MMA-URLS

Both finalists in the Strikeforce World Heavyweight Grand Prix will have another fight in the organization. By winning the heavyweight tournament this past weekend in San Jose, Calif., Daniel Cormier moves to a fight that Strikeforce parent Zuffa previously promised to broadcaster Showtime, to highlight the grand-prix winner. But it turns out that the other tourney finalist, Josh Barnett, also will have one more bout in Strikeforce, parent company Zuffa told USA TODAY on Monday.

Posted in: fight, strikeforce, usa today, zuffa, grandprix winner

Read the full article at MMA Junkie

ZUFFA has finally unveiled the completely overhauled Strikeforce.com website, featuring a dazzling new look that is both unique in its presentation and groundbreaking in its design. Look no further than UFC.com to see just how far Strikeforce has come in today's digital landscape.

Posted in: strikeforce, zuffa, website, strikeforcecom website, strikeforcecom

Read the full article at MMA Mania

As if they weren't already on Dana White's sh*t-list, fellow MMA bloggers journalists Cage Potato have inadvertently gotten themselves in hot water with the UFC again.  Their article about the UFC sponsoring Jon Jones included the photo caption shown above, and apparently the fact that's a joke and not to be taken seriously wasn't plain enough for Zuffa's liking, because they're demanding an official retraction. Las Vegas, Nevada - Zuffa, LLC, dba the Ultimate Fighting Championship® (UFC®), today announced that it served a demand for retraction upon the parent entities and executives of the website CagePotato regarding certain false and defamatory statements attributed to UFC® President, Dana White, in an April 14th website posting. As detailed in the formal demand for a retraction prepared by UFC® attorney, Donald J. Campbell of the Las Vegas law firm, Campbell & Williams: "The claim that Mr. White would financially wager on the outcome of a UFC® event is outrageous in the extreme. Indeed, in the verified complaint we are presently preparing for Mr. White's signature upon his return from Abu Dhabi, Mr. White expressly states under oath that at no time in the history of his association with the UFC® has he ever financially wagered on the outcome of a UFC® event." Mr. Campbell further explained that under Nevada law a demand for retraction is the first required step in the filing of a lawsuit seeking punitive damages against a party that has maliciously published defamatory statements about another. Bloody Elbow points out that Zuffa is probably pissed because there would be serious issues if the president of a fight promotion (owned by casino owners to boot) really was betting on his own fights, and the problem here is that it was presented similar to a legit quote with no clear indication that it's only a joke.  Then again, as one of their own commenters pointed out: "If this lawsuit goes through, sites like The Onion are f*cked."  To be fair, that's a clear-cut satire website and things get murky when you mix gags in with the real stuff, but it's a fact that all kinds of websites do fake quotes all the time, including this one.  Should we really be required to add "*not a real quote" in tiny letters every time we do it?  No seriously, I'd like to know before I get sued. I'm not sure if this lawsuit would hold up in court, but like many suits, I presume the goal here is to threaten Cage Potato into submission before it even gets that far.  They operate on a bigger budget than us, meaning they're like a shoestring whereas we're like a ball-hair, but by that analogy, Zuffa's legal department alone is like the main cables on the Golden Gate Bridge.  Bottom line, my advice to CP is to post a short n' sweet retraction and nip things in the bud before they find themselves looking up Lionel Hutz in the yellowpages.   UPDATE:  Retracted.  Wise move, CP.  Let's hope that's the end of it.

Posted in: ufc, zuffa, mr, website, retraction

Read the full article at Fightlinker

As if they weren't already on Dana White's sh*t-list, fellow MMA bloggers journalists Cage Potato have inadvertently gotten themselves in hot water with the UFC again.  Their article about the UFC sponsoring Jon Jones included the photo caption shown below: Apparently the fact that it's a joke and not to be taken seriously wasn't plain enough for Zuffa's liking, because they're demanding an official retraction. Las Vegas, Nevada - Zuffa, LLC, dba the Ultimate Fighting Championship® (UFC®), today announced that it served a demand for retraction upon the parent entities and executives of the website CagePotato regarding certain false and defamatory statements attributed to UFC® President, Dana White, in an April 14th website posting. As detailed in the formal demand for a retraction prepared by UFC® attorney, Donald J. Campbell of the Las Vegas law firm, Campbell & Williams: "The claim that Mr. White would financially wager on the outcome of a UFC® event is outrageous in the extreme. Indeed, in the verified complaint we are presently preparing for Mr. White's signature upon his return from Abu Dhabi, Mr. White expressly states under oath that at no time in the history of his association with the UFC® has he ever financially wagered on the outcome of a UFC® event." Mr. Campbell further explained that under Nevada law a demand for retraction is the first required step in the filing of a lawsuit seeking punitive damages against a party that has maliciously published defamatory statements about another. Bloody Elbow points out that Zuffa is probably pissed because there would be serious issues if the president of a fight promotion (owned by casino owners to boot) really was betting on his own fights, and the problem here is that it was presented similar to a legit quote with no clear indication that it's only a joke.  Then again, as one of their own commenters pointed out: "If this lawsuit goes through, sites like The Onion are f*cked."  To be fair, that's a clear-cut satire website and things get murky when you mix gags in with the real stuff, but it's a fact that all kinds of websites do fake quotes all the time, including this one.  Should we really be required to add "*not a real quote" in tiny letters every time we do it?  No seriously, I'd like to know before I get sued. I'm not sure if this lawsuit would hold up in court, but like many suits, I presume the goal here is to threaten Cage Potato into submission before it even gets that far.  They operate on a bigger budget than us, meaning they're like a shoestring whereas we're like a ball-hair, but by that analogy, Zuffa's legal department alone is like the main cables on the Golden Gate Bridge.  Bottom line, my advice to CP is to post a short n' sweet retraction and nip things in the bud before they find themselves looking up Lionel Hutz in the yellowpages.   UPDATE:  Retracted.  Wise move, CP.  Let's hope that's the end of it.

Posted in: ufc, zuffa, mr, website, retraction

Read the full article at Fightlinker

Tuesday was a bad day for “King” Mo Lawal as he was suspended by the Nevada State Athletic Commission 9 months and fined $39,000 for using Performance Enhancing Drugs. To compound the suspension, Lawal took to twitter to vent which lead to Zuffa cutting Lawal. As you may recall, Lawal tested positive for PEDs after his last fight in Strikeforce in January.  The hearing before the Nevada State Athletic took place on Tuesday and it didn’t go well. Lawal was fined a total of $39,000 and suspended 9 months by the NSAC.  Also, his KO of Lorenz Larkin was ruled a No Contest. MMA Fighting reports that Strikeforce’s Scott Coker stated that the release was based upon the “subsequent reaction” by Lawal.  This is in reference to Lawal’s twitter rant after the hearing.  The tweets railed against a female member of the NSAC questioning Lawal as she asked if he could read and if he spoke English. Lawal took offense and some of his tweets reflected his disdain.  As a result, Zuffa notified Lawal’s management that the fighter had been let go. With Lawal’s termination came the uproar as to the lack of symmetry in doling out punishments by Zuffa.  But there is a code of conduct in fighters’ contracts. MMA Junkie provides the section in a Zuffa fighter’s contract regarding code of conduct: Section 9.1 of the Zuffa (or Forza, LLC for Strikeforce fighters) contract states: “Fighter shall conduct himself in accordance with commonly accepted standards of decency, social conventions and morals, and Fighter will not commit any act or become involved in any situation or occurrence or make any statement which will reflect negatively upon or bring disrepute, contempt, scandal, ridicule, or disdain to Fighter, the Identity of Fighter or any of Fighter’s Affiliates, FORZA or any of its officers, managers, members, employees, or agents. “Fighter’s conduct shall not be such as to shock, insult or offend the public or any organized group therein, or reflect unfavorably upon any current or proposed sponsor or such sponsor’s advertising agency, or any network or station over which a Bout is to be broadcast.” Payout Perspective: The termination issue here is based on Lawal’s tweets, something that has gotten UFC fighters in trouble in the past.  Recent memory will point us to Miguel Torres and his brief expulsion due to an off color tweet.  Also, Torres was taken back into the good graces of Zuffa less than a month after he was terminated. But Forrest Griffin had a controversial tweet about rape and was not punished.  Rashad Griffin made a topical, yet off-color remark about Phil Davis’ alma mater, Penn State in promoting their fight and was not punished either. As for the reason for the tweets, it’s certainly understandable for Lawal to be upset for the line of questioning about whether he could read and/or speak English. As an attorney that’s actually been in situations like this, feelings are hurt and it’s unfortunate that this happens in the profession.  After listening to the audio, it seems like Pat Lundvall was asking a line of questioning which would segue into further questioning.  Definitely, she could have asked different questions to get to the same point.  But, it appears that she may have been upset with the fact that Lawal did not actually fill out the questionnaire which she questioned Lawal about preceding the read and speak questions.  Honestly, I’m not even sure if she realized that the questions were condescending.  But that’s only speculation. The termination gives cause to pause about whether there should be a need to inform Zuffa fighters about its twitter policy (maybe implement one if one does not exist).  Zuffa could amend its code of conduct to specifically include social media use to spell it out to its fighters too.  For a tool it wishes, and in fact awards, its fighters for using, there needs to be some ground rules.  While it doesn’t want to restrict tweeting, fighters need to be smart about what they are tweeting.  Lawal has been through a difficult time and the tweets reflect his frustration.  But, he should have self-imposed a cooling period.  Stay off of twitter for a day so your tweets don’t get you into trouble. It’s one of the reasons why the media is not let into locker rooms immediately after a football/basketball game.  Players need to calm down lest they say something they regret. In the end, Lawal may still have a chance to comeback to Zuffa.  If he shows contrition for his tweets and accepts the suspension, Lawal still may land back in Strikeforce or even the UFC. One need only look to Miguel Torres.  You could even point to Nate Marquardt as a fighter exiled by the company only to return.

Posted in: strikeforce, fighter, zuffa, lawal, tweet

Read the full article at MMA Payout

Ben Thapa: Was the release of Muhammed Lawal (King Mo) from Strikeforce reasonable in light of all the stories and facts involved? Tim Burke: Yes, it was reasonable. In my opinion, Mo misinterpreted the commissioner's question. While it was remarkably condescending, it was asked in reference to his paperwork being filled out incorrectly if I'm not mistaken. Not understanding English has been used as a defense for incorrect paperwork in the past. Yes, he obviously demonstrated the ability to speak English in the seven minutes before that. But the blatantly obvious question wasn't a shot at Mo, it was to close a line of defense. According to many that have seen her in commission meetings before, Lundvall is like this all the time regardless of who is standing in front of her. I can't say what her intentions were for sure obviously, and I don't blame Mo for his interpretation of things, but he handled it very badly either way. The bottom line to me is that the UFC has to uphold the commission's authority, because it needs the commission to operate. If a Zuffa fighter is going to attack a commission member publicly like that, Zuffa has every right to tell the fighter to go work somewhere else so they don't have to deal with that headache. People can scream hypocrisy and all that, but it will fall on deaf ears. They are running a business, and they made a business decision. End of story. And I can just imagine what this lady is going to ask Nick Diaz next month at his hearing. Fraser Coffeen: I say no. And that's coming from someone who really actively dislikes the use of the word bitch, or baseless accusations of racism. But I think Lundvall was inappropriate in her question. Not horribly so (like, not bad enough that she should face any repercussions), but it was rude and not appropriate for a government official conducting an official hearing. Now, does that mean Mo should then jump on twitter and call her a "racist b**ch"? Certainly not. That was a stupid thing to do. But to be released from your contract over it? It seems unnecessary to me. And, yes, hypocritical when you look at some of the sexist antics of a guy like Rampage. I know what you're saying Tim when you say Zuffa doesn't care about that accusation of hypocrisy, and I agree with you. But just because they won't listen doesn't mean it's not a valid complaint. Brent Brookhouse: I think the most important thing here is the difference between what was said and what Mo has been saying was said. From the audio, Lundvall is asking about the questionnaire that was filled out prior to the fight where Mo did not say anything about his knee injury or the use of the supplement. She didn't ask if he knew how to "speak" English, she asked "Can you understand English? Do you read English?" Which, as Tim pointed out, was to make perfectly clear that Mo had the ability to read and understand what he was signing. Plenty of people can speak English but are unable to read. It closed off the idea that he "didn't understand what he was signing" when he put his name on the questionnaire. If you signed something that you acknowledge that you have the ability to read and comprehend, you really have no defense against the idea of not disclosing. If Mo felt that her actions were inappropriate, then he could have taken actions of his own. But the NSAC is responsible for handling far too much important stuff for the promotion to allow fighters to call their commissioner a "racist b**ch." Let's also not forget that this is coming on the back of the fact that his punishment was handed down for a banned substance. So combine the two and I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that they had to release him. This was the commissioner of the biggest state combat commission in the country, and Zuffa's home state. I think these are important steps in making it clear to fighters that "think before you tweet" remains important. I'm sure Mo will be back on the roster sometime in early 2013, but I think it was important to send a message that they don't support him right now for his actions. KJ Gould: Mo's twitter outburst was his own undoing. Even if he believes he has a case to call into question the motives of Lundvall's lines of inquiry, by making public his distaste for her and including misogynistic language, it makes everyone associated with Mo - including Zuffa - look bad. Rampage directly challenging the UFC brass is different, since although he made things public it was still an internal dispute. Roping the commission into it, who can at a whim make fighters and promoters alike jump through hoops just to make a point, makes for a difficult future working relationship. Mo's release is likely an appeasement from Zuffa to the commission,, because Zuffa doesn't need anymore headaches from dealing with them. Ben Thapa: At the same time, as someone who has dealt with racism in the past and as someone who has had to own up to screwing up something extremely badly, I can understand in a way Mo's reaction and anger. Instead of engaging in the time-honored "denyin' and lyin'" strategy, he owned up to it, pinpointed the exact substance, tried to show that he had no intentions of using it for competitive advantage and jumped through the hoops that the commission set for him at the time. And he's doing all of this with a PICC line into his body that's staving off severe staph infections that could have taken his leg. In return for this display of maturity and contrition, he gets grilled by the commission - and by Lundvall specifically - in a manner that is ABSOLUTELY the worst way to get the needed answers or information. It is all too easy to connect the precise English fluency and literacy questions that Lundvall asked to racist practices that have been in place for a long time and are not yet scoured from the face of the planet as they should be. I believe that while he was experiencing that giant wave of hurt, rejection and punishment, Mo actually reacted very well - aside from the "b**ch" comment. Seriously, how do you react when the impartial commission you are present before in regards to continuing your professional livelihood - while deathly ill - starts asking you questions that reek of racism against minorities? Mo was answering the questions as tersely as possible, while controlling his immediate outbursts and rising anger. I honestly don't know if I'd do the same in that situation. I do not believe the release was appropriate and that Zuffa could have smoothed the ruffled feathers without cutting anyone or taking any flak from either side. Fraser Coffeen: I can see that point KJ, but I guess I'd say that, if the commission decides to make Zuffa or Mo jump through hoops just to spite him/them for Mo's comments, well, that's a pretty unreasonable and unethical thing to do as well. Though I am beginning to get the sinking feeling that I am being a little too idealistic here and not basing my views on reality. KJ Gould: Commissions have often given the impression they're more concerned about exerting authority and marking territory, rather than making objective rulings or deciding matters they've been given authority to. Not all commissions or commissioners do, and it's not something that happens all the time, but based on the video of hearings we've had public access to it appears to have been the case in the past. I've no doubt Lawal felt genuinely upset and offended by the comments made, but that's something you talk to your lawyer about, not to twitter. His outburst has likely cost him pursuing the matter further should he have wanted to form a legal complaint about Lundvall's perceived behavior. Brent Brookhouse: This isn't unusual behavior from this commission (or any other, really) toward any fighter. Commission hearings are usually self-important, over-the-top and showy. It wasn't particular to Mo and, while the question may bring up feelings based on racist practices, that doesn't make it an illegitimate question if asked for an honest reason. If Mo's answer had been "I can read, but suffer from dyslexia" a response many college graduates could give. Then there is a whole new avenue that needs to be explored. By saying "did you sign the document?" and then clarifying that he had the capacity to have adequately understood the document he signed. The other part of the context here is that Mo's manager JUST explained that HE had filled out the paperwork for Mo and Mo just signed it. I think it's entirely legitimate to ask if he has the ability to read English in that situation. He signed a document that didn't list what he took and his manager filled it out. By making him answer that it wasn't questioning his intelligence, it was clarifying that he didn't have his manager fill out paperwork because he can't read as well as clarifying that he was capable of understanding that which he was signing. Honestly, the "he's seriously ill" thing shouldn't factor in at all. Tim Burke: I don't think that using his (flimsy) defense for failing a steroid test or his current medical status should be used as reasoning for calling a commission member a "racist bitch" for the whole world to see. Plus, while I can see why Mo reacted that way, the line of questioning towards him happens all the time. KJ Gould: I think it all comes down to a real lack of PR training for Mo and his camp. You can't use twitter like a valve to vent pressure whenever you feel like it; you have to be fully cognizant that publicly made comments have consequences. It's not just Mo, plenty of fighters, athletes and other working professionals slip up through twitter and social media and there are countless examples of this. If it's not part of the agenda already, use of social media and speaking to the press needs to be a focus at the UFC's next annual fighter summit, to stop stuff just like this from ever happening. If Mo had shown just a little more care, he might still be under Zuffa contract. How Mo handles and carries himself from here on out may determine if he gets brought back by Zuffa, and how quickly. It worked for Miguel Torres

Posted in: question, zuffa, commission, mo, english

Read the full article at Bloody Elbow

Muhammed “King Mo” Lawal had a very interesting day on Tuesday. The former Strikeforce light heavyweight champion stepped in front of the Nevada State Athletic Commission, was dealt a nine-month suspension and fined a large sum of money, and, eventually found out he had been released from Strikeforce by UFC president Dana White. In between all that, Lawal went on an Twitter outburst that likely helped in forcing Zuffa’s hand in releasing the talented fighter from the company. Following all of the exciting action, Lawal gave Stephie “Crooklyn” Daniels an exclusive interview where he talked about what went down with the NSAC and his eventual release from Strikeforce. It is what it is. Of course, I want to fight for Strikeforce and fight for Zuffa, but if they want to cut me for what I said, then I can’t take it back because it already happened. I have never been asked in such a condescending way if I could read or speak English like that. I did something wrong, so I can’t really say I’m being treated unfairly. I don’t know if it was excessive to cut me. Zuffa made a decision just off what was said on Twitter. I don’t know if they care what happened. I’m pretty sure they didn’t hear any of the audio. They just made a decision off what went down on Twitter. I’m pretty sure Keith Kizer and certain people at the commission are mad and I didn’t mean any disrespect to Keith or the rest of the people in the commission. I just felt disrespected by that one person that asked if I could speak or read English. To me, that was a blatant insult. This story has plenty of feedback already circulating around the MMA internet community. Was Zuffa right in releasing Lawal? Was “King Mo” out of line for his Twitter rants? Everyone seems to be picking a side and sticking to it. To hear Lawal’s NSAC hearing, follow this link courtesy of MMA Weekly. The official release information by the UFC can be viewed here, while Lawal’s manager, Mike Kogan, gives MMA Fighting an interview in regards to everything that went on here. Photo credit: Dave Mandel/Sherdog

Posted in: strikeforce, twitter, zuffa, lawal, keith kizer

Read the full article at MMA Convert

Social media can be a wonderful thing. It's a great networking tool that makes this big, big world a much smaller place. But there's a flip side to that coin. It's also a tad too easy to have something go wrong at your place of employment and rush home to tweet about your misfortunes. And if you don't have much of a filter to begin with? That's as good as a death sentence. Which brings us to Muhammed Lawal, who was released from his Strikeforce contract last night (March 27, 2012) for remarks he made on his Twitter account regarding a certain member of the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC). The short version: A chairperson named Pat Lundvall asked Lawal if he speaks English and can read, Lawal thought it was one of the most disrespectful things he had ever been asked, he was punished severely by the commission, and he quickly tweeted that Lundvall was a racist bitch for asking him that question. He later deleted the tweet but the damage had been done and the powers that be at Zuffa felt it was time to say goodbye. But considering others have tweeted just as insensitively in the past, does "King Mo" feel as though he's being treated unfairly? BloodyElbow.com got the answer: "It is what it is. Of course, I want to fight for Strikeforce and fight for Zuffa, but if they want to cut me for what I said, then I can't take it back because it already happened. I have never been asked in such a condescending way if I could read or speak English like that. I did something wrong, so I can't really say I'm being treated unfairly. I don't know if it was excessive to cut me. "Right now, I just want people to understand that I went in there respectfully and that I'm not playing the race card. I'm too old to play the race card. I'm established on the West Coast now and since I've been out here, I haven't experienced much racism. I've experienced some stereotypes and small prejudices here and there, but other than that, no, I haven't experienced too much, compared to when I was in the South. The woman's comments reminded me of times when I experienced racial insensitivity from other people. "Zuffa made a decision just off what was said on Twitter. I don't know if they care about what happened. I'm pretty sure they didn't hear any of the audio. They just made a decision off what went down on Twitter. I'm pretty sure Keith Kizer and certain people at the commission are mad and I didn't mean any disrespect to Keith or the rest of the people in the commission. I just felt disrespected by that one person that asked if I could speak or read English." He's clear as can be that he wasn't trying to play the race card ... even though he flat out called Lundvall a "racist bitch" for asking him a question that was, admittedly enough, rather disrespectful. Either way, the situation was handled poorly by Lawal from the moment he left the hearing. It's a tough break, too, considering all the other issues the former Strikeforce champion is currently dealing with. On top of his nine month suspension and $39,000 fine, "King Mo" has had to deal with up to 16 knee surgeries this year alone. To that end, the time off is not only desirable, it's necessary. But when he's recovered and ready to come back, will it be under the Zuffa banner? How he handles this situation moving forward will likely determine that. So far, he's on the right track.

Posted in: zuffa, commission, lawal, he, im

Read the full article at MMA Mania

The tricky thing about the legal world is that it is easy for people to make mistakes in overly hyping or inadequately summing up recent happenings. The scale and process of the legal world is not an easy one for the average person to quickly understand what is going on and what consequences result from this or that event. Dana White dropping a press row bomb about Zuffa suing this person or that person does not usually mean immediate consequences due to the slow pace at which the legal system grinds its gears. When Zuffa, the company operating the UFC and Strikeforce, sues companies or people, the final touches and the fallout won't come until months or even years after the lawsuit is begun. There is a ton of paper to be slogged through, argued over and dozens of mutually unsatisfactory compromises to be made over the course of those months or years. No sane person without a stake in these proceedings should go to all that work of untangling all of the paper trails, the contradictory stories and the interests of the parties involved. Recently, some sites and writers have asserted or concluded that Zuffa's recent lawsuit against JustinTV, the well-known live streaming content website, is completely dead in the water. I do not believe that this is what Judge Roger Hunt of the Nevada District Court actually accomplished with his recent decision to dismiss three of the twelve claims Zuffa brought against JustinTV. I remind the reader that a finding of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" is for criminal cases. The Zuffa/JustinTV litigation is a civil case, where the plaintiff (Zuffa) claims that the defendant (JustinTV) has damaged the plaintiff and seeks compensation for those damages. There is no finding of guilt and money is the usual form of compensation. The decision by Judge Hunt does not say in any shape or form that Zuffa lost the entire case - thereby freeing JustinTV to continue operating as they were prior to the litigation. Hunt says at the very end that three of twelve claims Zuffa brought - "the ones dealing with unfair trade practices and violations of the Communications Act" - are to be dismissed. The other nine claims in the original complaint remain - although some in altered form - and those are the ones that deal with copyright and trademark infringement, which is the heavy stuff. More after the jump in analysis and conclusions. Be careful to note that I am not a lawyer privy to any party in this litigation, so I cannot say with certainty much of anything regarding motives or strategies. However, the tenth, eleventh and twelfth causes of action Zuffa brought - and which Judge Hunt dismissed - seemed like an interesting legal strategy to extend in an unusual way a combination of established law that covers cable companies fighting against cable pirates and law that covers the broadcast of trademarked material to apply to the Zuffa/JustinTV situation. Judge Hunt's decision states that the case that Zuffa used to argue one claim, (Dastar), is not applicable to this specific situation and other cases are more applicable (Sega). Hunt also noted that the application of Zuffa's proposed logic would allow content providers to go after services that provide cloud computing, live streaming and so on - which is way beyond the scope and intent of the actual law. In regards to the other two claims and the amendment of the trademark infringement, the decision essentially says that the existing law and case law is not set up in a way that Zuffa can legitimately point to this law or that case and say "This is a legally recognized injury and thus we can get damages from JustinTV as compensation." After Hunt's decision spiking three of its claims, Zuffa still has plenty of time to amend the complaint to bring other claims that possibly have their legal ducks in a better row. The lawyers working for Zuffa have the time to change up their strategy some or press on with what they have now and begin in earnest the process of proving the claims/pressuring for settlement/whatever they want. JustinTV is presumably working with its lawyers to defend itself, negotiate settlement and all of the other legal stuff they have to do to deal with this complaint. There is much that has yet to happen over the coming months - which is a near-glacial pace that does not lend itself well to a 24/7/365 news cycle that MMA leans towards. In short, Zuffa's case against JustinTV isn't over yet. To speculate on the eventual course of the proceedings without access to and familiarity with the documents, witnesses and facts both sides possess is dangerous territory that can lead to missteps or misstatements. The same goes for the ongoing litigation involving the TapOut and Hitman brands. More on the UFC's recent actions against illegal streams and individual pirate stream consumers from Brent Brookhouse. Again, this is not legal advice and nobody should rely on this as such. I am not anyone's lawyer and am merely explaining my own perspective on these legal events. Hopefully, they bolster understanding of the touchiness of these legal issues and ongoing litigation.

Posted in: claim, zuffa, case, law, justintv

Read the full article at Bloody Elbow

Eric Goldman and Techdirt first reported Justin.tv’s victory in prevailing in its Motion to Dismiss certain claims from Zuffa’s Complaint filed in Nevada.  While the case remains, the court ruling March 8th did damage to Zuffa’s case. The lawsuit stems from Justin.tv allowing visitors to its website to view, illegally, UFC 121 which featured Cain Velasquez defeat Brock Lesnar for the UFC Heavyweight title. Justin.tv brought a Motion to Dismiss (filed in Sept 2011) to dismiss portions of Zuffa’s Complaint.  The Court ruled March 8th in dismissing the following causes of action: - Trademark:  Zuffa unsuccessfully claimed that Justin.tv infringed on its copyright as its logos were shown without consent during the illegal streaming of UFC 121 on Justin.tv.  While the court did not agree with Justin.tv’s argument, it sided with Justin.tv in finding no infringement.  The court held that Zuffa’s claims would allow Zuffa to hold copyright claims after it were to expire. - The “Stealing Cable” Statute:  Section 230 of the Communications Act is nicknamed “stealing cable” as most claims under the statute arise out of this. According to the court’s order, the law has been frequently used to limit suit against websites for alleged defamatory comments or reviews created by their users.  The statute has been applied in other instances but the court does not get into the actual claim. In dismissing Zuffa’s claim under section 230, the court acknowledges in a footnote the policy reason for dismissal.  The Court hypothesizes a scenario in which the floodgates of litigation would open up due in cloud computing. Via court order: Footnote 6 Zuffa argues that Justin.tv’s mere receipt of its users’ UFC video streams creates liability under the Communications Act. Logically, if the Court were to allow claims such as these, it would have to allow similar Communications Act claims against scores of “cloud computing” service providers such as Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon.com, Dropbox, Box.net, and others because Jusint.tv’s particular streaming service would be irrelevant. As an example, say a person took a snippet (or longer) of video of a UFC match being broadcast on their television with their iPhone, WindowsPhone, etc. The iPhone then automatically uploads that video to one of dozens of cloud storage systems such asApple’s iCloud. The Court refuses to find that Apple (or Microsoft, etc.) would be liable under theCommunications Act for merely receiving and storing this data under the Communications Act. Yet, Zuffa arguesfor exactly this result when it argues that Justin.tv’s mere receipt of this video stream makes Justin.tv liable. In passing the Communications Act, Congress did not intend such a result, and this Court will not broaden the effectof the statute in this manner In addition to the court’s ruling, Zuffa stipulated to dismiss its cause of action for Deceptive Trade Practices under Nevada law.  No discussion was needed. Zuffa v Justin Motion to Dismiss Order Payout Perspective: The court ruling is a blow to Zuffa’s legal strategy.  While Zuffa still has causes of action against Justin.tv, its novel approach to combating online piracy was diffused by the court.  Zuffa could still prevail against Justin.tv but the court’s ruling damages future intellectual property claims it may have against illegal streaming sites.

Posted in: claim, zuffa, court, act, justintv

Read the full article at MMA Payout

For those of you on Planet Greenfeedz trembling in terror as the UFC's legal Death Star powers up it's supercannon, not all hope is lost. Not only was my claim that it would be difficult to link accounts and users to people and PPVs referenced in a legal blog (that'll be $5000, you theives), but there is now black and white proof that the UFC isn't always going to win these copyright legal battles.Two years ago the UFC went after Justin.tv because a bunch of it's users were using it to stream ppv events out to the masses. You'd think this would be a clear cut case where a company has a legit beef that the law should be able to deal with. Haha, not so. Because of the way the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was written, the site isn't responsible for what it's users are up to: Last year, we wrote about how Zuffa, the parent company of Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) was suing Justin.tv because some of its users streamed UFC matches. As we noted at the time, we couldn't see how Zuffa would get past the DMCA's safe harbors. Apparently, Zuffa tried to get around that by being way too creative for its own good and the court has now shut down those efforts. Basically, Zuffa focused on two areas not covered (or not clearly covered) by safe harbors. The first is trademark, which is neither covered by the DMCA's safe harbors nor Section 230's safe harbors -- though, many courts have accepted similar rules that limit liability to third party service providers anyway. In this case, the court is extremely skeptical of the trademark claims, in part because it seemed clear that Zuffa was merely trying to use trademark law as if it were a "mutant copyright law," which courts have rejected in the past.The other attempt to get around safe harbors was to use the Communications Act, which has rules against "intercepting cable." Justin.tv actually suggested that Section 230's safe harbors should protect it from that claim -- which makes sense -- but the court doesn't want to touch that argument. Instead, it just says that the basic idea that Justin.tv is illegally intercepting cable doesn't make any sense -- and notes, again, that it appears to be Zuffa seeking to do an end-run around copyright law:"In essence, Zuffa alleges that Justin.tv’s users copied Zuffa’s UFC event and then rebroadcast the UFC event over the internet. This is not the type of conduct properly addressed by the Communications Act, but by copyright law (and, potentially, trademark law) because Justin.tv had no relationship with the original cable or satellite signal: by the allegations, Justin.tv did not receive or intercept any actual cable or satellite signal or broadcast." See, this is why we needed SOPA, people! Or perhaps something stronger that gives Dana White free access to IP data so he can show up at your house and throttle you with his bare hands for streaming his property.

Posted in: ufc, zuffa, court, justintv, harbor

Read the full article at Fightlinker

Justin.tv, the online live video streaming service, won a partial dismissal of a lawsuit Zuffa, LLC (the parent company of the UFC) brought against them for what Zuffa claimed were illegal broadcasts of UFC 121. Justin.tv filed a motion to dismiss Zuffa's trademark claims because they argue they 'improperly duplicate their copyright claims.' While Justin.tv was able to win on some counts, the court found Zuffa can't use trademark law to go after copyright violations, except what is 'inherent to the broadcast'. The court acknowledged the Octagon is inherent to the broadcast and thus not in play for the trademark claims, but ruled that something like the graphic overlay of the UFC logo could be inherent to the broadcast. That is an issue for the court to address as the case proceeds, which means it could not be dismissed at the outset. Zuffa argued Justin.tv was liable for trademark violations because items like UFC logos were featured on the broadcasts without express contest of Zuffa. The court disagreed with part of Zuffa's claims. They noted were Zuffa granted the claims they were arguing for related to those matters inherent to the broadcast, "Zuffa would possess a mutant-copyright or perpetual copyright because nobody would ever be able to copy the video and display it regardless of whether the copyright had entered the public domain." In addition to stopping trademark claims related to matters inherent to the broadcast, Justin.tv was also successful in getting portions of the lawsuit tossed out related to what is commonly known as 'stealing cable'. Justin.tv's motion to dismiss succeeded on these counts because the court underscored it was not Justin.tv itself that was receiving the broadcast (Zuffa actually does not disagree). Under the Communications Act which Zuffa used to bring the lawsuit on these specific claims, the court noted the law does not apply (only copyright law does). While it is true Justin.tv has a legal responsibility to police what third-party users feed in, the specific argument Zuffa used to bring the charges was found to be inapplicable. In it's statement regarding the dismissal of these claims, the court also noted third party sites that allow for users to upload content are not liable in this regard across a host of platforms. "If the Court were to allow claims such as these," the court's decision stated, "it would have to allow similar Communications Act claims against scores of "cloud computing" service providers such as Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon.com, Dropbox, Box.net, and others because Jusint.tv’s [sic] particular streaming service would be irrelevant. As an example, say a person took a snippet (or longer) of video of a UFC match being broadcast on their television with their iPhone, Windows Phone, etc. The iPhone then automatically uploads that video to one of dozens of cloud storage systems such as Apple’s iCloud. The Court refuses to find that Apple (or Microsoft, etc.) would be liable under the Communications Act for merely receiving and storing this data under the Communications Act." "Yet, Zuffa argues for exactly this result when it argues that Justin.tv’s mere receipt of this video stream makes Justin.tv liable. In passing the Communications Act, Congress did not intend such a result, and this Court will not broaden the effect of the statute in this manner." Those trademark claims dealing with matters not inherent to the broadcast as well as copyright claims still have to be addressed by the court. There is no time frame regarding when they will be adjudicated. Read the court's decision related to these matters below. 84542938-Zuffa-v-Justin-Motion-to-Dismiss-Order

Posted in: claim, zuffa, broadcast, court, justintv

Read the full article at AOL Fanhouse

Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) President Dana White announces his offensive front on Internet piracy in July 2010, starting with popular online web streaming service Justin.tv: "I can’t wait to go after the thieves that are stealing our content. This is a fight we will not lose." The war isn't over, but the UFC is suffering major casualties on the battlefield. That's because the world's largest fight promotion saw two of its primary arguments, Trademark and Communications Act, waved off by the powers that be in the United States District Court (Nevada). But was it an early stoppage? Here is the initial filing: Zuffa, LLC ("Zuffa"), owner of the Ultimate Fighting Championship® ("UFC®") brand filed a lawsuit against Justin.tv, Inc. ("Justin.tv") for copyright and trademark infringement in United States District Court for the District of Nevada arising from Justin.tv's repeated and ongoing failure to meaningfully address the rampant and illegal uploading of video of live Pay-Per-View UFC® events by members and users of the Justin.tv website. ... For example, on October 23, 2010, over 50,000 people watched live streaming feeds of the UFC 121 Pay-Per-View event. Indeed, third-party contractors hired and paid for by Zuffa, removed more than 200 infringing live streams of UFC 121 from the Justin.tv website. This piracy represents a significant loss of revenue to Zuffa and its mobile, online, cable and satellite distribution partners each year. Zuffa further stated its intention to work with the popular streaming video website over the past couple of years to put an end to infringing activities, but claim they've encountered resistance and believe that Justin.tv had been actively working against them. Here's why the courts disagreed (via Eric Goldman): Trademark. Justin.tv argued that Zuffa's trademark claims were Dastar-ed. The court partially disagrees because Zuffa wasn't claiming reverse passing off. Nevertheless, Dastar wipes out Zuffa's claims about any trademarks actually embedded in the video stream, such as Zuffa's trademarked Octagon fighting ring, because trademarks would allow Zuffa to control the copyrighted material even after the copyright term expired. Instead, "the Court limits Zuffa's trademark claims only to the display of Zuffa's trademarkswhich are not an inherent part of the video broadcast." Whatever that means...! In a footnote, the court also "expresses extreme doubt" about Zuffa's trademark inducement claim. Communications Act. Zuffa's claims relate to the "stealing cable" provisions. Justin.tv claimed that 47 USC 230 applies, a pretty logical argument given that Zuffa is bringing a non-IP claim against Justin.tv for third party content. However, the court sidesteps the Section 230 issue, saying it's never been applied to the Communications Act (true) and that the court couldn't find any analogous "stealing cable" claim against websites, and it didn't want to touch this "novel" issue. Justin.tv was found not guilty of stealing cable because it "did not receive or intercept any actual cable or satellite signal or broadcast" and trying to hold it liable under the Communications Act would also implicate "cloud computing service providers such as Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon.com, Dropbox, Box.net, and others" who accept input of user media. While unquestionably a crippling blow to the Zuffa case, there is still a matter of copyright infringement, which Goldman believes will (and should) should fall under the 512(c) safe harbor umbrella. Is Zuffa fighting a losing battle? 84542938-Zuffa-v-Justin-Motion-to-Dismiss-Order More on the UFC's fight against online piracy here, here and here.

Posted in: claim, zuffa, court, justintv, trademark

Read the full article at MMA Mania

The Sports Business Daily/Journal had a brief article on the UFC-Fox deal in which both sides indicated that control and opportunity were big issues in the monumental deal for Zuffa. The article states that control was a big part of Zuffa choosing Fox. Zuffa still controls production of its shows although it takes suggestions from Fox.  Overall, Fox was fine with allowing Zuffa to continue with producing its shows. Via SBJ/SBD: Fox was OK with letting UFC control production, Eric Shanks, president and COO of Fox Sports.  “You wouldn’t have given up control if you don’t trust the guys,” Shanks said. “You want the authenticity that made the sport what it is. Part of what made it authentic was the production. Still, Zuffa has worked with Fox in addressing some of its concerns.  We’ve seen the elimination of weapon sponsors, cleaning blood off of the mat, toning down some of the content and shortening fighter entrances with the UFC’s switch to Fox. In addition, Zuffa was interested in the fact that Fox had so many platforms to promote the UFC.  This factor outweighed other opportunities with HBO or purchasing and rebranding the G4 network. Payout Perspective: It’s obvious that control is a big factor for Zuffa.  You need only look to the company’s dealings with Showtime to recognize that Zuffa is very protective of its brand and the way it does things.  You may recall that Showtime execs didn’t agree to some of the suggested changes Dana White had for Strikeforce: Rousey vs. Tate, which angered White to the extent that he’s hands off of Strikeforce. As for the changes so far, the blood on the mat and weapon brand ban are things that relate to Fox’s overall standards and practices.  The issue with the blood has to do with the perception of the sport and the fact that it is still introducing it to the masses.  As Shanks was quoted, ““I don’t want it to look like someone just sacrificed a goat before Fox comes on the air.” An interesting takeaway from the article is how shortening up the fighter entrances might indirectly hurt sponsors and the sponsorship of fighters.  With shorter appearances on the camera, it may hurt the sponsorship value of a patch, t-shirt or hat of sponsor.  It will make sponsors and agents think of other ways to get its brands on camera.

Posted in: fox, ’t, sport, zuffa, control

Read the full article at MMA Payout

submitted by blueboybob [link] [2 comments]

Posted in: zuffa, case, blueboybob, justintv

Read the full article at Reddit

Zuffa LLC. has shut down illegal streaming site www.greenfeedz.com for pirating a dozen UFC pay-per-views from UFC 130 to UFC 142. The company also seized user records from the site in an effort to combat online piracy. The records detailed the email addresses, user names, the amount of events viewed, and the IP addresses of all users who registered to view the feeds. Zuffa LLC. will pursue legal remedies against the users through their counsel. Zuffa LLC. has been a strong advocate for tighter online piracy laws (including support of the controversial SOPA and PIPA bills) for a long time as the promotion reportedly makes the majority of it’s income from PPV proceeds. The move against greenfeedz and its users is the latest push from the company in an effort to curtail the pirating of their events.

Posted in: zuffa, site, user, llc, zuffa llc

Read the full article at MMA Frenzy

The Wrestling Observer reports that Zuffa is taking a familiar strategy in going after online piracy. In Zuffa’s lawsuit against illegal streaming web site Greenfeedz, Zuffa has obtained Greenfeedz user information which may lead to Zuffa going after the users. Its alleged that Greenfeedz illegally streamed UFC 130 and 142.  The web site has been shut down. As part of the legal action, Zuffa has obtained information of users of the web site which may lead to tracking down the users that viewed illegal streams of the UFC events on Greenfeedz.  No action has been taken yet against any individual that used Greenfeedz. Payout Perspective: The Zuffa strategy is reminiscent of rock band Metallica’s legal battle against Napster in the 2000s.  Metallica sued Napster for copyright infringement and as an offspring of the litigation Metallica sued three universities (USC, Yale and Indiana University).  The colleges were brought into the litigation as Metallica claimed that the universities were complicit to copyright infringement by not blocking Napster on its campus computers.  Metallica also obtained information on 335,435 Napster users which it requested Napster block from its service as copyright infringers. In its lawsuit against the three colleges, Metallica (and Dr. Dre, another plaintiff) included slots for unnamed students in its lawsuit which it claimed would add as defendants later. It could have took the extra step in suing the users but eventually did not. We will see if Zuffa will follow through with suing users of the illegal streaming web site. Based upon Zuffa’s strong stance against piracy, it could sue users as an example. Similar to the Metallica situation, Zuffa hopes that the threat of suing end users will dissuade some from visiting the likes of Greenfeedz.

Posted in: zuffa, user, web site, metallica, greenfeedz

Read the full article at MMA Payout

Dana White imagines a future with no PPV: “Yeah, I do believe there will be a day when there probably isn’t pay-per-view.”The UFC has grown into a global force under the guidance White, the Fertitta brothers, and the rest of Zuffa, and it will continue to do so.“With this Fox exposure, we’re only a few months into this deal, but yeah, as we continue to put on shows and showcase talent over the next several years, the fan base is going to grow bigger and bigger and bigger.”...“As the landscape in television continues to change – a lot of people believe everything is gonna go to the internet,” said White recently. But until the transition between platforms is complete, watch yo back. From UFC.com: As part of the on-going initiative against online piracy, Zuffa LLC, the parent company of the Ultimate Fighting Championship® organization, was successful in taking down and seizing the records of www.greenfeedz.com, a website which illegally streamed a dozen UFC® Pay-Per-View events.The records detail the email addresses, user names, number of events users illegally streamed and the IP addresses of all users who registered to watch pirated UFC events. The website had illegally streamed all UFC PPVs from UFC 130 to UFC 142, and the user records date back to May 28, 2011.Zuffa will be pursuing these claims through its counsel. You may remember Dana White saying he couldn't wait for the FBI to start kicking in doors and dragging people who watch pirate streams to jail. Well, this sounds like a very proactive step towards making that happen. We'll have to wait and see if the promotion goes after more than just the guys distributing the stream, but at the very least it's clear that's what they're implying they'll do. The goal is undoubtedly to scare streamers away from stealing the UFC's stuff, but similar tactics didn't exactly go over that well when the music industry started going after individual pirates. You'd be hard pressed to find a serious UFC fan who hasn't turned to some sort of copyright violation over the years to see the sport they love, so there's probably a lot of sympathy out there for these pirates and criminals.

Posted in: ufc, record, zuffa, user, pirate

Read the full article at Fightlinker

Time flies in MMA, and it's hard to believe that the biggest news story of March 12th, 2011 was that Zuffa, the parent company of the UFC, effectively bought off their largest competitor by purchasing Strikeforce. UFC president Dana White announced the deal to MMA Fighting's Ariel Helwani, and the MMA blogosphere blew up with speculation about what it meant. Dana created a catchphrase that day, "business as usual", which people still dig out of mothballs to throw in Whte's face whenever Strikeforce doesn't live up to their expectations. So what has happened over the last year since the purchase? Let's take a trip down memory lane. March 12th, 2011 - The announcement. While the exact numbers weren't confirmed, the purchase price was around 40 million dollars with some of that going to debt repayment. Scott Coker's partner, Silicon Valley Sports and Entertainment, was focused on bringing another pro sports team to San Jose and wanted out of the MMA business. Coker stayed on as GM of Strikeforce, but was now a Zuffa employee. I wrote an angry article about it over at HKL. April 1st - The first SF card under Zuffa ownership went down in Stockton. It was a Challengers card. April 8th - Strikeforce GM Scott Coker thought the organization would have it's first pay-per-view event by July. April 9th - The first major Strikeforce card under Zuffa saw Nick Diaz defend his Strikeforce welterweight title against Paul Daley in one of the best fights of 2011. Coker talked about Strikeforce-UFC crossover fights "within a year". May 18th - Zuffa completed their takeover and laid off most Strikeforce employees, putting former WEC employees in charge of the company. June 1st - Nick Diaz blows "business as usual" out of the water and moves over to the UFC to challenge Georges St. Pierre for the UFC welterweight title. Obviously, this still hasn't happened yet. June 9th - Diaz officially vacates his Strikeforce welterweight title. To date, it remains vacant. June 18th - The semi-finals of the Strikeforce Heavyweight Grand Prix began, with Alistair Overeem and Fabricio Werdum competing in a dull bout that Overeem won. July 30th - Fedor Emelianenko vs. Dan Henderson headlined a Strikeforce event in suburban Chicago. Henderson won. In addition, Alistair Overeem was released by the organization after apparently refusing to accept a booking due to injuries. Within days, he was snapped up by the UFC. August 4th - Emelianenko was released by Strikeforce. August 12th - Ronda Rousey made her Strikeforce debut. September 10th - Luke Rockhold won the Strikeforce middleweight title from Ronaldo Souza. Josh Barnett and Daniel Cormier (Overeem's replacement) advanced to the Strikeforce Heavyweight Grand Prix finals. September 19th - Strikeforce light heavyweight champion Dan Henderson signs with the UFC and vacates his belt. The belt is still vacant as of today. October 13th - Ken Hershman leaves Showtime, the channel that Strikeforce is aired on. Showtime held an option to renew Strikeforce's TV contract in early 2012 at the time, and Hershman's departure was viewed by some as the final nail in the coffin for Strikeforce on the network. November 18th - Strikeforce holds their last Challengers card to date. December 15th - Strikeforce and Showtime officially come to an agreement to extend their contract until 2014. Dana White announces that the SF heavyweight division will move over the UFC, barring the GP Final and "one more fight" for the winner. January 6th, 2012 - Women's 145 pound champion Cristiane Santos tests positive for anabolic steroids. January 7th - Cyborg is stripped of her title, and her division is put on hold. This leaves three of the six Strikeforce championships vacant. February 21st - Nate Marquardt signs with Strikeforce. March 3rd - Ronda Rousey defeats Miesha Tate for the SF Women's 135 pound title. March 12th - Business as usual? I think not.

Posted in: ufc, title, strikeforce, zuffa, march

Read the full article at Bloody Elbow

Less than three months ago, UFC president Dana White was all positivity and enthusiasm in discussing the future of Strikeforce."I'm getting involved in this thing and I'm excited about it," he said then. "I'm going to get behind it 100 percent."But on the same weekend that Ronda Rousey completed her lightning quick rise to the top, giving women's MMA its best moment in years, White essentially said he is done caring about Strikeforce. Those two events weren't connected, except in the fact that one day in the future, they might be.With limited options for women try to ply their MMA trade -- and Strikeforce the biggest -- that means that if a frustrated White and the Zuffa ownership group part ways with Showtime at the end of their current deal, Rousey might soon have no place to hang her star. Let's remember that just a few months ago, Strikeforce's future was tenuous at best, negotiations going down to the wire before a deal was struck. At the time, White acknowledged that the extension wouldn't have been possible without a regime change at Showtime sports that would make it possible for him to provide input and make adjustments to the production. But the new relationship has apparently soured faster than the old one did, and White is no longer interested in a partnership with the Showtime sports staff.That will leave other executives like Lorenzo Fertitta and Peter Dropick to run things in his place on behalf of Zuffa. It's certainly a competent group, but the point is that if White is frustrated with Showtime, the rest of the Zuffa team probably is, too. If White envisioned changes, they all envisioned changes. Those apparently won't be coming, and you don't have to be a business insider to know that unmet expectations lead to discontent.The relationship might ultimately still be salvageable but this can't be considered a good sign coming so early after a contract was inked. And if it isn't salvageable, Strikeforce might be extinct when its deal is up, unless Zuffa tries to find another TV outlet. White likes to say that every day he wakes up, something bad is bound to happen, and for proof, just look at his weekend. Aside from the relationship with Showtime showing its first signs of fracturing, there was plenty more to raise his blood-pressure. On Saturday in Australia, a scoring error during a flyweight tournament bout declared Demetrious Johnson the winner when in fact, his fight with Ian McCall was a draw after three rounds. For the first time, Zuffa had specifically contracted the fighters for a fourth, sudden-death round in case of a draw for such situations, but the simple math error was not discovered until after the event concluded, making it impossible. Instead, their best-laid plans were laid to waste. That will leave McCall and Johnson forced to rematch, while sending tournament semifinalist Joseph Benavidez to the sidelines to wait for the winner.At least that was a somewhat innocent mistake. The man in charge of the scorecards, Craig Waller of New South Wales, Australia's department of sport and recreation, quickly accepted responsibility, standing at a podium at the post-fight press conference and publicly apologizing to fighters, fans and the promotion. As frustrating as the situation was, it's hard to stay mad when someone comes forward and offers himself as a remorseful target of blame. After all, anyone who's ever balanced a checkbook has made a simple math error at some point of their lives, and while the mistake isn't harmless, it's hardly a brazen offense.But what of the other issue of the weekend? Getting airtime during the Strikeforce undercard was a fighter named Brandon Saling, who has Neo-Nazi tattoos on his body and is a registered sex offender. The latter is bad enough, even though rehabilitated former criminals have the right to earn a living. But the former suggests that he is not rehabilitated at all, the tattoos a symbol of discriminatory attitudes and hate that don't deserve a public viewing. Freedom of speech is an inalienable right, but Strikeforce and Showtime have no obligation to offer him a forum for his viewpoints, and in fact, Zuffa in the past has said that they would prohibit fighters with that kind of tattoo art from their shows.It appears unlikely that any kind of background search was done on Saling, as his bout with Roger Bowling was a late signing, getting added about 10 days before the event. And it should also be noted that Strikeforce isn't the first bigtime promotion to feature Saling, who once fought for Bellator as well.But two wrongs don't make a right, and the fallout from his appearance took some luster off an evening that otherwise belonged to Rousey and Miesha Tate. All in all, it was a good, bad and ugly weekend for Zuffa. The flyweights will eventually get their second chance, and Saling is already facing the court of public opinion to go with the increased scrutiny on his personal and professional lives. Both of those situations will eventually reach conclusions. But Rousey, Tate and the rest of Strikeforce's female fighters have a future that isn't quite so clear. Because of White's public stance, the best night women's MMA has seen in years may also have been its worst.

Posted in: strikeforce, fighter, showtime, weekend, zuffa

Read the full article at AOL Fanhouse

The New York District Attorney and Attorney General have filed its reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss two counts of Zuffa’s lawsuit against New York.  MMA Payout takes a look at some of the arguments rebutting Zuffa’s opposition. If you’ve been following the lawsuit, the New York was given the opportunity to file a limited motion to dismiss on the issues of Equal Protection and Due Process. New York contends that Zuffa’s argument that courts have considered post-legislation changed circumstances fails because facts still exist which address the reasons for the law. New York addresses Zuffa’s opposition brief in which, among its arguments, relied on the fact that courts have looked to changed circumstances when conducting a review of a law.  New York makes the argument that post-legislation changed circumstances cannot destroy a law’s rational basis since such circumstances would not have affected the law’s rational basis in the first place. In fact, New York argues that courts have more freedom to consider post-legislation circumstances to uphold a law than to overturn it. Another interesting argument used by New York to rebut Zuffa’s contention that MMA is safer now than when the MMA Ban was enacted is that Zuffa points out to safety regulations and precautions it has enacted and only vaguely refers to other MMA organizations. As such, New York contends that there is still “‘a reasonable conceivable state of facts’ that might warrant the prohibitions of the 1997 legislation.” Basically, New York argues that while the UFC may have enacted safety changes, it cannot support its argument with facts from other organizations. New York actually turns Zuffa’s safety reforms on its head citing the fact that Zuffa admits its a combat sport with risk and that its mandatory waiting period for concussions and insurance reflect the fact that the sport includes risk. Thus, New York argues that the 1997 legislation banning MMA might be a rational response to these safety issues. As a result, New York contends that regardless of the changed circumstances that have occurred since the law was enacted in New York, the state had a rational reason to enact the law. In response to Zuffa’s claims that either amateur MMA is not regulated and the fact that other perceived dangerous sports are not regulated, New York rebuts these concerns by pointing to the legislative branch as the authority to either regulate or amend a law if it flaws are found in the law. Notably in footnote 3 of its reply brief it makes the argument (which one might add may beyond the scope of the motion) that the First Amendment does not apply to mixed martial arts citing Courts have been unwilling to extend free speech protection to sports or athletics. (H/t: Fight Lawyer Blog for the Reply Brief) MMA Payout will continue to follow the proceedings and report on the Court ruling when it occurs. DISCLAIMER The information in this post is opinion only. In addition, and because this is my opinion, it is not intended to be (and is not) legal advice or an advertisement for legal services. This post provides general information only. Although I encourage interested parties to contact me on the subjects discussed in the article, the reader should not consider information on this site to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship.  I disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this post. Any e-mail sent to me will not create an attorney-client relationship, and you should not use this site to send me e-mail containing confidential or sensitive information.

Posted in: mma, zuffa, law, york, fact

Read the full article at MMA Payout

Yesterday, I broke down how Ben Henderson's UFC Lightweight title win at UFC 144 was not just a victory for Henderson, but for the entire WEC. Along with Carlos Condit, Henderson proved that the former WEC champions are indeed among the sport's elite, and in my opinion, much of the credit for their successes goes to their WEC tenures. But now with WEC gone, are the UFC missing an opportunity to build future champions? They may be, but the answer to solving that problem is already in front of them. This weekend, the now Zuffa owned Strikeforce returns with an event headlined by Miesha Tate vs. Ronda Rousey. Since the Zuffa buyout last year, there has been much discussion over how Strikeforce should be used. To me, the answer is clear, especially after UFC 144. Strikeforce should become the new WEC. This is already the general direction Zuffa seems to be heading, but there are a few steps they need to follow to best emulate the WEC model: Keep the company separate. By folding the WEC, the UFC gained some valuable new names and divisions, but it also lost a development system. Let Strikeforce stay alive in that role as long as it is economically viable. Focus on only the divisions that can deliver. It was a good choice to abandon the Heavyweight division, as the talent is just not there for a rich UFC and Strikeforce division. I also vote to do away with Welterweight, which also lacks a full talent pool. Focus instead on Light Heavyweight, Middleweight, and Lightweight - 3 divisions where Strikeforce has nice depth. Lock the roster down. No more switching champs over to the UFC - decide who stays, and keep them there. Keep Women's MMA alive - for now. In the WEC, there were the Featherweight and Bantamweight divisions that were unique. Both divisions eventually flourished, and are now a good asset to the UFC. In Strikeforce, women's MMA can play that same role. Keep it alive, let it develop. If it takes off to the degree that it can be a part of the UFC, bring it in. If it doesn't, let it go. Focus on new prospects, not old veterans. No more Keith Jardine or Robbie Lawler. Both are talented, but they won't be in the UFC again, so why bother? Use your resources to build up possible future UFC contenders and champions. And they have plenty of those - Tim Kennedy, Luke Rockhold, Jacare, Ovince St. Preux... these are the men to build up. With these plans in place, Strikeforce can become a great tool for the UFC. Like the WEC before it, Strikeforce can give younger fighters a chance to test themselves against fighters at their same level while gaining valuable experience dealing with the added pressure of television, PPV, title fights, and so much more. On the one hand, it looks like this is the direction that Zuffa is headed, which gives me hope. On the other, if you visit Strikeforce's website today, less than one week before their next show, you see a shocking lack of content, which does not bode well for Zuffa's commitment to the company. If the do indeed shut Strikeforce down, they will gain more fighters to the UFC roster, which is a good short term positive. But in the long-run, a developmental league can be a valuable tool, and it's one the UFC should continue to use.

Posted in: ufc, strikeforce, division, wec, zuffa

Read the full article at Bloody Elbow

After being released from the UFC last summer, and a failed stint with BAMMA that never saw him fight, Nate Marquardt has returned to Zuffa – with Strikeforce.

Posted in: strikeforce, zuffa, marquardt, zuffa signs, zuffa –

Read the full article at Heavy MMA

MMA Fighting reports that Nate Marquardt has returned to fight under the Zuffa banner with Strikeforce. The welterweight’s signing ends an exile that began last June when he was dismissed on the eve of his main event against Rick Story. Post-UFC Marquardt signed with UK promotion BAMMA but never fought for the company. His last fight was a win in the UFC last March. Adding Marquardt to the Strikeforce roster provides some notoriety and depth to the company’s welterweight division. Marquardt’s return was announced on Fuel TV’s “UFC Tonight.” Payout Perspective: Marquardt’s dismissal was due to elevated testosterone levels claimed to be related to hormone replacement therapy. While Marquardt’s departure from the UFC was somewhat messy, his return to Zuffa is beneficial for both. For Strikeforce, it provides the roster with a notable figure that can spark the welterweight division. For Marquardt, its a second chance with Zuffa and leaves open the possibility of returning to the UFC. The one issue that may hinder Marquardt is the potential stigma that he was terminated from the UFC due to PED use. Marquardt has not had a fight since last March so no one knows how he will be when he returns.

Posted in: ufc, return, zuffa, marquardt, marquardt returns

Read the full article at MMA Payout

Nate Marquardt's professional purgatory is over. One of the MMA world's top free agents, the veteran has been signed by Zuffa, but in a surprise move, inked to the UFC's sister promotion Strikeforce.The signing, confirmed by Zuffa's Dana White, was reported on Tuesday's edition of FUEL TV's "UFC Tonight."Marquardt, a perennial top 10 middleweight during a six-year run in the UFC, is expected to compete as a welterweight in Strikeforce. The 32-year-old hasn't fought since last March, when he earned a unanimous decision victory over Dan Miller at UFC 128. One of the more bizarre episodes in UFC history led to his release. In June 2011, Marquardt seemed set to make his welterweight debut in a match against Rick Story, but on the day of weigh-ins, he was denied a fighter's license by the Pennsylvania state athletic commission after failing to satisfy the requirements for a therapeutic use exemption for hormone replacement therapy. He was immediately cut from the organization by White.Just about one month later, Marquardt signed with UK promotion BAMMA, making him the highest-profile fighter in the organization's short history. As it turns out, he never actually fought in their cage.After Marquardt's BAMMA debut was delayed twice by the promotion, the two sides parted ways in January, allowing Marquardt to explore other opportunities. While UFC president Dana White said in the aftermath of the Marquardt firing that Marquardt would never fight for the UFC again, he never closed the door on a possible Strikeforce signing. Just last month, White seemed to acknowledge that he was open to a Marquardt return, saying "I don't dislike Nate. I like Nate very much. We'll see what happens."What happened is a return into the Zuffa family, where Marquardt will be a welcome addition to a division that is clearly lacking in veteran star power. Aside from Tyron Woodley, top fighters in the division include Tarec Saffiedine, Jordan Mein and Jason High.

Posted in: ufc, promotion, nate, zuffa, marquardt

Read the full article at AOL Fanhouse

Zuffa filed its response to New York’s motions to dismiss its Equal Protection and Due Process causes of action in its Complaint. It also argued that the Court should consider the changed circumstances in determining the MMA ban in New York state. As you may recall, New York filed a motion to dismiss on two causes of action in Zuffa’s Complaint and indicated that it may file a further motion to dismiss the rest of the lawsuit. Zuffa’s 39 page response is broken into two sections. The first section addresses the issue of whether a court may look into a changed circumstance when conducting rational basis scrutiny under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Zuffa provides the court with a plethora of cases which have courts looking into changed circumstances while not reporting any. The second section of the response brief contends that there are issues of fact with both its Equal Protection and Due Process claims  to survive the motion to dismiss. (H/t: Fight Lawyer) Payout Perspective: As you may recall, the Court requested briefing on the following issue: Defendants will submit a limited motion to dismiss addressing only the issue of whether due process and equal protection analysis requires the Court to determine whether there was a rational basis for the law at issue only at the time it was passed, or whether the Court must determine whether there is a rational basis for the law at present (in other words, whether the Court should take into account a change in factual circumstances that makes the law no longer rational, even if it had a rational basis at the time of passage). Defendants’ motion is due 1/27/12. Plaintiffs’ reply is due 2/17/12.Defendants’ response is due 3/2/12. (js) Modified on 1/9/2012 (tro). (Entered: 01/06/2012) Essentially, will a court look at the changing circumstances that occurs over the course of time when considering if a law has a rational purpose. Zuffa contends that the defendants should have briefed the court on the issue above instead of New York’s “full blown” motions to dismiss. Zuffa has an argument if you look at the “addressing only the issue” language in the first sentence of the court order. However, its likely that the court will rule on New York’s motions. Zuffa, as most parties do in a brief, argue the differences in the opposition’s cited cases in its brief. Here, it argues that the cases cited by New York do not address the specific issue at hand: whether courts take into consideration changed circumstances when conducting a rational basis analysis under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause. In the second part of the response briefing, Zuffa identifies facts that should have its causes of action survive a motion to dismiss. New York’s Reply Brief is due March 2nd. We will keep you posted.

Posted in: issue, zuffa, court, york, motion

Read the full article at MMA Payout

We know we won't get credit for breaking the Federal Trade Commission story in our Sunday Morning Rumor Mill back in May of 2011. It's something that MMA history will skip over in retrospect, but the hardcore fans knew that on Sunday morning last year, we were onto something -- regardless of what the critics said. In the FTC's year-long silent probe into ZUFFA, the government organization interviewed a handful of companies that 'crossed paths' with UFC in order to evaluate if ZUFFA participated in tortious interference, which includes disrupting pre-existing contracts and intentionally damaging a business to elevate another one. The FTC wrapped up its investigation into the UFC and found no reason to continue their non-public investigation into the MMA promotion. Since MiddleEasy started the FTC story, it's only right that we end it in the same marvelous fashion that you're accustomed to. Check out the official letter from Donald S. Clark regarding the end of the now infamous FTC investigation into ZUFFA.

Posted in: ufc, zuffa, investigation, ftc investigation, ftc

Read the full article at Middle Easy

Despite all the claims to the contrary, mostly by pro-boxing pundits and union workers with an ax to grind against Station Casinos, it appears as though Zuffa, the parent company of Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), is not a monopoly after all. Perhaps that ESPN "Outside the Lines" video expose was all smoke and no fire? The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) last Wednesday (Jan. 25, 2012) informed the law firm of Axinn, Veltrop, and Harkrider, retained by Zuffa to represent them during the inquiry, that it was closing its investigation into the world's largest fight promotion and that "no further action is warranted by the commission." At least for now. See an excerpt from that letter, after the jump. The Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition has been conducting a nonpublic investigation to determine whether Zuffa, LLC’s acquisition of Explosion Entertainment, LLC may violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act or Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Upon further review of this matter, it now appears that no further action is warranted by the Commission at this time. Accordingly, the investigation has been closed. This action is not to be construed as a determination that a violation may not have occurred, just as the pendency of an investigation should not be construed as a determination that a violation has occurred. The Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the public interest may require. A full copy of the letter is available on the FTC website here. The UFC has long been a target of monopoly theorists as it gobbled up smaller, rival promotions, like the Strikeforce mixed martial arts (MMA) organization, formerly based in San Jose, in early 2011. Still, there are plenty of places for combat sports athletes to fight, such as Maximum Fighting Championship (MFC), DREAM, ONE FC, BAMMA and of course, Bellator. Anyone think this issue will be put to rest? Or is this merely a temporary reprieve?

Posted in: zuffa, action, commission, investigation, trade

Read the full article at MMA Mania

A Federal Trade Commission investigation into the business practices of UFC parent company Zuffa, LLC has been closed with no action taken by the commission, according to correspondence sent from FTC secretary Donald S. Clark to attorney Stephen Axinn, whose Washington DC firm Axinn Veltrop, and Harkrider LLP, had been retained to represent Zuffa in the investigation. The letter was posted on the FTC's website. In it, Clark writes that while no action is warranted at this time, the closure "is not to be construed as a determination that a violation may not have occurred" and notes that the commission reserves the right to take future action. The investigation was initially launched last spring, shortly after Zuffa, through its subsidiary Forza, LLC, purchased Strikeforce through its parent company, Explosion Entertainment, LLC. The FTC had been determining whether the acquisition along with other business practices violated section 7 of the Clayton Act or Section 5 of the Federal Commission Act, according to the correspondence. The former deals with the creation of monopolies and the latter deals with unfair or deceptive acts or practices.From the beginning, Zuffa officials denied that their dominance of the sport constituted a monopoly. Last March, just days after completing the Strikeforce purchase, company CEO Lorenzo Fertitta dismissed talk of antitrust issues, saying, "There's plenty of competition and there's literally no barrier to entry. Anybody who wants to get in the business, they can go file for a promoter's license, put up some capital, go sign some fighters and go get a television contract. There's plenty of options there, too. It's a wide open market for anybody who wants to get involved." Complaints about Zuffa business tactics combined with the non-public yet widely known nature of the investigation brought intrigue to the situation, even as company officials declined direct comment through most of its duration. Ironically, Zuffa's case might have been bolstered by one of its last remaining rivals. In October 2011, Bellator was purchase by media powerhouse Viacom, which promised a heavy investment in the four-year-old promotion. Representatives from Zuffa could not be reached for comment late on Tuesday night.

Posted in: business, zuffa, investigation, ftc, business practices

Read the full article at AOL Fanhouse

The Federal Trade Commission's probe into Zuffa's purchase of Strikeforce has come to a close with no further action being warranted.

Posted in: strikeforce, zuffa, purchase, zuffas purchase, zuffa purchase

Read the full article at MMA Weekly

The ongoing investigation into Zuffa, LLC’s purchase of Strikeforce has come to a close. There had been talk for months that the Federal Trade Commission was looking into the purchase and seeking to determine if the purchase constituted a monopoly in the mixed martial arts world. The text from the FTC’s letter closing the investigation is below: The Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition has been conducting a nonpublic investigation to determine whether Zuffa, LLC’s

Posted in: zuffa, arts world, investigation, purchase, trade commission

Read the full article at Low Kick

The New York District Attorney and Attorney General filed separate motions to dismiss two claims in Zuffa’s lawsuit in New York City. While the lawsuits seek to dismiss only a portion of the UFC complaint, it appears that the defendants are leaving open a motion to dismiss the entire complaint in total at a later date. Courtesy of the Fight Lawyer, the two motions are below: Attorney General’s Motion to Dismiss District Attorney’s Motion to Dismiss Payout Perspective: The crux of both arguments appear to be that despite Zuffa’s claims, the fact remains that New York had a rational basis for enacting the ban at the time it was drafted. And based on this, the statute was not vague and overbroad as it relates to the due process and equal protection claims. They cite to case law which supports the theory that despite changes over the years that may, arguably, antiquate a statute’s purpose, under a rational basis review of a law, so long as there was a rational purpose for it at the time of its introduction it is valid. Both motions argue that the proper forum for Zuffa’s claims is with the legislature and that if Zuffa wanted to enact change, it should direct its efforts to the legislature. Via the District Attorney’s motion to dismiss: …as a proper exercise of judicial restraint, federal courts must uphold a statute that was rational when enacted, even when post-enactment developments cast doubt on the wisdom, logic, or providence of prior legislative decisions It also argues that legislatures are given “substantial latitude” when it comes to enacting laws under a rational basis review of the law as “imperfections and even inequality must be tolerated.” The defendants’ motions are persuasive and could set the dominoes in line if the court grants the motion to dismiss Zuffa’s claims. As indicated in its motions, both parties contemplate a further motion to dismiss the rest of Zuffa’s claims if it is successful with this motion.

Posted in: claim, zuffa, york, attorney, motion

Read the full article at MMA Payout

Dana White getting into a war with Anonymous was not a good idea.

Posted in: zuffa, idea, attack, zuffa dana, opufc

Read the full article at Fight Opinion

Beginning immediately, Zuffa has put in place a pre-signing screening for performance enhancing drugs that any and all incoming fighters will have to pass before they are signed. The news of this test comes as positive results have come back claiming fighters such as 145-pound champion Cristiane “Cyborg” Santos and former light heavyweight champ Muhammed “King Mo” Lawal have tested positive. Both compete for Strikeforce, which is owned by Zuffa. “We’re committed to the health and safety of our athletes and we take it very seriously,” Zuffa chief executive Lorenzo Fertitta said in an official statement on the matter. “We already work closely with athletic commissions to protect our athletes and now we’re taking it one step further. We’re going to test any potential UFC or Strikeforce fighter before finalizing their contract. This shows that we don’t want performance enhancing drugs in our sport.” The policy, which has been retroactively dated to the beginning of the new year, means all future fighters must undergo testing procedures before they are official. UFC President Dana White added, “Our new testing policy for performance enhancing drugs only further shows how important it is to us to have our athletes competing on a level playing field.” Lawal, a former wrestler in college, has claimed the test is false and that he has not taken anything illegal. Santos also said much the same, adding that her positive test was for a supplement given to her by her a respected trainer.

Posted in: fighter, test, drug, zuffa, precontract screening

Read the full article at Five Ounces of Pain

Maybe we're finding out why Zuffa has been in hyperventilation mode these last few days.

Posted in: mmasupremacy, zuffa, mauroranallo, hyperventilation mode, iq

Read the full article at Fight Opinion

All fighters hoping to compete under the Zuffa banner must now provide proof that they are clean prior to signing with either the UFC or Strikeforce.

Posted in: ufc, fighter, zuffa, zuffa banner, zuffa institutes

Read the full article at Sherdog

Zuffa in coordination with the UFC and Strikeforce have started a new policy of screening all incoming athletes for performance enhancing drugs prior to signing with one of the organizations.

Posted in: drug, zuffa, performance, screening, enhancer

Read the full article at MMA Weekly

The final week of 2011 has arrived, and though the year may not have delivered on the public’s long-standing dream of flying cars and laser-blasters it was certainly a period filled with memorable months from a Mixed Martial Arts viewpoint. We witnessed champions fall in dramatic fashion, prospects rise from the ranks to become divisional kings, and numerous fighters emerge victorious by the skin of their teeth. We saw shocking signings and ridiculous releases; countless classics and numerous nod-offers; moves in the ring unlike any other before and some hopefully never seen again. With the close of the year, Five Ounces of Pain is bringing you our annual awards as we wind things down and get ready for the adventures 2012 will undoubtedly bring. Over the next few days we will announce our winners in somewhat unique categories with a final batch of standard distinctions handed out on Monday, January 2, once all the year’s performances have been turned in. As always, 5 Oz. invites our readers to offer their own opinions in the “Comments” section on who should have taken home the hardware (or in this case digital love). We would not be here without you, and rest assured the Staff not only appreciates your contributions from a “page view” standpoint, but genuinely enjoys reading our community’s take on topics. Have an incredibly fun, albeit safe, NYE weekend! – Who Saw That Coming – Zuffa buys Strikeforce: It seemed like a typical non-event Saturday. There was no anticipation of a big fight later that night, no last minute bets to be placed, and no all-day discussions of who we thought would win later that evening. Then, in the early afternoon, Dana White dropped the bombshell: Zuffa has purchased their biggest competitor Strikeforce. While Dana claimed that things would be “business as usual” for Strikeforce, that quickly changed when UFC took Strikeforce champions Nick Diaz, Dan Henderson, and Alistair Overeem along with top local draw Cung Le to compete in the octagon. Strikeforce events almost immediately became even more secondary with most wondering when Zuffa would just fold the organization and bring the talent over the UFC. It was a move that changed the landscape of the MMA world as Bellator became the defacto #2 promotion while Zuffa tightened its guillotine on the entire sport. – Old Timer of the Year – Dan Henderson: A couple of years ago, many would have argued that Dan Henderson’s resume was somewhat overrated. And they would have had a point. It’s not that the man hadn’t accomplished much – he had – but between gift decisions, hold the PRIDE welterweight (183 lbs) title in a non-existent division, and then briefly holding the middleweight title (205 lbs) only to lose it in a unification bout against Quinton Jackson, Henderson’s achievements were slightly overstated. However, at 41 years of age, “Hendo” just had the best year of his career. He started things off with a knockout of Rafael “Feijao” Cavalcante to add yet another title to his resume, before securing two of the biggest wins of his career back-to-back. His knockout of Fedor Emelianenko is even more impressive when factoring in the fact that for much of his career, Henderson competed two weight classes below the great Russian. He finally capped things off with one of the greatest in MMA history when he bested Mauricio “Shogun” Rua in an epic twenty-five minute war. – Most Meteoric Rise – (Tie) Ben Henderson/Ronda Rousey: Both Rousey and Henderson went unbeaten in 2011, rising up from relative obscurity to receive consideration as being among the top fighters in their respective weight-classes. Henderson rise to the next level seemed in doubt after coming up short against Anthony Pettis to close out 2010, yet “Bendo” picked up wins on all three of his UFC fights including those against top contenders Jim Miller and Clay Guida and now has a future date with 155-pound champion Frankie Edgar. While Rousey’s in-ring accomplishments are in no way as impressive as Henderson’s, her outspoken nature, aggressive style, and girl-next-door good looks have thrust her into the spotlight and made her one of the most popular competitors in MMA. Snapping another girl’s arm in two during a fight didn’t hurt her profile either, just Julia Budd’s limb. Make sure to check back in on Monday when we reveal our selections for “Knockout of the Year”, “Submission of the Year’, “Fighter of the Year”, and “Fight of the Year”. You can also check out our previous 2011 Year-End Awards by clicking this link.

Posted in: strikeforce, henderson, year, thing, zuffa

Read the full article at Five Ounces of Pain

The second biggest business story of the year shook the state of MMA. In March, Zuffa purchased its biggest rival, Strikeforce. It was reported that the purchase price was $40 million which included some debt repayment by Zuffa for Strikeforce. The deal occurred as Silicon Valley Sports and Entertainment, main financial backer of Strikeforce, wanted to refocus its business on its NHL, the San Jose Sharks and other business. It is also believed that it may be trying to acquire an NBA team to San Jose. Excellent coverage of the purchase is here and here is the text of the official Zuffa press release. Prior to Zuffa’s purchase, MMAPayout learned that there were other bidders for Strikeforce but Zuffa came up with the biggest monetary deal. Prior to the purchase, Strikeforce was in the midst of its Heavyweight Grand Prix which was supposed to create interest in what was arguably the best divsion in the sport. Surely, Strikeforce execs were hoping for a Fedor-Overeem Final. Fedor’s upset loss to Bigfoot Silva made the GP less appealing. And, a futile effort to hold a card in Japan for its HW Grand Prix caused a delay in the tournament. From the start, Zuffa stated that UFC and Strikeforce would operate separately although Zuffa execs (you know who) would provide input on its show starting with its April 9th show. The constant talking point was “Business as usual.” But, that’s not the case as we’ve seen numerous Strikeforce fighters move over to the UFC. Notably, Strikeforce welterweight champ Nick Diaz. Other fighters such as UFC 141’s main eventer Alistair Overeem came over to the UFC after time fighting in Strikeforce. In addition, some Strikeforce staff were let go and replaced by Zuffa employees. Finally, Scott Coker has lost a lot of power in the new regime as it appears from interviews that he no longer has any say with the direction of Strikeforce. Recently, Strikeforce and Showtime agreed to renew its television contract which was somewhat of a surprise considering the fact that many believed that Strikeforce would be consumed by the UFC. It will be interesting to see the Strikeforce product in 2012. How will it compete, or complement the UFC product? Who is the face of Strikeforce? Certainly, a Gilbert Melendez and Mo Lawal would have fit in nicely with the UFC creating interesting fights. But, it appears that they will be in Strikeforce for at least the next year. Links to MMAPayout coverage regarding the Zuffa-Strikeforce purchase can be found here: - Zuffa Purchases Strikeforce, Agrees to Blockbuster MMA Deal - Mystery Strikeforce Third Bidder, Early Signs Of Sale, & UFC Purchase Notes - Exploring Why SVSE Walked Away from Strikeforce & MMA

Posted in: ufc, business, strikeforce, zuffa, purchase

Read the full article at MMA Payout

Medical issues dominated the month of May as the UFC's biggest pay-per-view draw was put on the shelf indefinitely, Zuffa announced they were covering health insurance for all and Jon Jones decided against surgery and thus, against Rashad Evans. May 2011 - Diverticulitis Becomes A MMA Household Word The constant "Will he or won't he return?" story with Brock Lesnar finally advanced with an impromptu conference call announcing that Lesnar's diverticulitis had returned and his June bout with Junior dos Santos was being scrapped. Surgery was imminent and there was no timetable for his return, if ever. There was talk about what this meant to the UFC's business and pay-per-view specifically. As we know now, the surgery was successful and Lesnar returned to action quicker than many ever thought. As the UFC continues to struggle with building stars that people will pay money to watch, having Lesnar in the mix is a major component to good business -- a reason why Friday's UFC 141 is such an important event. **** The upper reaches of the UFC's light heavyweight division made headlines as Quinton Jackson failed to impress in a unanimous decision win over Matt Hamill at UFC 130, but still earned the next title shot at Jon Jones, who decided against surgery on his hand. This rankled many who thought Jones was ducking Rashad Evans and the situation between the two got worse with an altercation at a nightclub. Oh, and Christian M'Pumbu won the first Bellator 205-pound title. **** While it wasn't a sexy headline, Zuffa announced that all contracted fighters would be 100% covered by health insurance, an important thing for a group that routinely trains injured because of the cost of medical expenses. As talks of unions get quashed rather quickly, any attempt to take care of those that compete in the cage is important and full health insurance was a huge goodwill step toward that, as well as a nice competitive advantage for free agents considering their options between Zuffa, Bellator and other organizations. The organization had a busy month in the front office as well, laying off some Strikeforce employees and moving former WEC staffers into those roles in addition to adopting a new financial reward system for activity on Twitter. Check out what happened the rest of the month after the jump... Other Stuff That Happened After a rumored boxing debut against Jeff Lacy, Nick Diaz backed off the boxing ledge and officially moved over to the UFC with a match with UFC Welterweight Champion Georges St. Pierre booked...Chael Sonnen was officially suspended by the California State Athletic Commission, upheld after a bizarre public hearing a week later...Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard III was postponed due to injuries to both fighters...Jose Aldo also had to pull out his 145-pound title defense against Chad Mendes due to injury. Frank Mir won a snoozefest over Roy Nelson at UFC 130, while Brian Stann continued his run toward a title shot with a big win over Jorge Santiago...Michael Bisping and Jason Miller were named coaches of TUF 14, while Dana White continued to blame external issues for the low TUF 13 ratings...Dan Henderson got a fight booked against Fedor Emelianenko for July 30 and then sued Matt Lindland over ownership of Team Quest. Tapout co-founders Tim "SkySkrape" Katz and Dan "Punkass" Caldwell were accused of stealing Charles "Mask" Lewis' ashes...Nevada quietly allowed the use of monitors for judges at UFC events...Dan Hardy got a reprieve and found himself matched up against Chris Lytle...Bloody Elbow announced a ticket partnership with TiqIQ.

Posted in: ufc, lesnar, rashad evans, zuffa, health insurance

Read the full article at Bloody Elbow

This year Zuffa offered its 400 fighters in the UFC and Strikeforce health insurance beginning this past June. Zuffa is paying the premiums for all of its fighters under contract. The accident-insurance coverage covers up to $50,000 (annually) of medical costs for each fighter. Its an unprecedented move to cover fighters and its a sign that the organization is moving in the right direction if it wanted to be thought of as a major league sport. So far, fighters have taken advantage of the health insurance without any issues. Cub Swanson became the first fighter to utilize the health insurance one day after it went into effect. While insurance may not be the most exciting business story of the year, it is one of the more important ones for the fighters covered.  A fighter’s health is very important from the business side of things as we know from this year’s constant reshuffling of main events. Insurance may alleviate some of the concern for the mid to low tier fighter that is concerned about what happens if they are hurt while training for a fight. While the $50K may not cover a serious surgery or procedure, it still helps with the  financial burden placed on fighters that likely fought without insurance prior to Zuffa’s coverage.  In a related story, this week, Combat Sports Insurance announced an accident-related insurance policy that would allow any pro MMA fighter to receive insurance for just “a little over $20  month.”

Posted in: fighter, zuffa, insurance, health, health insurance

Read the full article at MMA Payout

The Culinary Workers Union Local 226 became one of the biggest opponents of the UFC in 2011. It has helped opposed the legalization of professional MMA in New York state and has requested that the Federal Trade Commission investigate Zuffa for possible antitrust investigations. In late August, the union sent a letter to the FTC requesting that it look into Zuffa’s acquisition of several of its competitors: The letter goes on to point out that since 2001, Zuffa has acquired four of its key rivals (Pride Fighting Championship, World Extreme Cagefighting, the World Fighting Alliance, and most recently Strikeforce earlier this year.  They also state that through some independent research performed in 2008, Zuffa controls 80-90% of the mixed martial arts market. Specifically, the letter points out that Zuffa has preserved and strengthened its dominance in the market through their unwillingness to co-promote events as well as anti-competitive contractual restraints placed on their contracted fighters. As most know, the union’s beef with Zuffa stems from the Fertittas ownership of its Stations Casino. A failed attempt to unionize the workers at the Stations Casinos is the reason why there is staunch opposition to the legalization of MMA in New York. Lobbying efforts by the Culinary Workers have stifled efforts for passage of legislation allowing the UFC in New York. USA Today reported in October that the union contacted Anheuser-Busch to boycott the UFC for “a history of tolerating homophobic conduct.” In addition, the Union has done the following to get its message across: • Backing anti-MMA legislators in New York. • Calling on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate UFC parent company Zuffa, which the union accuses of using monopolistic tactics to thwart competition from other promoters of mixed martial arts. • Launching a website designed to highlight White’s use of vulgar language. It will be interesting to see how much more the Culinary Workers will go to lobby against the UFC. The recent Zuffa lawsuit is a way around the union and lobbyists opposing MMA. So far, nothing is being reported about an FTC investigation of Zuffa and we will see if 2012 gives us any findings from the FTC about Zuffa and the claimed anti-competitive practices.

Posted in: ufc, zuffa, union, worker, trade commission

Read the full article at MMA Payout

In the world of mixed martial arts (MMA), Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and its parent company, ZUFFA LLC, have a stranglehold on the best fighters in the world. The promotion/company has literally made millions since its dubious inception, bringing the sport to the limelight. Fighters have went from having one raw style in the early days to now having three or more at their disposal by the time they enter the hallowed Octagon. We have seen true legends of the sport emerge like Randy Couture, Chuck Liddell, Wanderlei Silva and Fedor Emelianenko, to the current champions (and future legends) such as Georges St. PIerre and Anderson Silva. But as far as MMA goes, there are many more fighters than just those competing in the UFC. Indeed, there are great fighters who -- in many peoples opinions -- will go down as some of the greatest even if they compete in the UFC. That raises the burning question: Are the best in the sport decided by the fans or an organization that claims to have to best fighters in the world? Regardless of your opinion, which you are encourage to share in the comments section below, there are many greats outside of the UFC. Check out the new and improved list after the jump: 10.) Cole Konrad NCAA champion and current Bellator Heavyweight Champion, Cole Konrad is a powerhouse wrestler with solid ground and pound and top control. Why is he ranked so low? Konrad has yet to be tested against a solid heavyweight with more than a puncher's chance. He struggled with Paul Buentello once he tried to strike. but Konrad has the potential to evolve and become a great fighter in the near future. 9.) "Crusher" Tatsuya Kawajiri Tatsuya Kawajiri was a top lightweight fighter and is now perfect (1-0) in the featherweight division. He boasts solid TDD, brutal ground and pound, solid striking and is one of the best Japanese wrestlers today. Why is he ranked so low? "Crusher" has fought some tough lightweights, but unfortunately, has come out on the losing end of those fights. He was stopped by Takanori Gomi in his prime, Gilbert Melendez and Shinya Aoki. Kawajiri's status at lightweight was becoming nothing more than a gatekeeper; however, at featherweight, Kawajiri's status is highly likely to improve. 8.) Glover Teixeira Teixeira is a very durable striker with vicious knockout power in both hands, he has very solid submissions and takedown defense and is without a doubt one of the scariest looking dudes in MMA today. He possesses a ton of natural potential and may very well be the best light heavyweights outside of ZUFFA. Why is he ranked so low? Teixeira's last victory was over Ricco Rodriguez by knockout, which now isn't as hard a task as it was six or seven years ago. Teixeira hasn't fought a solid veteran or someone coming off of a dominant win streak in quite some time. 7.) Michael Chandler Michael Chandler proved against Eddie Alvarez that he was the "chosen one" to bring gold back to Xtreme Couture, showing incredible wrestling, improved boxing, punching power and the heart to be a champion. Not to mention he put on one of the best fights in recent memory. Why is he ranked so low? Name his last opponents prior to the "Pitbull" win? Chandler showed weaknesses in the Alvarez fight and seemed to be slowing down as the fight went on. He has all the potential in the world right now and hopefully we will see this man rematch Alvarez sooner rather than later. 6.) Mamed Khalidov Khalidov has brutal knockout power in both hands, high level kickboxing, brutal submissions and a vastly improving all around game. Khalidov may not be fighting the cream of the crop at middleweight and light heavyweight, but the way he is winning and how easily he is doing it deserves recognition. Why is he ranked low? Well, as stated before, Khalidov just isn't fighting the cream of the crop, and he has two losses to Jorge Santiago, who had an extremely unimpressive UFC run. 5.) Nate Marquardt Nate Marquardt -- although inactive since -- March still holds impressive highlight-reel knockouts and submissions over top fighters while he was in the UFC. Marquardt now competes at welterweight, posing a significant threat to any welterweight or middleweight fighter outside Zuffa. Why is he ranked low? Marquardt has been inactive for a while and unheard from for quite some time. Marquardt's unimpressive losses that many, most notably Dana White, believe he because of choking have hindered him from being ranked higher. 4.) Fedor "The Last Emperor" Emelianenko The King is no longer with Zuffa! Fedor Emelianenko will go down in history as one the greatest fighters to ever walk the face of this Earth. Despite his recent setbacks, Fedor is a dangerous opponent for any heavyweight fighter and has proven this time and time again. Why is he ranked low? Fedor had an unimpressive run in Strikeforce, losing to Antonio Silva, Fabricio Werdum and Dan Henderson, who all cannot be overlooked. Fedor was the favorite in all three of those fights, which he lost by being finished by all three of those men. Fedor's dominant aura has been slowed up and he may not be the fighter he once was. Regardless, he's still a dangerous dude. 3.) Shinya "Tobikan Judan" Aoki Shinya Aoki has collected more arms than Ronda Rousey, more legs than Paul Sass and more necks than Kenny Florian. He is a dangerous Brazilian jiu-jitsu black belt who can get the fight to the ground at any chance given and may just be the best MMA grappler on the planet. Why is he ranked low? Aoki stepped up on the big scene and lost to Gilbert Melendez in a fight where "El Nino" shut himi down from start to finish. He also got defeated by a pure kickboxer in a "SPECIAL RULES" MMA bout. Aoki needs to work on his striking defense and offense if he hopes to someday rematch Melendez and/or compete in the UFC. 2.) Jussier Da Silva Jussier Da Silva was the top dog before his loss to Ian McCall; however, since then he's rebounded with three wins over top 10 flyweight competitors, showcasing high-level jiu-jitsu and an ever improving striking game Why isn't he number 1? Mainly because exposure to the flyweight division isn't all that good. He has struggled in the past and is lacking in the stand up area. However, if he continues to dominate, he will be in the UFC no time. 1.) Hector Lombard Now that Eddie Alvarez has took a fall from grace, Lombard continues to reign over Bellator and the Independent region of middleweights. Why is he number 1? Lombard looks unstoppable. He has dangerous striking and knockout power, solid submissions, good take downs and has proven to be one of the most dominant figures outside of ZUFFA for a long time. He is virtually a problem for any fighter at 185 pounds today. Thanks for joining me guys and your NON ZUFFA Top 10 comments below and share opinions and thoughts, also don't forget to leave your votes on the poll. Who did I miss? Honorable Mentions: Eddie Alvarez, Ben Askren, Jay Hieron, Bibiano Fernandes, Christian M'Pumbu, Daniel Weichel, Joe Warren and Patricio Freire. Poll Who is the best Fighter not under the ZUFFA umbrella Hector Lombard Glover Teixeira J.D Silva Fedor Emelianenko Mike Chandler Mamed Khalidov Nate Marquardt Shinya Aoki Tatsuya Kawajiri Cole Konrad Bob Sapp Other/express in comment section   189 votes | Results

Posted in: ufc, time, fighter, zuffa, fedor

Read the full article at MMA Mania

For years, the UFC tried to lobby and legislate and now its time to litigate. Prior to its lawsuit, it presented an economic impact study, educated the concerned that MMA is safe and brought its top fighters to the state to rally supporters. Facing a roadblock, Zuffa decided to file suit against the state Attorney General and District Attorney of New York. The crux of the lawsuit argues that MMA should receive First Amendment protection and that the New York MMA Professional Ban on the sport is unconstitutional. At this point, the defendants have until January to file its Answer to the Complaint. Only speculation, but its likely that New York will attempt to dismiss Zuffa’s lawsuit. If this occurs, what would Zuffa do next? We should see in 2012.

Posted in: mma, zuffa, york, lawsuit, rally supporters

Read the full article at MMA Payout

Defense counsel for New York has made its appearance and were granted extra time to file its answer to the Zuffa’s lawsuit. The court will allow attorneys for the New York Attorney General and the New York County District Attorney until January 11, 2012 to respond. As for the Zuffa’s Complaint, MMA Payout takes a comprehensive look at each cause of action.As many of you recall, Zuffa filed suit against the state of New York citing its ban on MMA is unconstitutional. We have taken a look at the complaint and break down Zuffa, et al.’s claims. The thresh hold issue for Zuffa’s first and most noteworthy claim in this lawsuit is whether MMA deserves First Amendment protection. In its Complaint, Zuffa goes into detail as to why it believes MMA should be protected speech. Essentially stressing the “arts” in Mixed Martial Arts. Via the Wall Street Journal: While the arts are protected, no court has ever directly confronted the question of whether athletes have a First Amendment right to be seen in action, said Barry Friedman, a professor at New York University School of Law who is representing the plaintiffs. In response to this novel argument, the Zuffa Complaint offers this: “MMA fighters participate in live events for the same reason that an actor plays a crowded hall, a figure skater skates in front of thousands of live fans, a ballerina dances at Lincoln Center, and a band plays in a packed auditorium: because they want todemonstrate their skills before a live and appreciative audience, and interact with that audience during the event. (from paragraph 123 of the Complaint) “Live professional MMA is not just a sporting event; it is also entertainment and theatre. (from paragraph 124 of the Complaint) However, opponents will counter that allowing a professional athletic sport First Amendment protection will open the floodgates of litigation for other sports to file suit on these grounds. The implication is that the protection is unfounded and the result of allowing MMA this protection would cause a glut in the judicial system. Friedman counters this argument as he states in the WSJ article that MMA should be distinguished from other sports as he compares martial arts to dancing. Breakdown of Zuffa’s Causes of Action: 1. The Live Professional MMA Ban violates the First Amendment In this claim, Zuffa argues that the Live Professional MMA Ban (“MMA Ban”) is a content-based restriction based on the perceived violent message. (paragraph 238). Zuffa points to the legislative history of the MMA Ban as reason to argue that the purpose of the ban was due to the violent content of MMA. (paragraph 240). Hence, Zuffa concludes that New York misperceives the proper message of MMA. (paragraph 242) Here, Zuffa argues that since MMA is public entertainment, it is thereby protected by the First Amendment. Assuming that the court agrees with Zuffa and that it should be protected under the First Amendment, we look to how a Court would analyze the MMA ban. Courts require that governmental regulation of speech protected under the First Amendment be “content neutral.” A “content neutral” law is one that applies to all speech regardless of its message. According to Erwin Chemerinsky’s treatise on Constitutional Law (something that all law students are familiar with), the requirement that the government be content-neutral in its regulation of speech means that the government must be both viewpoint neutral and subject matter neutral. Viewpoint neutral means that the government cannot regulate speech based on the ideology of the message. For instance, a law cannot regulate against a political ideology but not regulate its opposing view. Subject matter neutral means that the government cannot regulate speech based on the topic of the speech. Thus, a law cannot inhibit one particular subject. In these interpretations, the government is allowed to regulate speech if there is a legitimate state interest. Its plausible that New York argues that the ban was necessary due to the violent nature of the sport and the safety issues related to MMA. 2.  The MMA Ban is Overbroad and violates the First Amendment In this claim, Zuffa argues that the MMA Ban is so broad that it regulates certain things that it cannot, by law, regulate. “A law is unconstitutionally overbroad if it regulates substantially more speech than the Constitution allows to be regulated and a person to whom the law constitutionally can be applied can argue that it would be unconstitutional as applied to others.”  (Chemerinsky) Zuffa examines the language in the MMA Ban law and indicates how the law was drafted makes things such as attending a “UFC viewing party” or litigating this lawsuit illegal. Zuffa also cites other examples where the law can be construed broadly to make legal conduct and speech illegal. 3. The MMA Ban is Vague on the face of the law and violates the Due Process Clause “A law is unconstitutionally vague if a reasonable person cannot tell what speech is prohibited and what is permitted. Unduly vague laws violate due process whether or not speech is regulated.” (Chemerensky) Zuffa points to terms in the MMA Ban which it argues are vague. Zuffa recites relevant portions of the law in paragraph 260 of the Complaint Section 2 of the Ban states that “[n]o combative sport shall be conducted, held or given within the state of New York.” N.Y. Unconsol. Law § 8905-a(2). Both criminal penalties and civil liability are imposed upon “a person who knowingly advances or profits from a combative sport activity.” § 8905-a(3) Key terms, “combative sport activity” and “professional match or exhibition” which triggers the analysis for the ban are not defined in a way which would provides definitive guidelines. Zuffa argues that the practice of martial arts at martial arts schools in New York may or may not be affected by the MMA Ban (paragraph 262). Zuffa concludes that there is confusion in the law regarding exemptions for martial arts schools and/or clubs. In addition, while the triggering provision in the law appears to be whether an MMA match is a “professional match or exhibition,” the ban appears to restrict amateur fights. (paragraph 268). 4. The MMA Ban is Unconstitutional as it violates the Equal Protection rights of the Plaintiffs under the 14th Amendment Similar to the first three causes of action, Zuffa argues that New York does not have a rational basis for its blanket ban of professional mixed martial arts in the state. It states that New York does not articulate the reasons for the ban. While safety and messages of violence may be interpreted as the reasons for the law, Zuffa contends that these reasons fall flat since other forms of martial arts are legal in New York and studies show that MMA is a safe sport. In addition, Zuffa argues that there is no rational reason that it bans MMA even though there are other violent forms of speech (i.e., video games, violent movies and music lyrics) that are not regulated. 5. The MMA Ban is Unconstitutional as it violates the Due Process Clause This cause of action relates to the right that the Due Process Clause in the Constitution prohibits the government from “intruding on liberty without rational reason.” Here, Zuffa argues once again that the MMA Ban is vague and overbroad and does not address the purpose for the law. 6.  The MMA Ban Unconstitutionally restricts interstate commerce This cause of action relates to what lawyers term the “dormant commerce clause.” State and local laws cannot place an undue burden on interstate commerce. Zuffa argues that the MMA Ban stifles interstate commerce on three fronts. First, since the MMA Ban is only a ban on professional MMA and not amateur MMA, New York may have MMA training, gyms and exhibitions but New York bars out-of-state businesses from promoting professional events. Second, the language of the law is so broad that “numerous interstate products and services” required for a live professional MMA event are barred from New York. Here, the argument is that the law does not address the perceived purpose of the law, which is to ban the “violent message of MMA” and improve fighter safety. Zuffa argues that there are no benefits to the ban and states that the ban has forced individuals to turn to “underground” MMA. It also indicates that if the perception of violence was at issue, New York could have found an alternative to a complete ban on MMA. The Complaint suggest it could have an age limit for attendance in live events. Finally, Zuffa argues that the MMA Ban could have an “extraterritorial effect” on interstate commerce as the vagueness of the statute and uncertain enforcement may leave advertisers and merchandisers to limit its exposure in the New York market. As an extension, it could burden advertisers and merchandisers in neighboring states. 7.  2001 Liquor Law is Unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs This cause of action relates to Zuffa’s claims related to the MMA ban as the 2001 Liquor Law prohibits the sale of liquor at both professional and amateur MMA events. It follows that if the MMA ban is unconstitutional, the provision of the 2001 Liquor Law would be unconstitutional as well. It will be interesting to see if counsel for New York attempts to dismiss Zuffa’s Complaint. The lawsuit attempts to break new ground in the area of First Amendment protection and with that, we may see a motion to dismiss this case before it gets anywhere. DISCLAIMER The information in this post is opinion only. In addition, and because this is my opinion, it is not intended to be (and is not) legal advice or an advertisement for legal services. This post provides general information only. Although I encourage interested parties to contact me on the subjects discussed in the article, the reader should not consider information on this site to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship.  I disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this post. Any e-mail sent to me will not create an attorney-client relationship, and you should not use this site to send me e-mail containing confidential or sensitive information.

Posted in: mma, zuffa, law, york, ban

Read the full article at MMA Payout

Matthew Roth: The new deal with Showtime has finally been announced but details are still spotty. What we know is that Zuffa is planning 6-8 Strikeforce cards and that the HW's will be chopped following the Grand Prix. This is a two part question. First: The fact that Zuffa is planning 40 shows in 2012, will we see events not get marketing because of lack of time? Secondly: With the current depth in every division, can Strikeforce survive without an influx of new talent? T.P. Grant: Ultimately I think this will be good for MMA fans. Zuffa has been the most successful promotion on the business side of things, so I don't think they would attempt to do 40 shows in one year if they didn't have serious data to show it would work. And if it does fail, I also doubt they haven't thought of that a planed accordingly. I think events are going to serve as marketing also, get fights on free TV. Get people to watch one card and get them interested in the next card and also Fox has stated that their marketing resources will be also brought into play. It has become cliche at this point to say something will function like the WEC, but that is how I feel Strikeforce will function. Prospects, projects and a few veteran gatekeepers, but I feel like Zuffa will try to keep putting fighters they cut from the UFC to a relative minimum. I don't think it will function so much like a minor league as it will be a developmental league. Of course this is strictly for men's division. Zuffa does nothing half way, now that it is a Zuffa product I fully expect them to try to turn Strikeforce into the home of the best female fighters in the world. And this again is a good thing for MMA fans because those girls can scrap. Tim Burke: Who said Strikeforce was staying? Tim said Strikeforce was staying! Anyway, I think that by now, especially with TV events, it's going to be promoted like Vince McMahon promoted the WWF in the 80's - the fighters won't matter, what will draw a crowd is just the three letters - UFC. Sure, some guys will be more popular than others, but the promotion itself is what will get people to watch, because they know they're going to get quality fights no matter what. I think a better question would be - can they always deliver quality fights with this many cards?In terms of the second part, I still believe you'll see UFC guys moving over there. Or instead of loading up on prospects in the UFC, guys like Michael Kuiper and Ryan Jimmo will be debut in Strikeforce instead of the UFC. It can definitely be a viable second promotion that doesn't need to rely on being a feeder for the UFC. More after the jump... SBN coverage of Strikeforce: Melendez vs. Masvidal Ben Thapa: Forty shows, Dana? Won't you think of Burt Watson and his tired dogs? On a more serious note, we are discussing the potential of Strikeforce to build young prospects. Both incarnations of Strikeforce pre- and post-Zuffa buyout have an iffy track record of actually building prospects. Ronda Rousey is probably their biggest success and that may be sheer luck in having a dynamic fighter who absolutely obliterates her opponents and gives pretty kickin' interviews. Gilbert Melendez, Luke Rockhold and Tyrone Woodley are their other notable successes and honestly, none of these talented young athletes have been successful at catching the attention of the big audiences like Nick Diaz or the eternal MMA will'o'wisp that is Gina Carano. What Strikeforce needs is Paul Heyman. Well... maybe not Heyman himself, but someone who is willing to come up with storylines that fans can latch onto readily and embrace. We know Gil is a little bit more brash, impulsive and hotheaded than his generally demure interviews show. I suspect Rockhold has some kookiness behind that bland exterior and ring girl technique videos. Woodley is a golden boy in the mold of GSP. Despite the best efforts of Genghis Cohn and Co., people still don't know Masvidal is not to be slept on. The opportunities for hustle are there with Strikeforce. They just need someone dynamic to take advantage of them - and Scott Coker is not that man. Let him handle the backstage stuff and find a more flamboyant public face to galvanize the slowly-creeping-into-oblivion Strikeforce brand. As for the new talent, I cannot say Strikeforce has been particularly good or particularly bad. This is an organization that gave us three Bowling/Voelker fights. At the same time, they snatched up prospects like Woodley, Rockhold and a few others like Gian Villante, who didn't immediately catch on fire as expected. Blue chip prospects like Jon Jones are usually easy to find and sign for the UFC. Finding the mid-major prospects, the ones who aren't so enormously physically talented that they can destroy any opposition, is harder and requires more patience. The UFC doesn't have that kind of patience for the ups and downs of those fighters. The WEC did. Can the hybrid of the two companies cultivate that WEC-style attitude in a different organization? I doubt it, but I can hope. David Castillo: You'll be wrong eventually Tim. I think Zuffa is using this as a bit of an experiment: how will this wider network at their disposal combine together to create an even meaner Zuffa machine? With the concentration on women's MMA, I wonder if they're not looking to attempt a cash-in on the biggest female mixed martial arts fight ala UFC 48, I mean, WEC Aldo vs. Faber. To what degree can female MMA sustain itself when the gate is tallied, and the buyrates come in? I thought Nason was crazy for a second with his post the other day, but then it made perfect sense: like the WEC, Zuffa was looking to corner the market on the lighter weights. They've already done that. With female MMA, here's yet another market to potentially own. This may seem like a gamble on the surface until you consider that other organizations with the funds to take over something like female MMA, and do it on a stage like Showtime's don't have access as long as Zuffa still has a deal with them. It's Zuffa doing what they've always done: maintaining market dominance. For how long? Who knows. As to the broader point about the lack of any influx of talent can always be balanced out by bringing over UFC "rejects". And this could always be used as a better barometer for a prospect's abilities in Strikeforce. Not that I want to see the Jardine's of the world fight for their titles, but I have to think Jardine vs. Rockhold is an exception and not the rule. Plus, to be fair, 185 is one of the thinnest divisions in MMA, the UFC included. Tim Burke: You're crazy if you think they did this just for women's MMA. Brent Brookhouse: To the original questions. What Strikeforce events get the big marketing push now? Even the Grand Prix died down in terms of the overall push once Zuffa took over. They don't have the time or resources and even if they put a lot of promotional push behind the events, something like Rockhold/Jardine or Rockhold/Kennedy or Rockhold/Jacare isn't going to sell. Nor is anyone at 205. Or anyone at 170. Or anyone at 155 really. I mean, they just don't have guys who are superstars and they don't seem like they have a lot of guys with the intangibles to become superstars. And then the depth gets in the way to where you lack one of the critical elements to creating superstars. Rockhold has a good look, he's an exciting fighter and he's just got a bit more of an "it factor" than most of the Strikeforce roster. But there's no stars for him to beat, no one that creates a buzz before and after a fight. 205 is a mess unless King Mo can get the title back, but even then...who is there for him to fight to really create much of a buzz? Mousasi again? That's not going to get anyone excited. OSP? Nah. ..etc. Melendez gets past Masvidal and then what? I get Dana, Coker and Company not wanting to admit that Strikeforce is a second tier promotion, but that's exactly what it is. And they're not going to dump time and energy into promoting these shows with the set-up they currently have. Yeah, maybe they can fix the depth with smart signings. But it's always going to be an issue that they're at a stage where they don't have marketable stars to build off of. There's no Liddell for someone to come knock out and become a star, or a Couture for someone to beat and gain legitimacy. It's going to be a few years of "I think I heard of that guy and he's fighting who? Never heard of him." Brent Brookhouse: The idea that this has anything to do with women's MMA is crazy. Yeah, they want a promotion where they can sign people and hold on to them and keep another promotion for having something unique and "important." But Dana was really clear that depth is a big issue. He joked about having the 135 class "and Cyborg" because thereis no real 145 class. They keep toying with this idea of just smooshing everyone into a single class just to force some compelling fights. And if I can be honest here for a second, when you have Tate in public whining about Rousey wanting a title shot, it's really obnoxious. How many fights do people really have an interest in seeing? Rousey vs. Tate is probably the biggest women's fight on earth right now (aside from either against Cyborg or a Gina gimmick fight) and Tate is worried about credible title shots. Shut up and fight. And, I'm sorry, but too heavy of a focus on women's MMA would be death by poor ratings. Tim Burke: Not everything needs to be compared to the UFC though. This is about carving out a niche in the buffer zone between the UFC and the Ring of Combats of the world. Showtime will make money without superstars if none develop (as will Zuffa), but it's way too early to say "it's gonna fail, no one wants to watch". They don't need a Liddell/Couture/etc. They just need to put on good fights. Brent Brookhouse: It's not about if it fails or succeeds. It's about putting it in a realistic space. There's only so much value that a big promotional push for Strikeforce shows would make anyway, so for now it's pointless to focus on a huge marketing push. Creating superstars generally requires superstars for them to get a rub from. What superstars with any drawing power were created in WEC? Faber and...Faber. Aldo, Cruz, Henderson, Cerrone. Those guys couldn't draw and even Aldo's minor star required Faber to get some shine. What superstars did Strikeforce create with any drawing power? Diaz I guess, but he wasn't exactly blowing the roof off the Showtime ratings. Coming in and beating Penn did more for him than anything he did beating Cyborg or Dailey..etc. Same with Bellator. Lombard is running around beating up bums and no one cares. Alvarez wasn't a special draw or anything. Their space can be as a place with decent fights and some good fighters and good prospects. But people have to understand that that is what it is, it's nothing more. KJ Gould: I'd ignore almost everything Dana said the other day. This is a B show, and that's not a bad thing. Fighters that Zuffa like who can't cut it in the UFC get somewhere to develop that's not some rank amateur regional show. There's no way Strikeforce is sustainable with the current roster and you can expect cut UFC talent to end up there providing they were cut on 'good terms' - which basically means didn't do anything to piss Dana White off. Strikeforce is the perfect stop gap between the regional level and the UFC for those that need a little longer to develop. Not all prospects will be like Jon Jones, but that doesn't mean these prospects can't come into their own if given the time to do so in a promotion that's more competitive than the regionals, but not a sink or swim shark tank like the UFC can often be. Don't forget, Strikeforce offer the fighter insurance like UFC does and there is a definite path of career progression for fighters that find success. Bellator may be more appealing for short term money, but even its champions have complained about the lack of activity they've seen while stuck with the promotion, and with an absurd champions clause a fighter's ceiling is going to remain low. Strikeforce can be a viable alternative to Bellator for prospects who aren't ready for the UFC.

Posted in: ufc, fight, strikeforce, prospect, zuffa

Read the full article at Bloody Elbow

submitted by muayguy [link] [comment]

Posted in: ufc, fox, zuffa, mma fans, muayguy link

Read the full article at Reddit

Strikeforce has requested a January 7 date to host an event at The Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas that would be televised by Showtime. A Nevada state athletic commission representative confirmed the Zuffa request on Monday. Once approved -- and given parent company Zuffa's track record in Nevada, that is a near certainty -- the previously unannounced show would be the first Strikeforce event to be scheduled for 2012. Until now, the only future Strikeforce event planned had been the upcoming December 17 Strikeforce: Melendez vs. Masvidal event in San Diego, California. The move is yet another indication that Strikeforce will exist past its current deal with Showtime, which is set to expire around March 2012. In the past, Zuffa executive and UFC president Dana White voiced doubt that Strikeforce and Showtime could salvage their relationship, but a change in Showtime's leadership structure allowed White to inject himself in negotiations, and recent talks have reportedly been far more productive. While final word on an extension has yet to come from either side, the booking of events in early 2012 must be seen as a positive step towards a likely deal. Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Posted in: strikeforce, event, showtime, zuffa, zuffa request

Read the full article at AOL Fanhouse

Zuffa, LLC sued New York state on Tuesday for its ban of mixed martial arts in its state citing it as unconstitutional under First Amendment grounds. Zuffa, along with several notable UFC stars, are named plaintiffs in this lawsuit. The Complaint is over 100 pages in length and the Causes of Action begin on page 84 after an extensive facts section. Via the Wall Street Journal: Zuffa LLC, which owns the UFC, filed a lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. district court against New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. seeking a declaration that the ban violates the First Amendment. While the arts are protected, no court has ever directly confronted the question of whether athletes have a First Amendment right to be seen in action, said Barry Friedman, a professor at New York University School of Law who is representing the plaintiffs. A key to Zuffa’s argument is showing that New York’s ban suppresses the content rather than it looking to the safety of the sport. (Via NY Times): “The linchpin is convincing the court that the ban is aimed at the content of the entertainment as opposed to the safety of the fighters,” said Tom Kelley, a partner at Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz. “Attempts to regulate entertainment based on its violent message have been largely unsuccessful.” Lawyers interviewed in the NY Times article point to a recent Supreme Court ruling which struck down a California law banning certain video games the law deemed violent on First Amendment grounds. Zuffa attempts to make similar arguments regarding the governmental ban on MMA. Payout Perspective: We will definitely have more on this lawsuit as we read through and analyze the causes of action in this 100 plus page Complaint. This is an interesting way to work around the New York ban. The causes of action are unique in how they argue the right for MMA in New York. If nothing else, the lawsuit could contribute to law in the area of freedom of speech and First Amendment rights.

Posted in: zuffa, york, ban, lawsuit, amendment

Read the full article at MMA Payout

Matt Roth - With the UFC finally making their network tv debut, is it safe to say that Velasquez vs Dos Santos is more important for the UFC than Griffin vs Bonnar at the first Ultimate Fighter Finale? Leland Roling - No. Without the significance of Griffin-Bonnar, we probably aren't where we are at today in terms of opportunity. Tim Burke - I agree with Leland. Griffin/Bonnar was the culmination of a 10 million dollar experiment that very nearly bankrupted the company. If that fight wasn't what it was, the UFC likely wouldn't be owned by the Fertittas anymore. Even if Cain/JDS is somehow a colossal failure, there's a lot more cushioning in place, financially and otherwise for Zuffa to bounce back and try again. It's an important fight. But nothing will ever be as important as Griffin/Bonnar was for the organization long-term. KJ Gould - I think it could be as important, but I'm not sure if it's more. Griffin vs Bonnar was Zuffa UFC's breakthrough moment ending the dark ages of Western MMA and turned the company around from a losing effort into a profitable enterprise. I think Dos Santos vs Velasquez is the UFC's chance to legitimise itself among casual sports fans and the general public at large. At least I think that's what the plan is and what is hoped for. We'll have to wait and see what kind of impact it actually has. Fraser Cofeen - KJ has it right on the "wait and see" part. Griffin vs. Bonnar became more important as it happened because it was such a fantastic fight. This one? If it's amazing and turns on a ton of new fans, then yes, it could end up being more important. If it's a total bust, that too could be massively important. But if it's just OK then it won't have a huge impact. I mean, what kind of impact did Smith vs. Lawler II have on EliteXC, you know? Tim Burke - I think the difference though is that the UFC had nothing going for them when Griffin/Bonnar went down. They were out 10 mil, Spike wasn't willing to pay for season 2, and all looked lost. That fight card (and that fight in particular) is what made Spike change their mind, and they produced the show for season two and continued to show programming. In the case of Cain/JDS, the UFC has already signed the mega-deal. There just isn't as much riding on this in those terms. When it comes to more casual viewership and expanding the sport, for sure it's important. But it's not do-or-die, so it can't possibly be AS important as the TUF 1 Finale. Matt Roth - I think this is possibly more important just because of what's at stake. The UFC has been trying to "legitimize" the sport for years. They finally have the chance to pull in an audience that doesn't know anything about the sport, who most likely still call it cage fighting. If the fight is a complete bust, this could force the UFC and Fox to reevaluate their plan. They're planning to interview the fighters much in the same way they do with the Superbowl. Even the format could negatively affect the fight. Josh Nason - This is a hard question to answer as no one expected Griffin/Bonnar to be that good or that important to the company. The end result ended up starting something that the UFC and Spike were more than happy to capitalize and build on. Velasquez/dos Santos is the result of long-term planning and finding the right broadcast partner and deal that would make this possible. Perhaps the more accurate question is whether in five years,will the Velsaquez/dos Santos fight will do as much positives for UFC business as Griffin/Bonnar did in its subsequent five years. My gut instinct is to say no because I think the UFC's insistence on 30+ events per year will lessen the demand on pay-per-view. I don't think the business has peaked, but I can't get past the notion that if people wanted to watch UFC, they would have tried it out by now and already been on board. SBN coverage of UFC on Fox 1: Velasquez vs. Dos Santos Leland Roling - Honestly, I don't even know why we are comparing the two. If you take into account the fact that Griffin-Bonnar had to have the success it had in order to propel the UFC to where it is today, it's the obvious choice. It saved the UFC for inevitable death in my mind. The UFC on Fox deal doesn't have to be a major success for the UFC to continue to live on and make a profit. The circumstances aren't the same, nor are the consequences of a monumental failure. KJ Gould - For all intents and purposes, MMA is still a niche sport with UFC being the premier brand. Many were hoping UFC 100 would take the sport in general to the next level and while it was a landmark event I don't think it had any long term impact. The good that show did has been largely negated by factors such as Brock Lesnar appearing to be a shell of his former self and a host of other injuries that have sidelined marquee fighters which has prevented cards from selling as well as they could have. Yes, UFC can continue to make a profit at the top of this niche, but I think success on Fox with the first show acting as a catalyst is paramount to their growth and expansion. A bad showing this weekend could potentially be a setback that might take years to overcome, but a great showing could well lead to another boom period. Josh Nason - KJ, you reminded me about something that I really noticed with UFC 100: ESPN attention. Perhaps because of the Fox deal or other issues, I don't notice any ESPN televised coverage other than results on the scroller and MMA Live. I'll be interested to see if this gets any coverage on the Worldwide Leader this week, but my assumption is that it doesn't. Getting ESPN to validate your existence is a big thing with the casual fans they're looking to attract. Leland Roling - I'm willing to bet it gets ESPN play. KJ Gould - Dana White needs to 'play the game just a little bit' to get ESPN to cover the UFC properly. ESPN were supposedly not too pleased with Dana White choosing MMA Fighting over them to break the news of the Strikeforce buyout, and it doesn't help that White easily gets into internet bust-ups with them from time to time as well. Maybe Dana hopes Fox Sports can give him the coverage he feels ESPN never afforded the UFC but I'd like to think he's not arrogant enough to completely cut them off. Of course, he did just practically poach Jon Anik from them recently. Who knows what their relationship is like at the moment. Ben Thapa - My perspective, if it's worth anything: This is the single best chance for Zuffa to continue the process of minor reinventions that all truly successful organizations and companies go through to stay dominant. Without that process of slow conceptual and production turnover, Zuffa stagnates and we're stuck with the gladiator intro for yet another decade. A dominant and highly entertaining bout between Cain Velasquez and Junior dos Santos makes for a happy Fox network team. A fully enthusiastic and cooperative Fox team can help turn the Zuffa broadcasts into productions that are far more composed, less reliant upon the fighter's personal brand and more appealing to the masses - where the big money waits. In many ways, this particular title bout is perfect for Zuffa's purposes. The unstated goal of White and the Fertita brothers has been to push the brand of the UFC over the mega-star fighters like Lesnar and Georges St. Pierre. This is a smart business idea as stars can dim due to age and injuries that sideline those stars for too long. Boxing has seen itself shrink down to a handful of mega-stars with alphabet soup belts in play around the world. By dint of success, constant self-promotion and the collapse of other rivals, the UFC stands alone as the premier fight organization in the world and the biggest stars fight within its cages. Zuffa puts on the UFC show, creates the PPV market and pays the money to promote. They've reaped the rewards thus far, but the sport has plateaued of late and the need for a strong brand that extends beyond the fighters themselves is clear. Cain and Junior are incredibly talented mixed martial artists. The odds are high that these two men are going to put on a brilliant and explosive fight that can convert fence-sitters in droves. However, neither has yet been able to build a personal brand with the fans that is stronger than Zuffa's. If the fight fails to fully live up to its staggering potential for exquisite controlled violence, that might be alright for Zuffa. Any positives that result from the UFC on Fox show will be shared equally between the fighters and the UFC. Any negatives can be explained away by pointing out the non-megastardom of Cain and Junior. The best part is that this is done while preserving the "mega-stars on PPV" model that got them this far. A truly disastrous show can perhaps be redeemed by promising Jon Jones for the next fight. This is the golden opportunity for the UFC to discard the nu-metal trappings of Griffin/Bonnar, seize the attention of a bigger audience and enter a time of stability that UFC 100 failed to deliver. Griffin/Bonnar let the UFC survive and figure out by iterative process what sort of worked for their audience. I believe this to be the one big chance for the UFC to grow up, access professional knowledge built over successful decades of multi-sport broadcasting and move this sport beyond the realm of highly passionate hardcore fans into the mainstream. A great fight leaves the UFC in the catbird seat with the world at their fingertips. A bad fight makes it a hard struggle that might cripple their chances of true growth. Ben Thapa - Another take, as I'm bored at work. I've never understood why Griffin/Bonnar has been adopted by the mixed martial arts media as the fulcrum by which mixed martial arts in America was saved. PRIDE was where the best fighters were in 2005, the WEC had been in business for four years and the various Brazilian shows were bubbling up now and then. Griffin/Bonnar was a tipping point for the continued survival of Zuffa alone and blind luck let the right combination of grit, determination and unpolished skill occur at the right time for the UFC. To Zuffa's credit, Spike and the UFC quickly capitalized on that fight and things began to look up for Zuffa. At the same time, if Zuffa had died shortly afterwards, we would likely still have a strong MMA scene here in the U.S. as other organizations expanded into the void. Somehow the UFC has managed to continue the process of not screwing up too much or deeply to get this opportunity with Fox. This is their shot at legitimacy. This is the time to leave behind the nu-metal trappings that won over all the wrestling fans and to embrace a more mass-appeal vibe. This fight determines whether that transition process from niche sport to mainstream institution gets off to a roaring start. A slow start can be overcome, but the last slow start on Spike had to be rescued by Griffin/Bonnar. The importance of breaking through to the big money of the mainstream is why this fight and this Fox deal is the most important moment in Zuffa history. If it fails, mixed martial arts is doomed to stagnate for another decade until another network builds the courage and resources to make the failed attempts at CBS and Fox a distant memory - like Griffin/Bonnar should be in the minds of MMA fans. Leland Roling - "The importance of breaking through to the big money of the mainstream is why this fight and this Fox deal is the most important moment in Zuffa history. If it fails, mixed martial arts is doomed to stagnate for another decade until another network builds the courage and resources to make the failed attempts at CBS and Fox a distant memory - like Griffin/Bonnar should be in the minds of MMA fans." I don't agree. What's more important? Stacking more money on top of the revenue they've already made, or creating a "Golden Age" of growth at a low point that could have potentially led to their death? In my mind, there's no debate. The reality series plus Bonnar-Griffin helped the UFC get where it is today. It's a cause that had the effect. KJ Gould - I think it's a matter of expectations, which has been touched on a little bit. UFC weren't expecting what they got out of Griffin vs Bonnar and what it snowballed into. Going into the first Fox show I'd imagine they have lofty expectations of what it can do for the UFC so in that respect they may have a greater sense of importance about this show then they did at the time of the first live TUF finale on Spike. Ben Thapa - I'm doing my best to pull a Snowden - plausible stance that can easily be shredded if you have the right knowledge. Dallas Winston - It's just another very pivotal stage. Griffin x Bonnar was the initial step that brought MMA into a larger spotlight. The purchase of Pride vanquished their only legit competitor and extended their range to the entire globe instead of just the US. Acquiring Strikeforce was another huge stride because it seemed to put the MMA world on notice that, as hard as it is to just survive or turn a profit as an alternative brand, even if you succeed you are likely to be taken over and counter-programmed all the way there. With any legit competition being absorbed and the overall momentum of the company and its roster at an all time high, this is just another potential for further advancement in the market. It's hard to compare it with what got them there in the first place. Ben Thapa - But if the narrative of Griffin/Bonnar is to be believed, then the UFC basically had nothing to do with anything other than creating a situation which spit out the one perfect fight at the perfect time. If it didn't work, they were out of business. PRIDE, WEC and perhaps Strikeforce would have picked up the reins and become the brightest stage. Why it is so important that Zuffa succeeds is that PRIDE and Strikeforce were run with much uncertainty regarding fights, fighters, negotiations and pay. To be fully fair, the UFC has some of that, but it's not a business crippling problem as it was for PRIDE and perhaps for Strikeforce as well. Zuffa is the cleanest and if it fails to stick with Fox, then what incentive do they have for staying clean?

Posted in: ufc, fight, fox, zuffa, griffinbonnar

Read the full article at Bloody Elbow

Standard and Poor’s has maintained Zuffa’s credit rating at “BB” based on the belief that the company’s strong EBITDA margin and healthy cash flow are sustainable over the “near-to-intermediate term” as Zuffa continues to grow and benefit from it’s well-recognized (UFC) brand and dominance in market position. On the other hand, the following S&P concerns kept Zuffa’s credit rating from being upgraded: - Risk of revenue and EBITDA volatility given the company’s primarily event-driven business model - Vulnerability to changing consumer preferences and susceptibility to variability in discretionary spending - Management’s aggressive financial policy - Although the UFC has a strong fan-base, in order to maintain their advantage, they need to continue to develop fighters that appeal to the 18-34 demographic. - Preserve current regulatory acceptance of the sport. Fatal injury or change to the rules and regulations governing the sport and legal status could have meaningful impact to the company’s business model and long-term viability.   Report Summary UFC’s seven year TV deal with Fox Sports Media Group, replacing Zuffa’s current deals with Spike TV and Versus, offers more stable and favorable economics over the term of the TV deal in hope of potentially reducing Zuffa’s dependency on the more-volatile event based revenue. Zuffa should be able to deliver more content and potentially expand it’s audience through the vast distribution FOX provides, thus exposing content to a higher potential viewership base. During the first half of 2011, revenue and EBITDA were down against the comparable period in 2010. Reasons given were one less PPV event, as well as significant fighter injuries which contributed to lower PPV buys. Despite a weak first half of 2011, the report expects Zuffa’s total debt to EBITDA and coverage measures to remain in line with the rating over the term. It is expected that Zuffa owners will continue to pursue moderate distributions over time as the company continues to grow, which will likely preclude any meaningful sustained improvement to Zuffa’s financial risk profile. Nearly 75% of Zuffa’s total revenue is event based. The majority is composed of PPV buys and ticket sales. Remaining 25% revenue is composed of live and taped television broadcasts, sponsorship, merchandising, licensing, and content distribution deals. Due to the FOX television deal, it is anticipated that TV broadcasting may become a larger source of revenue, as they see this revenue stream as less volatile than event based revenue. Zuffa has been successful in expanding sponsorships and merchandising, which improves stability and strengthens their business model. Zuffa’s expansion plans are seen as a positive due to the potential of growing revenue from a more diversified fan base and broadening the acceptance of MMA. UFC expansion into the UK  several years ago was extremely volatile, and they have since taken a more cautious and measured approach in international expansion as of late. Interestingly enough, the report points out that Zuffa could face increased labor costs in the future if fighters organize (union) and seek a higher share of revenue, which is the case for most major sports in the U.S. The acquisition of Strikeforce (along with the WEC) is believed to have strengthened the UFCs already dominant market position, as it continues to increase the number of fighters and title fights under the promotion. Liquidity: Zuffa has adequate sources to cover its needs over the next 12 to 18 months. Sources include cash flow generated from strong operations and it’s revolving credit. Uses of liquidity include minimal capital spending needs, modest amortization, acquisitions, and distributions. Debt: Zuffa had only $1 million of availability under its $50 million revolving credit facility as of June 30, 2011, which expires in 2012. $425 million term loan due in 2015. Payments for taxes are primarily distributed directly to the owners and additional dividend payments are limited by a restricted payment basket under the credit facilities. The expectation is that owners will likely continue to pursue max allowable distributions under the credit agreement. Zuffa Credit History November 2007 – S&P Cuts Zuffa Rating, BB to BB- July 2008 – Zuffa Rating Goes Negative to Stable July 2009 – Cuban Now a Zuffa Bond Holder October 2009 – S&P Re-Affirm BB-, Slide Recovery Rating Down December 2010 – S&P Raises Zuffa Rating, BB- to BB August 2011 – Zuffa Maintains “BB” Credit Rating   Payout Perspective Typically, a rating of “BB” implies that Zuffa is less vulnerable in the near term, although it faces major ongoing uncertainties and exposure to adverse business, financial, or economic conditions, which can result in failure to meet its financial commitments. On the other hand, it’s a credit rating of “stable”, which is not a bad place to be for a company who’s core business model is so volatile and can be affected by many market variables. The international expansion efforts and the seven-year $100 million FOX TV deal help tremendously in bringing more stability into their business model, but with that said, it still only accounts for 25% of their total revenue. In this regard, not much has changed since 2010 when Zuffa was able to match the event based revenue growth with the non-event based revenue growth, so we still have a 75-25 split in overall revenue. The hope here is that through the TV deal, more mainstream exposure can come to the brand and create more PPV draws and more stable revenue opportunities which can help offset the volatile nature of a PPV based core business. The report points out that revenue and EBITDA for the first half of 2011 is down compared to the same period in 2010, though one less PPV was accounted for 2011, and attributes injuries as the reason.  The problem with pointing out injuries and correlating it to revenue is that you hope next year won’t be as bad but as we are starting to see on a year-to-year basis, injuries are part of the sport.  Fights and training camps take a toll on the fighters, so having a PPV draw such as a GSP or a Brock Lesnar can really only give you about 2 fights per year taking all variables into account.  Injuries is a variable that cannot be controlled or correctly estimated beforehand, so it will be interesting to see if injuries becomes a hot topic again in 2012, as it has been for the past 2 years. If injuries is the main component of declining PPV buys, then that brings up another issue.  It means that fans are only willing to pay to see fighters that they deem worthy of their hard-earned money. It also shifts the drawing power to the fighters instead of the UFC brand and product they offer.  It means MMA may not be enough anymore to get anyone outside of the MMA hardcore fanbase to tune in, and I’m sure that’s something the UFC hopes to address with the FOX TV deal and the vast distribution platforms it brings. There has also been a lot of talk this year about the UFC or MMA peaking or plateauing, and pointing out declining PPV buys and TV ratings is a quick and easy way to point out.  Oddly enough when we’ve seen TV rating lows for UFC and Bellator this year, both were able to sign TV deals with major media groups.  UFC signs a huge TV deal with FOX that not only gets their full support and puts them on FOX, FX, and Fuel TV, but it can now be linked to FOX as other major sports are to the mainstream sports fan. FOX has been heavily backing them up promoting their first UFC on FOX event on all their high viewership sport programming  including MLB’s World Series and Sunday morning-afternoon NFL games. Bellator was just purchased by Viacom and looks to be moving on to Spike in 2013 after only getting about 150-180K viewers on average per event on MTV2. Again, Spike re-iterates that they will be sticking with them even through hard times as they have done with other original programming.  They did the same when WWE left and were able to pick up TNA.  After a few up and down years, TNA has been getting great ratings for Spike as of late, a formula they wish to reproduce with Bellator after the UFC leaves in 2012. What we are seeing here is that these media groups believe MMA has a ton of potential left, but at this point, it makes more sense for these media groups to either own or sign a very intimate contract with a promotion rather than having a licensing fee contract for MMA programming as Showtime, Spike, Versus, and CBS have done in the past with Strikeforce and EliteXC.  Is more mainstream MMA content what we need for ratings and PPV buys to kick back up again or will it just add to the ever-growing free MMA content you can get from various TV and media avenues now?  Will an adverse effect change UFC’s business core to shift to be more TV dependent in the next few years? Can you really sustain a PPV core model in the long run? I have a feeling these questions will be answered in the next 3-5 years, as the FOX and Spike TV deals run their course. It’s not realistic to expect that the UFC will outdo itself year-after-year, but it will be interesting to see how it can push itself off a potential stagnant stage and into that next level as they have done in the past with the Spike TV deal, the acquisition of PRIDE, WFA, & WEC, and now the FOX TV deal.

Posted in: ufc, revenue, rating, tv, zuffa

Read the full article at MMA Payout

Zuffa announced its bonuses for fighter tweets (via MMA Junkie). This past summer, it announced it would hand out quarterly bonuses for UFC-Strikeforce fighters for maintaining a twitter account. Anderson Silva, Antonio Rodrigo Noguiera and Demian Maia each won $10,000 for being multiple winners in different categories. Silva, Big Nog and Maia won in “most followers” and “biggest percentage of growth in followers.” Cristiane “Cyborg” Santos won $5,000 in the most followers category and Paulo Thiago won $5,000 for the biggest percentage of growth in followers. In the “Most Creative” category, Joe Lauzon, Ben Henderson, Forrest Griffin and Joseph Benavidez earned $5,000 each. Via MMA Junkie: For the purpose of the UFC’s Twitter bonuses, all UFC and Strikeforce fighters are divided into four separate categories based on the number of followers they have at the beginning of the scoring period. The tiered system allows fighters such as Santos (13,000-plus followers) and Maia (94,000-plus followers) to compete along side superstars such as Silva (839,000-plus followers) and Nogueira (281,000-plus followers). Payout Perspective: As most can probably deduce, the Brazilians earned their bonuses based on UFC 134 Rio. Santos has not fought since June but is defending her title in December. It would be interesting to know what readers think of the most creative twitter winners.  Did Zuffa get it right? Are the bonuses less than it would have to pay a PR/Marketing agency? It certainly is a unique way to promote the UFC and Strikeforce. It also allows each fighter to create their own brand under the Zuffa umbrella. Zuffa has embraced social media and to have its fighters essentially serve as marketers for the company is very creative. It would be difficult to quantify and measure the value of Zuffa fighters tweeting but it definitely something to monitor next quarter. And as others have done reporting on these twitter bonuses, you can find us at:  Jason Cruz (@dilletaunt), @MMASupremacy and @MMAMetrics

Posted in: fighter, twitter, zuffa, bonus, follower

Read the full article at MMA Payout

I have really high self esteem, and it stems from the fact that when I was little, my mommy taught me that the only reason why anyone would ever make fun of me is because they’re paid to. Really, everything I say is so far above criticism that disagreeing with me is like calling this an awesome haircut on a wonderful person. Former MMAgents owner and current Zuffa lawsuit co-defendant Ken Pavia evidently feels the same way, accusing people who post disparaging comments about him in a thread on the Underground forum of being on Zuffa’s payroll: Zuffa compensates people per event to have multiple screen names and advance agendas. They have been asked to actually start debates with themselves, and steam roll one side, or to made points ad nause[am]. An old PR director used to phone all hours of the night when he saw something he didnt like and have it squashed. I have been approached by more [than[ one of these people and I actually employed a former Zuffa paid poster who had like 10 screen names and did exactly this. It is a manipulation of public opinion. The Big Brother of MMA. This thread is just another example of that practice... And so the word comes from Zuffa to advance an agenda[,] and out come the paid posters[,] again. Pavia is evidently not worried about Zuffa’s lawsuit because all of the Zuffa documents he is accused of transmitting to Bellator are googlable. So obviously, Zuffa is retaliating against Pavia’s impending court victory by bribing people to be mean to him on the Internets. But as ludicrous as it sounds that Zuffa could actually be using its financial resources to hire people to troll Pavia, it might not be completely outside the realm of possibility, based on other goings-on in the business world, that Zuffa could have paid people to advocate certain points of view on the web at some point in time. It is actually very well established that astroturfing takes place in many industries, and in certain instances where astroturfing has been verified, it does take a form strongly resembling that described by Pavia. So, is Ken Pavia simply a paranoid whiner who is just below Eddie Goldman in terms of bitterness against the UFC and overall crackpottedness? Or does he have a point? The answer remains to be seen, but the next time threads like “OMG FEDOR MONSON IS BETTAR THAN JDS CAIN” are posted and then methodically destroyed by arguments from UFC fans, we will at least have an explanation for what’s going on that doesn’t involve the entire human race degenerating into a sludge of retardedness.

Posted in: pavia, people, zuffa, point, ken

Read the full article at Fightlinker

When Jason Miller became the first fighter to make the jump from Strikeforce to UFC after the Zuffa buyout back in March, it was explained away by the fact that "Mayhem's" contract had already run out and he simply went where the money was. But as time went on, moves were made in a far more obvious manner. Nick Diaz, the Strikeforce welterweight champion, was brought over and signed to fight Georges St. Pierre, although that's not happening anymore. Alistair Overeem, the Strikeforce heavyweight champion, was yanked around before finding his way to "Sin City" to sign a bout agreement to fight Brock Lesnar at UFC 141 on Dec. 30. Even Dan Henderson, the Strikeforce light heavyweight champion who has had so many problems with UFC in the past, brought his brand of violence back to the Octagon. To top it off, UFC President Dana White has made it clear he wants Gilbert Melendez and he'll do whatever it takes to get him. That will make four of the five champions from the San Jose based promotion. Despite the roster gutting, Strikeforce CEO Scott Coker maintains the company line that Zuffa is committed to continuing the organization and that it's all up to Showtime. "Zuffa is committed to continuing Strikeforce. And really, it's in Showtime's hands. There's dialogue and negotiations going back and forth right now and I'm hopeful that Strikeforce will be renewed and we'll put on some great fights for many years." If it is, indeed, up to Showtime, the future looks bleak. Ken Hershman, the Executive Vice President and General Manager of Sports and Event Programming who cut the original deal to bring Strikeforce to the popular cable channel, has left for the greener pastures of HBO. Does that, in and of itself, signal the end of Strikeforce? Of course not, but it's certainly yet another bad sign that the boys from San Jose are going bye-bye.

Posted in: ufc, strikeforce, san jose, champion, zuffa

Read the full article at MMA Mania

Zuffa created a subsidiary called Forza LLC to control Strikeforce who was taken over from Silicon Valley Sports and Entertainment in March of this year. Since then, there’s been much debate as too whether Zuffa/Forza will continue to operate the promotion or just kill it off. Strikeforces’ television contract with Showtime expires mid-February 2012 and both sides have been relatively quiet as to the future the promotions programming on the network. However, UFC President Dana White recently commented on the Strikeforce/Showtime situation at the UFC 135 pre-fight press conference: “Who knows what’s going to happen? The way this thing works is, it depends on Showtime. The ball’s in their court. They need to decide whether they want to keep Strikeforce around or not” Showtime has yet to comment on their plans moving forward. They do have an option to extend the deal through 2014, however, the ball that’s been left in their court doesn’t have much of a bounce left. Over the past 5 months Strikeforce had their top draws cherry-picked by the UFC, an impressive list that includes former Strikeforce heavyweight champ Alistair Overeem, former welterweight champ Nick Diaz and Strikeforce light heavyweight champ Dan Henderson. It’s almost certain the Strikeforce lightweight champ Gilbert Melendez will join them. By hollowing out the promotions champions, Zuffa’s actions speak louder then words and Showtime should be getting the message now loud and clear. So is there even a business case left for keeping Stikeforce around in 2012? Using the publicly available data we took a closer look at the performance of the two Strikeforce ownership groups, Silicon Valley, and Zuffa/Forza. We sampled data from the last 9 events under Silicon Valley ownership, between October 9 2010 to March 25 2011 that included 5 major tier 1 events and 4 smaller tier 2 Challengers events. We compared the average TV Ratings, Attendance, Gate and Payroll to the first 9 events under Zuffa ownership, between April 1 2011 and September 23 2011 that included 4 major tier 1 events and 5 tier 2 events. Payout Perspective: In the midst of losing their top talent, the rough estimation is that Strikeforce has seen TV ratings dip 5%, attendance drop 32%, live gate profits down 11% and an increase of 26% in fighters payroll since Zuffa took control in March 2011. From Showtimes point of view, the ratings are stagnant and Zuffa is (or has) impeded the ability for Strikeforce to improve upon their ratings. Showtime is drawing approximately 2.5 times more viewers with boxing programming then with Strikeforce. M-1 Global, who also broadcasts MMA events on Showtime will air their next to last event on October 14th. With no word on a Showtime/M-1 contract renewal, perhaps Showtimes focus will shift solely back to boxing leaving the MMA programming by the wayside. For Zuffa, they’re in a position were they have just signed a huge network television contract for the UFC with FOX, which includes distribution on the cable channels FX and Fuel TV. Plus, Spike TV appears set to continue broadcasting UFC content, counter-programming or not, throughout 2012. So for Zuffa’s primary brand there’s no shortages on the television front. There has been zero push for Strikeforce since the ownership change and none look to be in sight. The numbers aren’t terribly good and there is no momentum, I see little benefit for Zuffa to continue their support for Strikeforce. It’s plausible they would continue to broadcast Strikeforce on Showtime in an attempt to help limit potential competition but I think if Showtime is to continue with MMA programming, it won’t be under the Zuffa/Forza/Strikeforce banner.

Posted in: ufc, strikeforce, event, showtime, zuffa

Read the full article at MMA Payout

MMA Fighting reports that Alistair Overeem has left the managing stable of Golden Glory. Overeem’s decision to leave was due to “a breach of trust.” Via MMA Fighting: With Overeem only stating that “a breach of trust” was the reason for his departure, details behind the split are up for speculation and many people may be quick to point the finger at the recent issues between Golden Glory and Zuffa. Overeem’s former manager, Bas Boon, indicated that Overeem’s departure was not related to the recent Zuffa-Golden Glory squabble which saw Zuffa cut Overeem, his brother, Valentijn, and Marloes Coenen. In a press release, Boon cited the current state of the fight business (outside of Zuffa we presume) as the culprit as he cited the fact that Golden Glory fighters are owed money from FEG and K-1. Boon cited the fact that Overeem is fighting in the UFC this December as a sign that the Zuffa-Golden Glory relationship is not fractured. But it appears that the money owed Overeem from other fight organizations may be the reason for the split. Payout Perspective: Overeem’s departure is interesting considering it occurred after Golden Glory negotiated his contract for the Lesnar fight. This is another example of the tenuous business of fight management. We will see if Overeem decides to sign with another agent and, if so, whether the agent will make an effort to collect the past debt from the organizations.

Posted in: fight, overeem, alistair overeem, glory, zuffa

Read the full article at MMA Payout