UFC is already the “brand” for MMA, and needs no “legitimization” with the general public.  The UFC promotion is the gold-standard for MMA, and a large percentage of MMA fans do not follow, and indeed are not aware of any other promotions.  In fact, it can be argued that the UFC brand is so powerful it is approaching synonymy with the sport of MMA itself.

Instead, WAMMA’s initial intent appears to be in lending credibility and legitimacy to other promotions (and thereby establishing itself), in an effort to compete with the UFC.  In boxing, television networks needed to legitimize matches to the general public following scandal.  In MMA, legitimacy is sought by promotions seeking to compete with the juggernaut UFC-brand.  Promotions seeking legitimacy for themselves and the fighters they promote have little to lose by joining such an “alliance.”  As Lynch states, it’s a win-win scenario for WAMMA and the promotions alike:

“WAMMA is an independent company that brings a value added proposition to promoters, fighters and the sport as a whole through its neutral unbiased rankings, unified Championships and derives its revenue from corporate sponsors not promoters.  By having an undisputed champion or champions inside their promotions, promoters will have the opportunity to sell more tickets to events, reap greater PPV revenue and add to the allure and branding of their promotions by having the very best fighters.”

WAMMA is ambitious and is not content with simply providing “objective rankings.”  As its press releases, public interviews and presentation materials indicate, WAMMA intends to emerge as the central power in the sport of MMA.  Key to its success is establishing the WAMMA brand, which will be discussed further below.  As the WAMMA brand gains traction throughout the media outlets serving on its rankings committee, and later, with the general public, promoters who were quick to jump on board may later regret their affiliation.

WAMMA CHAMPIONS:  UNDISPUTED?

WAMMA, despite the current refusal of the UFC to recognize it as a sanctioning body, publicly declares that it is hopeful that the UFC will “jump on board with the idea of an undisputed and unified champion.”  According to Lynch, WAMMA does not intend to end promotional titles, but instead, aims “to add the top tier beyond promotional lines.”²⁰

Unlike the Ring Magazine Champion’s policy, which awards its belt to the top ranked fighter in each weight class based upon in-ring performance, WAMMA awards its belts only to fighters appearing in promotions that agree to “work with” WAMMA.  For example, Anderson Silva, the current middleweight champion of the UFC, recently faced Dan Henderson, the reigning champion from the now defunct Pride Fighting Championships. This bout matched the reigning champions from the two largest MMA promotions in the world.  WAMMA did not sanction the bout, or offer to award its belt to the winner.²¹

Thus, WAMMA is not creating “unified” or “undisputed” champions, and is not, in reality, presenting its belts in a truly objective fashion to the most deserving fighters.  Unlike Ring Magazine, which awards its belts purely on merit and in total disregard to other sanctioning bodies or promotional affiliations, WAMMA is, in essence, simply creating another belt.

Additionally, unlike the Ring Magazine Champion’s policy, WAMMA intends to name “mandatory” challengers based upon its rankings, and will strip champions if they don’t face the WAMMA-named challenger within a 9-12 month period.  In an action that indicates a future where sanctioning fees will be collected not only for title matches, but also “contender” bouts, WAMMA recently publicized an “eliminator” bout for the right to fight Fedor Emelianenko for the heavyweight title.  “We couldn’t be more excited to see Andrei Arlovski and Josh Barnett faceoff for the right to take on Fedor for the WAMMA World Heavyweight Championship,” stated Szady in a company-issued press release. “In the spirit of crowning undisputed champions, we couldn’t be happier than to have two of the fighters who arguably deserve a shot at Fedor fighting it out for the chance to take on the champ.”²²

To its credit, WAMMA has demonstrated patience in awarding its belts, awarding only its heavyweight title to Fedor Emelianenko.  In a fight that later fell through, WAMMA did not sanction a bout between Vitor Belfort and Matt Lindland for its middleweight title.  As Lynch stated, “WAMMA made an executive decision that the Lindland/Belfort fight did not rise to WAMMA Championship status.”²³

WAMMA:  SOURCE OF PROFITS

As a for-profit private company, WAMMA is in the business to earn profits.  WAMMA seeks to derive earnings by selling “corporate sponsorship” for its title belts awarded in every weight class, in addition to “corporate sponsorship of rankings, resale of rankings for use in publications and broadcasts, online ad revenue, merchandise, and online membership revenue.”  The online membership revenue will be derived from WAMMA’s website which is designed to “communicate brand identity” and to serve as an MMA-community portal.  WAMMA also seeks to profit through merchandising sales with its brand, and a “complete online store for WAMMA merchandise sales will be an integral part of the site.”

According to WAMMA, “title sponsors will use the WAMMA Champions in promotional campaigns and for sponsorship opportunities.”  In response to whether WAMMA enters into any marketing or promotional agreements with fighters, Lynch responded, “No, WAMMA is fighter and promoter neutral.”  Thus, it remains entirely unclear what obligates a WAMMA champion to advertise or perform any other marketing obligations for any title sponsors.  Is WAMMA relying upon the merchandising rights being sought and obtained contractually by cooperating promotions?  Again, Lynch states that WAMMA has not entered into any “joint-marketing,” “consulting,” “branding” or any other such agreement with any promotion. Furthermore, if any such title sponsors are available for marketing opportunities, one wonders why it wouldn’t benefit the fighter more to obtain it for himself or herself.

WAMMA’s for-profit model is akin to the boxing model, but far more ambitious.  Like the UFC before it, WAMMA seeks to become a powerful brand itself.  This model is in stark contrast to the Ring Magazine Champion’s policy, which has emerged as the only credible rankings system in boxing.  Ring Magazine embarks on a journalistic endeavor and is not seeking to directly profit through sales of sponsorships or by charging sanctioning fees.  Thus, at the outset, WAMMA’s for-profit model appears to compromise its ability to issue “objective” rankings.

Big fights generate interest, as the networks and pay-per-view providers learned long ago.  Interest in a title bout featuring the No. 1 ranked challenger and reigning champion generates sponsorship dollars and ratings, while a fight between the No. 7 and No. 10 fighter in a given weight class will generate much lower interest and revenue.  One wonders whether it is inevitable, due to an alignment of interest (if nothing else), that fighters from participating promotions will creep up the WAMMA rankings in curious ways.  The counterparts established in boxing indicate that this is nearly a certain phenomenon.

WAMMA AND SANCTIONING FEES

On June 20, 2008, when asked about whether WAMMA will charge sanctioning fees for its title matches, Szady replied:

“No.  We are not taking any sanctioning fee from a promoter nor are we taking any percentage of a purse from a fighter.  Our business model and our revenue stream come strictly from our sponsors for the WAMMA belt or for sponsoring the events themselves along with the promoters.”

Lynch, echoing Szady, replied:

“WAMMA is in no way charging a sanctioning fee from the Affliction promotion nor are we asking for a percentage of the fighter’s purses.  As Dave said we truly are trying to emulate the best aspects of boxing’s sanctioning bodies while eliminating all the aspects of sanctioning bodies that we find in boxing that will be a detriment to the sport.”²⁴

Szady’s response above is unqualified as to whether WAMMA will charge sanctioning fees. The response of Lynch however, who is a lawyer, may leave room for maneuver.  Lynch’s reply in regards to WAMMA not charging sanctioning fees may be read as applying only to the Fedor Emelianenko-Tim Sylvia title bout in the Affliction promotion.

In order to eliminate the possibility of any misunderstanding, I asked Lynch whether WAMMA can state, “with 100% certainty, that sanctioning fees will never be sought and/or collected from any promotion and/or any fighters purse.”  Lynch replied, “Yes. . . Most importantly, WAMMA will NEVER make a living off a fighter’s back by taxing a fighter’s purse.”  However, in WAMMA’s materials presented to athletic commissions at the ABC Convention for MMA held in Montreal, WAMMA indicates that it will “receive revenue from title sponsors, online portal subscriptions, sale of unique digital content, merchandising, and in the future sanctioning fees.”²⁵

The WAMMA brand is not yet established, and networks are not yet utilizing its rankings.  Thus, the necessary traction does not yet exist for WAMMA to require sanctioning fees.  If the WAMMA brand becomes entrenched, however, sanctioning fees, as WAMMA’s own presentation materials indicate, will follow.

WAMMA:  AN MMA ASSOCIATION?

WAMMA insists it is not merely a traditional sanctioning body content to crown champions based upon “objective” rankings.  A recent press release issued by WAMMA announcing its “strategic alliance” with Gaylord Sports Management sheds light on WAMMA’s ambitions.  In Gaylord, stated Szady, WAMMA has “found a partner who we trust to help grow WAMMA as an organization and a power in the MMA world.”

WAMMA, as the acronym indicates, also deems itself an “MMA Allilance.”  What this “alliance” consists of is unknown, but apparently it is being designed to thwart the efforts of any would-be competitors.  According to Szady, “the acceptance of the promoters to have WAMMA be the one true sanctioning and ranking body,” along with the “multi-faceted MMA alliance” being established will likely prevent the formation of any competing sanctioning body.  To further cement its image as an “association,” WAMMA created a “new logo and brand image to better position the company as an Official MMA Association.”  The new logo can be seen at the top of this article.

WAMMA also fashions itself as a “fighter advocate association.”  As evidence of this, Szady has publicly declared that “Randy Couture and Pat Miletich are going to co-chair a fighter advisory board for WAMMA to take on such issues as fighter health care, fighter pensions, and other concerns that fighters may have for themselves.”²⁶ A review of WAMMA’s bylaws indicates that the “fighter advisory board” is not one of the thirteen standing committees established by WAMMA.  Likewise, Lynch declares that “WAMMA will always advocate for fighter-forward advances in the sport in regard to contracts, exclusivity, endorsements, sponsorship, disclosure” and the like, but declined to support the application of the Muhammad Ali Act to MMA.

WAMMA also claims it will “create a fighter focused association to support MMA competitors at all levels.”  Fighter-members will receive “numerous tangible and intangible benefits.”  Amazingly, WAMMA asserts that a “strong association will provide a barrier to entry for other organizations that seek to enter WAMMA’s market space,” and thus, provide WAMMA with a competitive advantage.

Audaciously, Lynch declares that WAMMA “has 100% support of the fighters themselves.”  I have spoken to fighters and a number of the most successful agents in MMA, and their input was never solicited, nor have they ever spoken with any WAMMA officials.  Thus, WAMMA’s claim appears to be puffery, at best.  WAMMA, according to Lynch, is also “establishing an insurance pool to help supplement or in some cases provide insurance for WAMMA ranked fighters during training.”  Additionally, WAMMA is establishing a “pension fund for fighters that have been ranked by WAMMA and have been WAMMA champions.”  WAMMA aims to fund these initiatives by earmarking a portion of its gross profits, though what percentage is unstated.  WAMMA also indicates that it will seek contributions from its promotional partners for each of these funds.

A “fighter-focused” association is not a fighters association at all, and admittedly, is being created to serve as a “barrier to entry” to WAMMA’s market space.  One wonders why the “fighter advocates” involved with WAMMA don’t assist fighters in adopting a brand of their own.  The fighters, through their own collective brand, could recognize an independent panel of experts that will award a title regardless of promotional affiliation, and thereby keep all the marketing, sponsorship, advertising and membership revenue for themselves.  Under this model, the fighters would have an actual fighters association and retain all profits.

CONCLUSION

WAMMA promotes itself “as a multifaceted fighter and fan forward organization” dedicated to leading the sport of MMA “to unprecedented levels of integrity, legitimacy and prosperity.”  As Justice Louis Brandeis notes above, sunlight is the best of all disinfectants, and light the most efficient policeman.  How a private, for-profit entity aims to bring “integrity, legitimacy and prosperity” to the sport of MMA while operating largely in complete secrecy remains a mystery.  It is entirely unclear how a private, for profit company is going to provide any better service than a “Ring Magazine” panel, and to boot, a panel recognized by the fighters under a collective brand would enable the fighters to retain this revenue for themselves and cut out the middleman.

“All [a sanctioning body] does is take money out of the fighter’s pockets,” said Kevin Iole, an MMA writer for Yahoo.com. “To me it’s just a money grab.”²⁷ Carlos Arias, an MMA writer for the Orange County Register concurs.  “They might start off with good intentions, but inevitably they end up with crooked rankings and ridiculous sanctioning fees.”²⁸

Rob Maysey is a licensed attorney in the states of Arizona, California, and Minnesota. He received his BA in Politics from Whitman College and his JD from Cornell Law School. He has followed the sport of mixed martial arts closely since being introduced to Brazilian jiu-jitsu in 1998 by a law school classmate.

***Edited. I was informed Danny Acosta’s piece on Sherdog.com was an opinion-editorial, and thus, clarified this in the article.

[1] Brookhouse, Brent.  “Interview With WAMMA CEO Dave Szady and COO Michael Lynch,” bloodyelbow.com, June 20, 2008.  http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2008/6/20/555552/bloodyelbow-exclusive-inte.

[2] Hall, Joe.  “WAMMA’s Wish:  To Unite MMA,”  Sherdog.com, November 15, 2007.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Acosta, Danny.  “Affliction, Fedor Prove MMA is Bigger Than UFC,” Sherdog.com, July 22, 2008.

[6] Vilonia, Bill.  “WAMMA’s first title bout increases profile in mixed martial arts,” www.pnj.com, June 25, 2008.  http://m.pnj.com/news.jsp?key=92762&rc=sp&p=1.

[7] At time of writing, WAMMA’s website lists the biographies of 23 members who are part of its rankings board.

[8] WAMMA’s ranking board members can be viewed at this link:  http://www.gowamma.com/rankings.asp.

[9] Hall, Joe.  “WAMMA’s Wish:  To Unite MMA,”  Sherdog.com, November 15, 2007.

[10] WAMMA’s “ABC Presentation” dated July 3, 2008.

[11] Andrest, David.  “Tim Sylvia on a quest to fight the best,”  mmajunkie.com, July 8, 2008.  http://mmajunkie.com/news/4757/tim-sylvia-on-a-quest-to-fight-the-best.mma.

[12] Brookhouse, Brent.  “Interview With WAMMA CEO Dave Szady and COO Michael Lynch,” bloodyelbow.com, June 20, 2008; ; WAMMA’s “ABC Presentation” dated July 3, 2008.

[13] McCarthy, John.  “Questions About WAMMA,” thefightnetwork.com, August 8, 2008.  http://www.thefightnetwork.com/blog/post/1014/question_about_wamma.

[14] Id.

[15] Brookhouse, Brent.  “Interview With WAMMA CEO Dave Szady and COO Michael Lynch,” bloodyelbow.com, June 20, 2008; ; WAMMA’s “ABC Presentation” dated July 3, 2008.

[16] McCarthy, Michael. “Sanctioning Body out to add ‘structure,’” USA Today, November 15, 2007.

[17] Skretta, Dave. “Group aims to become MMA’s sanctioning body / Drive to unify, legitimize sport of mixed martial arts is hitting full stride,” The Houston Chronicle, December 16, 2007.

[18] Avila, David A. “Will sanctioning organization help MMA?” www.nbcsports.com, February 21, 2008. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/23275918/.

[19] McCarthy, John. “Questions About WAMMA,” thefightnetwork.com, August 8, 2008. http://www.thefightnetwork.com/blog/post/1014/question_about_wamma.

[20] Brookhouse, Brent. “Interview With WAMMA CEO Dave Szady and COO Michael Lynch,” bloodyelbow.com, June 20, 2008; ; WAMMA’s “ABC Presentation” dated July 3, 2008.

[21] Chiappetta, Mike. “WAMMA’s ‘Undisputed’ championship further muddles MMA scene,” NBCsports.com, June 30, 2008.

[22] Caplan, Sam. “Barnett vs. Arlovski to decide top contender for WAMMA heavyweight title; other “Day of Reckoning” details emerge,” www.fiveouncesofpain.com, August 7, 2008. http://fiveouncesofpain.com/2008/08/07/barnett-vs-arlovski-to-decide-top-contender-for-wamma-heavyweight-title-other-day-of-reckoning-details-emerge/.

[23] DreamFighters.com Exclusive Interview with C.O.O of WAMMA, Michael Lynch, August 8, 2008. http://dreamfighters.com/site/?action=detail&id=1218212619.

[24] Brookhouse, Brent. “Interview With WAMMA CEO Dave Szady and COO Michael Lynch,” bloodyelbow.com, June 20, 2008.

[25] Bold and underline formatting added by author for emphasis.

[26] Brookhouse, Brent. “Interview With WAMMA CEO Dave Szady and COO Michael Lynch,” bloodyelbow.com, June 20, 2008.

[27] Vilonia, Bill. “WAMMA’s first title bout increases profile in mixed martial arts,” www.pnj.com, June 25, 2008. http://m.pnj.com/news.jsp?key=92762&rc=sp&p=1.

[28] Id.

Share This:

More »

“Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”

-Justice Louis Brandeis

The sport of mixed martial arts (”MMA“) is experiencing incredible growth, and is publicly declared to be the fastest growing sport in the world. With growth, comes change.  To date, independent “sanctioning” bodies have not been a part of the MMA landscape, though the World Alliance of Mixed Martial Arts (”WAMMA“) aims to change this.  WAMMA seeks to become the one and only “sanctioning” body for MMA, and promises to legitimate true “world” titles that are independent of any particular promotion.  To accomplish its goals, WAMMA promises to provide completely “objective” rankings and has stated unequivocally to this author that they will do so without ever charging a sanctioning fee to any promoter or fighter.

The concept of independent rankings determining championship bouts is desirable in and of itself.  Objective rankings serving as the basis for title bouts pressures promoters to make championship matches based upon merit in competition-not upon contractual subservience of the fighter.  Objectivity in rankings also serves to buttress the integrity of the sport by legitimizing title matches to the general public.  Finally, an objective rankings system that recognizes champions arguably increases the marketability and earning potential of the fighters themselves.

The question becomes is WAMMA, a private for profit company, the proper outlet to provide such “independent” rankings? While WAMMA promotes itself as a “multifaceted fighter and fan forward organization,” is it likely to live up to its promises?  Is an outside “sanctioning” body even necessary or desirable in MMA?  A review of boxing’s colorful history with the “sanctioning” body is instructive, and provides an introduction into an examination of WAMMA itself.

I.  Sanctioning Bodies in Professional Boxing.

A.  The Emergence of the Sanctioning Body in Professional Boxing.

In boxing, privately owned “sanctioning bodies” rank boxers and “sanction” championship and “contender” or “eliminator” bouts to determine who is next in line for a title match.  The sanctioning bodies do not actually regulate the sport of boxing at all-that is left to the state athletic commissions.  “Sanctioning bodies” proliferated in boxing, creating what is dubbed the “alphabet soup” of titles.  In boxing there are four (4) widely recognized, though not respected sanctioning bodies: the WBA, WBC, IBF, and WBO.  Necessarily, the sanctioning bodies operate independently of each other, and essentially compete with each other to market and promote their own “champion” or contender.  Boxers holding titles rarely face belt holders in competing sanctioning bodies.¹

Top rankings are crucial for most boxers, as they determine who fights for titles and who fights for the largest purses.  In boxing, the sanctioning bodies profit predominantly by collecting a “sanctioning fee” against the boxer’s purse.  Thus, as purses increase, so do the fees collected by the sanctioning body.  For example, heavyweight boxer Samuel Peter, paid the WBC $100,000 for the right to earn a chance to fight for a title by appearing in contender matches.  Peter, however, was passed over for his shot at the title which was instead granted to Vitali Klitschko.  He was leapfrogged by Klitschko for the simple reason that the purse Klitschko would command would be greater than Peter’s, and thus, the 3% sanctioning fee collected by the WBC would be higher.  Current Yahoo Sports writer Kevin Iole deemed this practice “legalized extortion” and called on the federal government to intervene.²

The sanctioning bodies arose to prominence during the late 1970’s and 1980’s, and not coincidentally, emerged at the same time boxing was reestablished on network television.  The WBC and WBA were largely ignored and remained on the periphery throughout the 1960’s, publishing rankings and designating their own champions.  Ironically enough, scandal in boxing moved these two sanctioning bodies to the forefront.  In 1977, during a boxing tournament televised by ABC Sports, it was revealed that the rankings of the boxers involved were flawed, and that the records of some boxers were fabrications.³ Embarrassed, ABC turned to the WBA and WBC to take over the rankings of boxers.⁴ Thus, the sanctioning bodies were legitimized by the networks, who, in effect, attempted to “purchase credibility” with the viewing public.⁵ “Independent rankings” are also good for ratings.  According to famed boxing historian Bert Sugar, “television wants rankings so Cecil can tell Ethel, ‘I can’t come to the dinner table because it’s a big fight.  He doesn’t know who’s fighting but it’s a big fight.”⁶

The “founders” of these sanctioning bodies were “self-proclaimed reformers, intending to reward contenders solely on the merits.”⁷ These sanctioning bodies made occasional concessions “toward the interests of fighters,” such as “establishing safety regulations” including “shortening the lengths of championship fights.”⁸ Executives from ABC and other networks paid the organizations for the right to broadcast a sanctioned fight, and fighters agreed to pay sanctioning fees for the privilege of having a shot at a sanctioning body’s title.  Without the television networks’ need to establish credibility with the viewing audience, the emergence of these sanctioning bodies would have likely never occurred.

B.  Sanctioning Bodies Plagued by Fraud, Extortion, Bribery, and Rendered Completely Illegitimate.

Despite proclaiming themselves as reformers brought in by the networks to restore integrity to the sport of boxing, it quickly became apparent that the sanctioning bodies were just another scandal themselves.  Sanctioning bodies are not regulated by any state or federal agency, and prior to passage of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, the sanctioning groups did not publish rankings criteria explaining the rankings methodology.⁹ Abuses including fraud and bribery in the rankings proliferated.  The legitimacy of the rankings has been the subject of ridicule in the boxing industry.

The sanctioning bodies were viewed with such contempt, that a legislative aide working on boxing reform stated that sanctioning bodies and rankings were not even examined because “it was so universally accepted that they’re arbitrary and subject to manipulation that we didn’t think it would serve any purpose to spend six months looking into them.”¹⁰ The views of congress as to the total corruption of the sanctioning bodies in boxing were echoed by boxing commentator Larry Merchant.  “It’s just a common belief in the boxing world that rankings are bought and sold.  They’re totally shameless, these people. Their livelihoods rely on the money they bring in.”¹¹ Likewise, famed boxing historian Bert Sugar states, “they don’t just take money under the table, they take it around the table, over the table and sometimes they take the table too.”¹²

Several promoters, including Bob Arum, publicly acknowledge paying bribes in order to raise the rankings of boxers.¹³ Powerful promoters also exert their influence and control within the sanctioning bodies by agreeing to have their most marketable boxers fight in bouts for a particular sanctioning body in exchange for preferential treatment in the rankings of fighters they promote.  Promoters also directly lobby the sanctioning bodies.  Don King declared, “in boxing, just like politics, you lobby.  I lobby for fighters.”¹⁴ Promoters in boxing even publicly declare that it behooves them to ingratiate themselves with the sanctioning bodies.  In short, it is good for business.  It is common practice in boxing for promoters to underwrite the annual conventions of sanctioning bodies.¹⁵ According to promoter Butch Lewis, “it’s like everything else, you go to the conventions, put on a cocktail party, you make donations to the conventions. That’s what you do to stay in business.”¹⁶ In place of bags of cash, which itself has happened in the world of the boxing sanctioning body, favor is more likely to be gained by sending expensive wedding gifts or hosting lavish parties.

One boxing manager however, Ron Weathers, publicly speaks of direct payoffs made to the IBF.  Weathers told prosecutors investigating the IBF that he had on “several occasions” made improper payments to the IBF in order to secure rankings for his fighters.  “It’s just common knowledge that if you want to get something done, you have got to grease their palms.  Either $10,000 or $20,000, depending on where you want the guy rated.  Obviously, it’s an all cash transaction.”¹⁷ According to Weathers, “for years, you could only do business with these organizations if you paid them.”¹⁸ This account is corroborated by statements made by Joseph Maffia, Don King’s accountant from 1986 to 1991.  According to Maffia, “there were overpayments of sanctioning fees by hundreds of thousands of dollars in [Mike] Tyson fights.”  The overpayments included kickbacks to officials at the IBF, WBA, and WBC.¹⁹

Fighters and promoters both gave sworn statements to investigators that the IBF employed other methods to influence rankings for favored promoters.  Boxer William Guthrie, a former IBF lightweight champion, sued Don King, alleging that King used his influence with Robert Lee Sr., the founder of the IBF.  According to Guthrie, King told Lee and the IBF not to grant Guthrie a title fight if he selected a promoter other than King.²⁰

Most shocking, perhaps, was the testimony obtained by Heavyweight boxer, Michael Moorer and his attorneys.  In an affidavit obtained from Dan Duva, then president of Main Events, Duva stated that the IBF official in charge of rankings was ordered by Lee to “unilaterally” move Francis Botha to the number one position.  Corroborating this account is a sworn statement from Seth Abraham, then president of Time Warner-HBO Sports.  Abraham stated that promoter Don King had outlined for him how King would have Botha moved ahead of Moorer in the IBF rankings.  In later interviews, Abraham stated, “and that is indeed what happened.”²¹

Thus, with television executives eager to establish credibility with audiences and promoters quick to ingratiate themselves with the sanctioning bodies to gain favor, interconnected relationships were forged that benefited everyone but the fighters.  In exchange for “sanctioning” a title bout, which entails little more than publishing “independent” rankings of fighters to establish a pecking order, sanctioning bodies began charging “sanctioning fees” equal to up to three percent (3%) of a fighter’s purse for the privilege of fighting for a title.

The IBF was formed in 1983 by Robert Lee Sr., a career homicide detective from New Jersey.  At the time of the IBF’s formation, Lee was serving as the Deputy Commissioner of the New Jersey State Athletic Commission.  Lee pledged that the IBF would create legitimate independent rankings and legitimate world titles, restoring integrity to boxing.   The IBF, as of 1999, had only five full-time employees.  The IBF’s earnings, as with the WBA, WBO and WBA, were, prior to passage of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, completely private.   Former FBI agent and New York Inspector General Joseph Spinelli, said the following in regards to the sanctioning fees collected by sanctioning bodies, “no one knows where it goes or who it goes to.  They’re not accountable to anyone.”²²

Despite the noble intentions trumpeted by these “reformers” of boxing aiming to restore integrity to the sport, boxing’s history with these sanctioning bodies tells an entirely different story.  Instead of restoring integrity, the sanctioning bodies invited scandal and were easily and willingly influenced by promoters.  Contrary to the stated intentions, the facts indicate that the sanctioning bodies were established “mainly to enrich the individuals who run them, not to legitimize fights.”²³

C.  Ring Magazine:  Legitimacy and Integrity Restored to Boxing’s Rankings.

Ring Magazine, in large part due to the abuses and chicanery which proliferated throughout boxing’s sanctioning bodies, established its own “championship” policy.  Nigel Collins, then editor in chief of Ring Magazine, declared:

“Our championship policy that we started in April 2002 was in response to the need to return integrity to championship boxing. The alphabet organizations have three or four champions per division and they also have super and interim champions. Piling up so many (champions) for so many years has done so much damage to the sport.”²⁴

Ring Magazine is comprised of journalists, and its “championship policy” isn’t a for-profit endeavor.  In establishing its rankings, Ring Magazine uses rankings compiled from approximately thirty (30) boxing correspondents, dispersed worldwide.  In order to be crowned Ring’s champion, “a boxer must either fight The Ring’s established world champion, or the No. 1 and No. 2-ranked boxers in the respective division must meet.”²⁵ An exception to this rule “is when a No. 1 meets a deserving No. 3 - such as when super middleweight Joe Calzaghe (who was ranked No. 1 by The Ring) defeated Jeff Lacy (ranked No. 3).”²⁶

Crucial to the integrity and legitimacy of Ring Magazine’s champions, the magazine doesn’t care at all if any other “sanctioning body” recognizes their champions.  It is happy to crown a deserving fighter its champion regardless of whether such fighter fights in a WBA, WBC, IBF, or WBO title match.     To Ring Magazine, the other sanctioning bodies are entirely irrelevant.   Ring Magazine also doesn’t strip its champions, each of whom receive an actual belt from Ring Magazine.   Titles change hands only if “the fighter is beaten in the ring, retires (as did heavyweight champion Vitali Klitschko) or moves up in weight and vacates the belt.”²⁷ The biggest supports of the Ring Magazine “Championship” policy have been HBO and ESPN, which have each utilized the Ring Magazine rankings in broadcasts.

A world without sanctioning bodies, and efforts such as The Ring Magazine championship policy suit Dino Duva, president of Duva boxing, just fine.  According to Duva, “there cannot be a true world champion except by public acclaim.  There should be just one in each weight class.”²⁸

II.  WAMMA

Michael Lynch, a founder and current Chief Operating Officer of WAMMA graciously answered questions I posed.  I have also examined WAMMA’s presentation given at the Association of Boxing Commissioners MMA convention held in Montreal on July 3, 2008.  Finally, I have reviewed other public interviews and statements provided by WAMMA officials to answer the following questions:

1.         Is WAMMA likely to be the “reform” body it touts itself to be, leading MMA to “unprecedented levels of integrity, legitimacy and prosperity?”

2.         Has WAMMA, as it promises, taken only the good from the boxing model, and left all the problematic features of the boxing sanctioning body behind?

Check back on Wednesday for Part 2 of this article.

Rob Maysey is a licensed attorney in the states of Arizona, California, and Minnesota. He received his BA in Politics from Whitman College and his JD from Cornell Law School. He has followed the sport of mixed martial arts closely since being introduced to Brazilian jiu-jitsu in 1998 by a law school classmate.

[1] McKinley, James C.  “A SPORT ADRIFT:  No One’s in Charge, and Biggest Loser is Boxing,” New York Times, January 22, 2000.

[2] Iole, Kevin.  “Peter paid for title shot:  The WBC should give it,” The Las Vegas Review-Journal, January 27, 2007.

[3] Smith, Timothy W.  “Boxing; A Sport’s Credibility Takes Another Hit,” New York Times, June 20, 1999.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Springer, Steve and Wharton, David.  “Boxing Ranking System Abused Payments Allegedly Made to Get Higher Rankings,” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, May 23, 1999.

[7] McKinley, James C.  “A SPORT ADRIFT:  No One’s in Charge, and Biggest Loser is Boxing,” New York Times, January 22, 2000.

[8] Smith, Timothy W.  “Boxing; A Sport’s Credibility Takes Another Hit,” New York Times, June 20, 1999.

[9] 15 U.S.C.A. § 6307(c) covers the actions of sanctioning bodies and requires the Association of Boxing Commissions to develop “guidelines for objective and consistent written criteria for the ratings of professional boxers” and forces sanctioning bodies to explain the reasons for the any changes in the rankings of boxers.”‘ 15 U.S.C.A. § 6307(d) requires sanctioning bodies to provide certain financial information to state commissions.  These provisions are included in what is commonly referred to as the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000.

[10] Smith, Timothy W.  “Boxing; A Sport’s Credibility Takes Another Hit,” New York Times, June 20, 1999.

[11] Springer, Steve and Wharton, David.  “Boxing Ranking System Abused Payments Allegedly Made to Get Higher Rankings,” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, May 23, 1999.

[12] Id.

[13] Bob Arum has publicly stated that he paid a WBA official $500,000 in order to secure a title fight for his boxer, Ray Mancini.  Smith, Timothy W.  “Boxing; A Sport’s Credibility Takes Another Hit,” New York Times, June 20, 1999.

[14] Springer, Steve and Wharton, David.  “Boxing Ranking System Abused Payments Allegedly Made to Get Higher Rankings,” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, May 23, 1999.

[15] Smith, Timothy W.  “Boxing; A Sport’s Credibility Takes Another Hit,” New York Times, June 20, 1999.

[16] Id.

[17] Springer, Steve and Wharton, David.  “Boxing Ranking System Abused Payments Allegedly Made to Get Higher Rankings,” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, May 23, 1999.

[18] Smith, Timothy W.  “Boxing; A Sport’s Credibility Takes Another Hit,” New York Times, June 20, 1999.

[19] Wharton, David.  “Corruption:  Investigation leads to Agents’ Raid of King’s Office,” Los Angeles Times, June 5, 1999.

[20] Smith, Timothy W.  ”Boxing; A Sport’s Credibility Takes Another Hit,” New York Times, June 20, 1999.  In fact, Guthrie states that his source for the King demand was Robert Lee of the IBF.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] McKinley, James C. “Boxing:  New York’s Senate Panel Urges Change,” New York Times, November 11, 1999.

[24] Houser, Mike.  “The Ring provides integrity for boxing,” The Appeal Sports Writer, March 29, 2006.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Id.

[28] Dorfman, Sid.  “Return of WBC could spell trouble,”  The Star-Ledger, July 14, 2004.>

Share This:

More »

Even more outrageous, UFC officials are directly contacting fighters, instead of the fighters’ selected agents. Fighters are told that they are hearing only one side of the story from their selected representatives, and that the UFC’s Merchandising Rights program really is a great deal. By not signing the Merchandising Rights Agreement, fighters are told they are leaving money on the table.

The UFC likes to compare itself to league sports, as do many members of the media. In all other leagues, such direct contact with an athlete represented by an agent is blatantly unethical. Such fighters have selected agents with reason—they trust and respect the counsel provided. Attempts to circumvent this representation by first pressuring, and then contacting in an attempt to engage in dialogue reeks of bad faith. Beware.

Fighters—speak to your agents.

Rob Maysey is a licensed attorney in the states of Arizona, California, and Minnesota. He received his BA in Politics from Whitman College and his JD from Cornell Law School. He has followed the sport of mixed martial arts closely since being introduced to Brazilian jiu-jitsu in 1998 by a law school classmate.

***Edited to change “wreaks” to the correct word, “reeks.”

Share This:

More »

On July 19, 2008, the Affliction promotion held their debut card in Anaheim, California. The following week, on July 26, 2008, EliteXC held its second “Saturday Night Fights” in Stockton, California. After an initial round of testing for performance enhancing and other illicit drugs was completed, one fighter was suspended by the California State Athletic Commission (“CSAC”).

On August 1, 2008, Bill Douglas, the Assistant Executive Officer of CSAC, informed MMAweekly that additional positive results would be announced, no earlier than August 11, 2008, after the initial round of testing indicated additional fighters tested positive for banned substances.¹ The news spread like wildfire across the internet, throughout the MMA blog world, news sites, and online message boards. CSAC also released the names of eight fighters for each of the Affliction and ProElite cards who had already been tested and cleared of illicit drug use. Finally, Mr. Douglas announced that the remaining results would likely be announced on August 11, 2008. This last announcement created a virtual frenzy, as fans and media members alike anxiously awaited the release, and watched it appear across news sites virtually simultaneously. Testing results, however, should not be treated as a staged event designed to obtain maximum anticipation and media coverage. The careers, reputations and lives of many athletes are negatively impacted, unnecessarily, by CSAC’s current disclosure policy.

With twenty-two (22) fighters appearing on the EliteXC card, and twenty (20) fighters on the Affliction card, fans quickly utilized the disclosures made by CSAC to eliminate those fighters whose results had already been revealed. A total of twenty-five (25) fighters remained whose test results were pending. Rampant rumor and speculation followed, with virtually all of the remaining twenty-five fighters being linked, at one time or another, to steroids or other illicit drug use.

A much better policy, I believe, would be to either (i) announce all drug testing results on one occasion, or (ii) respond to media inquiries by providing only the date that subsequent results will be announced. CSAC’s current practice unnecessarily creates tension for fighters, and leads to rumor and innuendo which is entirely unfair to the athletes who test clean. As well, false positives can and do sometimes occur. This fact, coupled with CSAC’s disclosure that additional positive results would be forthcoming, serves to disrupt the lives of the remaining twenty-five (25) fighters whose results had not yet been released. I see little benefit to CSAC in making the disclosures Mr. Douglas made to MMAweekly, and many benefits to the athletes, their families, friends and loved ones, in the policy I suggested above.

Rob Maysey is a licensed attorney in the states of Arizona, California, and Minnesota. He received his BA in Politics from Whitman College and his JD from Cornell Law School. He has followed the sport of mixed martial arts closely since being introduced to Brazilian jiu-jitsu in 1998 by a law school classmate.

Share This:

More »

Immediately below, are six good reasons why the Muhammad Ali Act should be applied to mixed martial arts:

“The Congress makes the following findings:¹

(1) Professional MMA differs from other major, interstate professional sports industries in the United States in that it operates without any private sector association, league, or centralized industry organization to establish uniform and appropriate business practices and ethical standards.  This has led to repeated occurrences of disreputable and coercive business practices in the MMA industry, to the detriment of professional mixed martial artists nationwide.

(2) State officials are the proper regulators of professional MMA events, and must protect the welfare of professional mixed martial artists and serve the public interest by closely supervising MMA activity in their jurisdiction. State athletic commissions do not currently receive adequate information to determine whether mixed martial artists competing in their jurisdiction are being subjected to contract terms and business practices which may violate State regulations, or are onerous and confiscatory.

(3) Promoters who engage in illegal, coercive, or unethical business practices can take advantage of the lack of equitable business standards in the sport by holding MMA events in States with weaker regulatory oversight.

(4) The sanctioning organizations which have proliferated in the MMA industry have not established credible and objective criteria to rate professional mixed martial artists, and operate with virtually no industry or public oversight.  Their ratings are susceptible to manipulation, have deprived mixed martial artists of fair opportunities for advancement, and have undermined public confidence in the integrity of the sport.

(5) Open competition in the professional MMA industry has been significantly interfered with by restrictive and anticompetitive business practices of certain promoters and sanctioning bodies, to the detriment of the athletes and the ticket-buying public.  Common practices of promoters and sanctioning organizations represent restraints of interstate trade in the United States.

(6) It is necessary and appropriate to establish national contracting reforms to protect professional mixed martial artists and prevent exploitive business practices, and to require enhanced financial disclosures to State athletic commissions to improve the public oversight of the sport.”

Of course, the six items immediately above are the Congressional findings that were inserted into the Muhammad Ali Act.  I have taken the liberty to replace the word “boxer” with mixed martial artist, and the word “boxing” with “MMA” to vigorously illustrate how those Congressional findings apply with equal validity to the current state of the mixed martial arts industry.

Mr. Caplan objects to my arguments, using such colorful words as “ridiculous,” “gibberish,” and “nonsensical.”  Interestingly, the owners of the UFC have deemed the issue worthy enough to spend money lobbying against the Muhammad Ali Act’s application to mixed martial arts.² Unless the Fertitta brothers are in the habit of pursuing “gibberish” and the “nonsensical” by throwing cash its way, they must believe my arguments not only have merit, but may just be applied by a court of law.   The Fertitta brothers may be many things, but I haven’t heard them called fools.

The thrust of Mr. Caplan’s argument centers around the notion that the Muhammad Ali Act was written solely for boxing, and thus, necessarily, cannot be applied to MMA.  Mr. Caplan writes that my argument contains “a fatal flaw” because “nowhere in the Muhammad Ali Act does it contain the phrases ‘mixed martial art[ist]s’ or ‘mixed martial arts.’”³ Mr. Caplan, perhaps because his intent in responding to my article appears to have been dual, with equal parts devoted to criticizing my motives and responding to the substance of the article, appears to have missed the entire point of my prior article which can be read here.   Namely, despite not a single mention of the word “condominium” in the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (”Land Sales Act“), both the Housing and Urban Development agency and a court of law deemed the Land Sales Act applicable to condominiums before the word was ever used in the Land Sales Act.⁴

Next, Mr. Caplan argues that MMA and boxing are really just “apples and oranges,” and that the “business models of boxing and MMA are completely different.”  MMA and boxing are so different, according to Mr. Caplan, that MMA is actually more akin to MLB, the NFL, or NBA than it is to boxing.  Apparently, Caplan is mistaken in his belief that the UFC is modeled after these league sports, considering the UFC obtained sanctioning from the same athletic commissions that regulated boxing and continue to seek such sanctioning even today.  In fact, MMA is governed by the same existing regulatory structures in place for boxing, and many states’ MMA regulations are derived directly from the boxing counterparts.  Again, I have yet to hear anyone call the Fertitta brothers fools.

Mr. Caplan continues by stating in boxing, a fighter signs with a “manager and a promoter.”  The promoter, in Caplan’s view, actually serves “in a lot of ways” as a “second manager.”  In boxing, the “promoter controls your promotional fights and can tell you when, where, and who you will be fighting.”  In MMA, by contrast, a fighter signs with a “manager” and with a “promotion.”  Mr. Caplan then asks, apparently with a straight face, if the reader sees the difference.  I must admit, I myself do not.  Last time I checked, the UFC dictates who, when and where you fight as well.  Matt Lindland even commented on this practice, very recently, in an article posted on Mr. Caplan’s website.⁵  Finally, when a fighter signs a bout agreement with the UFC, the line where Zuffa signs says “Promoter” not “league.”  In practice and by law, they are a promoter.  And of course, to allow a promoter to be a manager would violate existing state laws and the Muhammad Ali Act.

Quite incredibly, in support of his position that the Muhammad Ali Act doesn’t apply to MMA, Mr. Caplan, as the rankings committee chair of WAMMA which promotes itself as the one and only legitimate sanctioning body in MMA, writes, “there is no rankings system, thus, no mandatory challengers or deadlines.”  Doesn’t the existence of a sanctioning body make the parallels between MMA and boxing all the more clear?

Mr. Caplan further illustrates these so called distinctions between boxing promoters and MMA promotions by claiming that in MMA, a “promotion is an actual company that has a brand identity.”  Apparently, the fact that in MMA “promotions” spend money establishing their own brand instead of, and indeed often in place of the fighters themselves, makes all the difference in the world.  I must admit, I found this attempted distinction between the “promoter” and “promotion” nonsensical.  Top Rank, Inc., last time I checked, was a legitimate company as well, with over seventy five (75) fighters on its roster.  Mr. Caplan is right, however, in that differences do exist.  In boxing, the promotional contract typically imposes duties upon the promoter to the fighter, whereas in MMA, this has been flipped on its head, and typically requires duties of the fighter, to the promoter.

Mr. Caplan then questions “the motives” of anyone who argues for the application of the Muhammad Ali Act to MMA.  I can’t speak for anyone else, but my motives are not hidden at all. I don’t own stock or other equity options in any promotion, and never have.  I am also not a member of any sanctioning body.  I do believe, however, that application of the Muhammad Ali Act to MMA will provide fighters with tools to combat exploitive and oppressive business practices, and thereby increase their market values.  I believe the disclosure mandates of the Muhammad Ali Act, flaws and all, are worlds better than what currently exists today, and will aid fighters in obtaining a fair share of the revenue.  I believe the prohibitions against certain conflicts of interest will also aid fighters in obtaining larger purses.

Next, Mr. Caplan suggests that the likes of me are probably acting strategically, in an “attempt to weaken the UFC’s market share.”  The last time I have checked, all of the major promotions operate under the same business model.  Indeed, the UFC’s contractual practices may be the least offensive.  If applied, the Muhammad Ali Act would impact all promotions alike.  At this point, I am beginning to wonder if Mr. Caplan’s disdain for the Muhammad Ali Act is an official WAMMA position, or if he is speaking for himself only. Indeed, I can think of few entities more hostile to the UFC’s well being than WAMMA itself.

Again, I would like to thank Mr. Caplan for taking the time to discuss this issue.  I would also like to thank Robert Joyner and MMAPayout.com as well.  This is an important issue, and worthy of debate.  Your recognition is appreciated.  I’m not sure why Mr. Caplan reacted to my article in a personal way, but I appreciate his enthusiasm.  In fact, I agree with and share Mr. Caplan’s thoughtful opinions when it comes to the need for a player’s association in MMA.  In fact, that is what the Mixed Martial Arts Fighters Association aspires to be. 

Rob Maysey is a licensed attorney in the states of Arizona, California, and Minnesota. He received his BA in Politics from Whitman College and his JD from Cornell Law School. He has followed the sport of mixed martial arts closely since being introduced to Brazilian jiu-jitsu in 1998 by a law school classmate.

[1] 15 USCA § 6301.  The findings are taken from the Muhammad Ali Act, and modified by the author by replacing “boxer” with “mixed martial artist” and ‘boxing” with “MMA” to illustrate my point with vigor.

[2] http://www.mmapayout.com/2008/05/ufc-hires-washington-lobbying-firm/.

[3] Caplan, Sam. http://fiveouncesofpain.com/2008/08/24/can-someone-please-offer-a-good-explanation-as-to-why-the-muhammad-ali-act-should-apply-to-mma/, fiveouncesofpain.com.

[4] Nargiz v. Henlopen Developers, 380 A.2d 1361 (Del. 1977).

[5] http://fiveouncesofpain.com/2008/07/03/matt-lindland-claims-ufc-contracts-are-illegal/.

Share This:

More »

This article argues that despite the usage of the term “boxer,” the Muhammad Ali Act is still applicable to mixed martial arts and mixed martial artists.  To make this argument, an analysis of the history behind the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (the “Land Sales Act“) and its applicability to condominium sales is instructive.  As discussed below, the federal agency designated to administer the Land Sales Act determined that it applied to condominiums nine years before Congress used the term “condominium” at all. 

I.  Land Sales Act.¹

A.  Scope and Protections of the Land Sales Act.

The Land Sales act was enacted by Congress to combat fraud in the sale of land.  The Land Sales Act was the federal government’s response to widespread fraud occurring in the interstate sale of lands.  The use of mails for interstate land sales proliferated during the 1960’s, and abuses soon became widespread.²   In general, these sales involved undeveloped realty, such as swampland in Florida, desert in Arizona, land under water or otherwise undevelopable. 

The Land Sales Act, in summary, prohibits a “developer” from selling or leasing any “lot” in a “subdivision”, through the use of interstate commerce unless it complies with the Land Sales Act or falls within an applicable exemption.  Like the securities laws after which it was modeled, the Land Sales Act uses disclosure as it primary tool to combat fraud.    

B.  Legislative History of the Land Sales Act. 

As initially enacted by Congress, the Land Sales Act did not use the word “condominium” at all.  Many legal commentators and scholars believed the Land Sales Act did not apply to condominiums by intention of Congress and for policy reasons.  In drafting the statute to protect purchasers of land, Congress made the Land Sale Act applicable to “lots.”  Commentators presumed that Congressional usage of the term “lot” without inclusion of “condominium” supported the interpretation that the Land Sales Act applied only to raw land. 

The Office of Interstate Land Sales Registration (”OILSR“), however, created by the Housing and Urban Development (”HUD“) agency to oversee the Land Sales Act, determined as early as 1969 that the Land Sales Act applied to condominiums.  Again, in 1972, OILSR issued an “advisory opinion which concluded that condominium units were included within the definition of ‘lots.’”³  OILSR subsequently formalized this interpretation of the Land Sales Act in the form of regulations.  According to the OILSR, a condominium is equivalent to a subdivision, with each condominium unit being a “lot.” 

HUD issued a formal pronouncement in 1973, declaring that it interpreted the Land Sales Act to apply to condominiums, and stated that it consistently followed the same interpretation since 1969.  HUD reiterated the position of the OILSR in determining that the Land Sales Act applied to condominiums again in 1974. 

In 1978, Congress amended the Land Sales Act, and for the first time, included the word “condominium” into a single provision.  Congress inserted the word “condominium” in a provision exempting sales of improved land under certain circumstances.  In enacting this amendment to the Land Sales Act, Congress again created fodder for debate.  One view interpreted this amendment as necessarily implying that the Land Sales Act was applicable to condominiums–otherwise, the inclusion of the term “condominium” in the exemption provision would be rendered superfluous.  The second view, however, imparted a much narrower intent on behalf of Congress in passing the amendment.  According to the second view, the amendment acted only to exempt land sales upon which a “condominium” rests.  This view is also supported by rules of statutory construction, which mandates that where Congress employs a term in one section of a statute, and not in another, the term should not be implied where it was excluded. ⁴

C.  Judicial Interpretation of the Land Sales Act. 

In 1985, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit definitively ruled that the Land Sales Act applied to condominiums.⁵ In deference to the agency interpretation of HUD, and in implementing the antifraud and consumer protection purposes of the Land Sales Act, the court ruled that the Land Sales Act applied to condominiums.  The court, in reaching its conclusion, not only looked toward HUD’s interpretation of the Land Sales Act, but also towards the legislative history and purposes behind passage of the Land Sales Act.  The court noted that the legislative history of the Land Sales Act employs the terms “land” and “real estate,” in addition to the term “lots.” Thus, Congressional intent to prevent fraud in the sale of real estate, regardless of the form of ownership, should control.  In ruling that the Land Sales Act applied to condominiums, the court concluded that the fraudulent sale of land is “not rendered any less fraudulent if the condominium form of ownership is utilized.”⁶ 

II.  Imparting the Lessons of the Land Sales Act to the Muhammad Ali (Safety) Act.   

The Land Sales Act was enacted to protect consumers in the purchase of “lots” from unscrupulous developers and promoters.  Despite the usage by Congress of the term “lots”, with no mention of the term “condominium”, HUD examined the legislative history and intent, and determined that the consumer protections and antifraud purposes behind the Land Sales Act applied equally to both raw land and condominium units.  Judicial interpretations of the Land Sales Act echoed HUD’s interpretation, even despite contrary evidence of Congressional intent. 

Unlike the sale of interstate lands, there is no federal agency designated to oversee activities in boxing or mixed martial arts, despite prior legislative attempts.  Thus, no federal agency is available to issue agency interpretations applying the Muhammad Ali Act to boxers and mixed martial artists.  However, many members of the media and state athletic commissions have declared that the protections afforded by the Muhammad Ali Act to boxers are equally necessary for mixed martial artists.  Mark Cuban has stated publicly he believes the Muhammad Ali Act already applies to mixed martial arts.  Armando Garcia, commissioner of the California State Athletic Commission, believes similar protections should be afforded to mixed martial artists.  Fighters themselves believe the Muhammad Ali Act should apply to mixed martial artists, including, among others, Matt Lindland and Randy Couture. 

Additionally, like the Land Sales Act, the legislative history of the Muhammad Ali Act indicates that Congress employed the terms “fighter” and “athlete” in addition to the term “boxer.”  Finally, the Congressional intent in passing the Muhammad Ali Act, namely, the protection of boxers from exploitive and coercive business practices, applies with equal force to the current status of mixed martial artists.  Thus, despite the Muhammad Ali Act’s usage of only the term “boxer,” as the history behind the interpretation and development of the Land Sales Act instructs, do not assume necessarily that the Muhammad Ali Act does not apply to mixed martial artists. 

For a more expanded article on the Muhammad Ali Act’s applicability to mixed martial arts, please click here. 

Rob Maysey is a licensed attorney in the states of Arizona, California, and Minnesota. He received his BA in Politics from Whitman College and his JD from Cornell Law School. He has followed the sport of mixed martial arts closely since being introduced to Brazilian jiu-jitsu in 1998 by a law school classmate.

[1] 15 U.S.C.A. § 1701-1720. 

[2] Olivier, James L.  “Beyond Consumer Protection:  The Application of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act to Condominium Sales,” University of Florida Law Review , 37 UFLLR 945 (1985). 

[3] Id. At 951. 

[4] Id. at 953. 

[5] Winter v. Hollingsworth Properties, Inc., 777 F.2d 1444 (11^th Cir. 1985). 

[6] Id. at 1448. 

Share This:

More »