(“I’m tha muthaflippin’ Chaelnocerous, my insults are bottomless, poppin off tha top-of-this esophagus. Yes, sometimes I am know to be quite sexist, but you lovely bitches n’ hoes should know I’m trying to correct this.” Photo via UFC.com)
Another Culinary Union powerplay denied, Potato Nation! Let’s go to the scoreboards:
Earlier today, we reported that Chael Sonnen was having a little trouble getting licensed for his fight with Mauricio Rua at Fight Night 26 (or as some of the CP old guard call it, UFC on FOX Sports 1) based on his poor “moral turpitude.” Being that Chael couldn’t fall back on his classic counterpoint, “I don’t speak ghetto,” it seemed as if The American Gangster would be facing some legitimate opposition less than two weeks out from what is primed to be a major event for both the UFC and the FOX Sports network.
Well fret not, Bostonians, because according to Sonnen’s manager — who we are going to assume is just Sonnen wearing a top hat and monocle — the panel that gathered at this afternoon’s closed-door meeting ultimately voted in Sonnen’s favor. He spoke with MMAJunkie:
They had a panel, we had a meeting with them, and as far as we know, they’re going to license him. As far as we know, it will be just like everybody else’s license.
Maybe it’s just us, but there’s something about Chael P.nut Sonnen’s emphasis on “as far as we know” that makes us uneasy here. You know, kind of like how Chael used to say “As far as we know, your house needs $70,000 in plumbing repairs.”
(“I’m tha muthaflippin’ Chaelnocerous, my insults are bottomless, poppin off tha top-of-this esophagus. Yes, sometimes I am know to be quite sexist, but you lovely bitches n’ hoes should know I’m trying to correct this.” Photo via UFC.com)
Another Culinary Union powerplay denied, Potato Nation! Let’s go to the scoreboards:
Earlier today, we reported that Chael Sonnen was having a little trouble getting licensed for his fight with Mauricio Rua at Fight Night 26 (or as some of the CP old guard call it, UFC on FOX Sports 1) based on his poor “moral turpitude.” Being that Chael couldn’t fall back on his classic counterpoint, “I don’t speak ghetto,” it seemed as if The American Gangster would be facing some legitimate opposition less than two weeks out from what is primed to be a major event for both the UFC and the FOX Sports network.
Well fret not, Bostonians, because according to Sonnen’s manager — who we are going to assume is just Sonnen wearing a top hat and monocle — the panel that gathered at this afternoon’s closed-door meeting ultimately voted in Sonnen’s favor. He spoke with MMAJunkie:
They had a panel, we had a meeting with them, and as far as we know, they’re going to license him. As far as we know, it will be just like everybody else’s license.
Maybe it’s just us, but there’s something about Chael P.nut Sonnen’s emphasis on “as far as we know” that makes us uneasy here. You know, kind of like how Chael used to say “As far as we know, your house needs $70,000 in plumbing repairs.”
As first reported by MMAJunkie, the Massachusetts State Boxing Commission will hold a closed-door meeting today to determine whether Sonnen should be licensed for the August 17th FOX Sports 1 event. The special session was organized after a complaint was filed by Unite Here, the union lobbying group with interests in food service and gaming. (Yes, thoseguysagain.) As if trying to keep minors out of UFC events wasn’t chickenshit enough, Unite Here is now trying to block a UFC headliner’s performance based on “moral turpitude.” Here’s an excerpt from their complaint:
Chael Patrick Sonnen is scheduled to compete in a professional mixed martial art event put on by the Ultimate Fighting Championship (“UFC”) at the TD Garden on August 17, 2013. We anticipate that Sonnen will apply for a professional unarmed combat license in accordance with 523 CMR § 6.01. We urge that the license be denied because Mr. Sonnen has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
The Commission has the authority to deny an application for a license “if it finds that the applicant has performed any act which would, if performed by a licensee, subject the licensee to discipline pursuant to 523 CMR 20.00 and 21.00.” 523 CMR § 6.13(1). “A license issued by the Commission may be suspended if the holder is arrested or convicted on a charge involving moral turpitude.” 523 CMR § 20.15.
As first reported by MMAJunkie, the Massachusetts State Boxing Commission will hold a closed-door meeting today to determine whether Sonnen should be licensed for the August 17th FOX Sports 1 event. The special session was organized after a complaint was filed by Unite Here, the union lobbying group with interests in food service and gaming. (Yes, thoseguysagain.) As if trying to keep minors out of UFC events wasn’t chickenshit enough, Unite Here is now trying to block a UFC headliner’s performance based on “moral turpitude.” Here’s an excerpt from their complaint:
Chael Patrick Sonnen is scheduled to compete in a professional mixed martial art event put on by the Ultimate Fighting Championship (“UFC”) at the TD Garden on August 17, 2013. We anticipate that Sonnen will apply for a professional unarmed combat license in accordance with 523 CMR § 6.01. We urge that the license be denied because Mr. Sonnen has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
The Commission has the authority to deny an application for a license “if it finds that the applicant has performed any act which would, if performed by a licensee, subject the licensee to discipline pursuant to 523 CMR 20.00 and 21.00.” 523 CMR § 6.13(1). “A license issued by the Commission may be suspended if the holder is arrested or convicted on a charge involving moral turpitude.” 523 CMR § 20.15.
On January 3, 2011, Mr. Sonnen was convicted of money laundering in violation of 18U.S.C. § 1956. See United States v. Chael Sonnen, Case No. 10-CR-00502 (D. Oregon). Money laundering is a crime of moral turpitude. Smalley v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 332, 339 (5th Cir.2003) (holding that money laundering is a crime involving moral turpitude)…the Court held that money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1956(a)(3)(B) is a crime of moral turpitude because it involves intentional concealment of the proceeds of unlawful activity (in that case illegal drug money). 354 F.3d at 339. Mr. Sonnenwas convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), which also requires intentional concealment of the proceeds of unlawful activity…
Mr. Sonnen admitted that he knew about and attempted to conceal the illegal source of money he used in a mortgage transaction. The plea agreement states that Mr. Sonnen “plead guilty to the enclosed Information, which charges the crime of Money Laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956.” (Exh. __). The Information alleges:
On or about June 20, 2006, in the District of Oregon, CHAEL PATRICK SONNEN, defendant herein, did knowingly conduct and attempt to conduct a financial transaction affecting interstate commerce, to wit, he caused a check in the amount of $69,091.53 to be issued and negotiated from a bank account at U.S. Bank, which involved the proceeds of a specified unlawful activity, that is wire fraud. Defendant further knew that the financial transaction was designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the source and nature of the proceeds of wirefraud, to wit, defendant and others devised and intended to devise a material scheme and artifice to defraud Decision One Mortgage, and to obtain money and property from Decision One Mortgage by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and that while conducting and attempting to conduct such financial transaction, defendant knew that the property involved in the financial transaction represented the proceeds of the unlawful activity, wire fraud. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).(Exh. __).
Mr. Sonnen’s conviction for money laundering should disqualify him from receiving a professional unarmed combat license in Massachusetts.
Just to make it perfectly clear, Unite Here doesn’t give a damn that Chael Sonnen was convicted of being a liar and a thief, but they’re using his conviction as a political tool to put pressure on the Massachusetts State Boxing Commission. Why? Because the Fertitta brothers’ Station Casinos are non-union. And because of that, Unite Here and the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 have waged war against the UFC for years, trying to paint the fight promotion in the most unflattering light possible.
According to a press release forwarded to MMAJunkie, ”A dozen UNITE HERE activists will voice their objection to the issuance of a license to Mr. Sonnen at a public meeting Thursday of the State Athletic Commission, and will hand-deliver the complaint to Public Safety Secretary Andrea Cabral, who oversees the Athletic Commission. The union activists will deliver the same information to the Boston offices of Eaton Vance Management, an investment management firm that has invested in the debt of Zuffa, LLC, the Las Vegas-based parent of the UFC.”
Wait, it gets worse. As MMAJunkie’s Steven Marroccoadded on twitter: “about 30 minutes ago, I also got a letter from Mass. NOW, which has also filed a complaint against Chael, adding to Unite Here. Lowlight: “Mr. Sonnen has repeatedly made shockingly derogatory statements about women, people of color, homosexuals, immigrants, and other minorities. He has tested positive for a banned substance, made public remarks promoting criminal violence, and has been convicted of money laundering.”
Well sure, that’s why we love him so much.
Clearly, Unite Here’s full-court press in Boston was carefully considered. With UFC Fight Night 26 marking the UFC’s debut on FOX Sports 1 — and being hosted in UFC president Dana White’s hometown — it’s a very special event that needs to go off smoothly. But so far, media attention has been more focused on the various manufactured controversies than any of the fights themselves. That’s a problem — and it’ll become a major problem if the card loses a headliner with less than 10 days to go before showtime.
We’ll update you when we know more about Sonnen’s licensing status. Stay tuned.
(At first, I chose this image because I couldn’t think of anything appropriate to use for this piece. Now, I’m not sure there’s anything more appropriate. Via The Boston Jam.)
Boston City Councilor Stephen Murphy – backed by “Parents Say No to UFC” – has filed a resolution that aims to ban minors from attending MMA fights. Before we go any further, two things are important to point out. Number one, obviously Parents Say No to UFC is run by the Culinary Union. Number two, this bill has no chance of becoming a law before the August 17th fight card, so don’t sell that ticket you bought for your son (or daughter!) yet.
So why is Murphy so opposed to allowing minors to watch MMA? His reasoning is pretty much the same mixture of cognitive dissonance and “Think of the goddamn children!” that you’d expect from a person who is likely being paid to be offended by a combat sport. Via BostonMagazine.com:
According to Murphy, fighters from the UFC, which is the professional level of the mixed-martial arts sport, have joked about rape, used foul and abusive language that’s demeaning to women, and used homophobic slurs, all of which, he said, set a bad example for Boston’s youth. He said the sport uses alcohol sponsors to fund the fights, which adds to the negative image that can be imposed on children.
(At first, I chose this image because I couldn’t think of anything appropriate to use for this piece. Now, I’m not sure there’s anything more appropriate. Via The Boston Jam.)
Boston City Councilor Stephen Murphy – backed by “Parents Say No to UFC” – has filed a resolution that aims to ban minors from attending MMA fights. Before we go any further, two things are important to point out. Number one, obviously Parents Say No to UFC is run by the Culinary Union. Number two, this bill has no chance of becoming a law before the August 17th fight card, so don’t sell that ticket you bought for your son (or daughter!) yet.
So why is Murphy so opposed to allowing minors to watch MMA? His reasoning is pretty much the same mixture of cognitive dissonance and “Think of the goddamn children!” that you’d expect from a person who is likely being paid to be offended by a combat sport. Via BostonMagazine.com:
According to Murphy, fighters from the UFC, which is the professional level of the mixed-martial arts sport, have joked about rape, used foul and abusive language that’s demeaning to women, and used homophobic slurs, all of which, he said, set a bad example for Boston’s youth. He said the sport uses alcohol sponsors to fund the fights, which adds to the negative image that can be imposed on children.
Do I use this space to make a “I guess Boston’s athletic scene has enough realrapists and murderers” comment, point out the fact that all four of the city’s majorprofessionalsportsteams are sponsored by Anheuser-Busch, or do I just point out how ridiculous the concept of expecting a person to automatically be a great children’s role model because he/she is good at a sport is? I’ll pick the second option, because arguing that a professional sports league being sponsored by an alcoholic beverage company corrupts our children in ways that other professional sports leagues sponsored by alcoholic beverage companies aren’t requires such an advanced level of bullshitting that I admire anyone sleazy enough to do it with a straight face.
But Murphy isn’t alone in making generic arguments against letting the children of Boston watch MMA. We also have a plain old vanilla “violent entertainment ruins children’s minds” argument:
Diane Levin, a professor of early childhood education at Wheelock College, backed Murphy’s resolution, and “strongly urged” that the City Council pass it.
“Because of how children think, they are especially vulnerable to learning the harmful lessons that directly witnessing entertainment violence can teach—about how people treat each other, about the role of violence in society, that violence is fun and exciting with few consequences, and that grownups glorify and value it,” Levin said. “Everyone who cares about the wellbeing of children and the wider society should call for a ban on children attending Live Cage Fighting events.”
And an appearance from the Culinary Union themselves:
An advocacy group comprised of parents, doctors, and professors are also supporting Murphy’s efforts, and have started a petition and website sponsored by national movements like the National Organization for Women, the Boston Women’s Fund, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, and Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Children’s Entertainment.
The group, known as “Parents Say No to UFC,” supplemented their campaign message and petition page with a video that shows gruesome shots from various professional fights, including bloody contenders punching each other in the head repeatedly.
How wonderful.
Based on all of these super logical, totally original arguments against MMA, do you think that the sport is in any kind of real danger in Boston? Or is this just another minor inconvenience surrounding a card that has been full of them?
(Forget Mandy Moore, but Kim Kardashian? Now there’s a role model we can all support!)
Ugh.
In what is undoubtedly a new low for the hypocritical, sciolistic dingbats behind the anti-UFC machine known as The Culinary Union, a video was recently released attacking the UFC’s sweetheart, Mandy Moore, as a result of her long time ties with the promotion. Beautiful, innocent, harmless Mandy Moore. Using the same blissfully ignorant and fact-less approach as fellow propaganda pushers The April and Wayne Show, The Union’s newest video is little more than a two minute smear campaign aimed at the UFC, using footage of everything from Dana White’s rant against Loretta Hunt to Rampage Jackson’s near impregnating of a certain CP reporter as “evidence” that Ms. Moore (and any other UFC proponent, for that matter) is unfit to be a role model for our children. IT MAKES TOTAL SENSE, YOU GUYS.
Video after the jump. Caution: It may cause unexpected, rage-induced nosebleeds.
(Forget Mandy Moore, but Kim Kardashian? Now there’s a role model we can all support!)
Ugh.
In what is undoubtedly a new low for the hypocritical, sciolistic dingbats behind the anti-UFC machine known as The Culinary Union, a video was recently released attacking the UFC’s sweetheart, Mandy Moore, as a result of her long time ties with the promotion. Beautiful, innocent, harmless Mandy Moore. Using the same blissfully ignorant and fact-less approach as fellow propaganda pushers The April and Wayne Show, The Union’s newest video is little more than a two minute smear campaign aimed at the UFC, using footage of everything from Dana White’s rant against Loretta Hunt to Rampage Jackson’s near impregnating of a certain CP reporter as “evidence” that Ms. Moore (and any other UFC proponent, for that matter) is unfit to be a role model for our children. IT MAKES TOTAL SENSE, YOU GUYS.
Using such ludicrous arguments as “The UFC promotes violence against women, gays, etc.” and backing such “clever” smear websites as unfitforchildren and unfitforprimetime, The Culinary Union has hid beneath the false guise of social responsibility in an effort to mask the fact that their true dispute with the UFC stems from the Fertitta owned, anti-union Station Casinos, which TCU has been trying to unionize for some time now. In other words, The Culinary Union is basically a group of pretentious wolves in sheeps clothing who have the nerve to pull the ethics card on the UFC (and anyone associated with it) while simultaneously using unethical bordering on libelous means to achieve their results. Results that they only chase after because of a completely unrelated gripe they hold with the owners of the UFC.
I’d like to make one thing clear; the words used by Dana White were, and still often are, completely inappropriate for a man of his level to be making. The same goes for FoGriff’s rape tweet and basically anything Rampage Jackson has done in his career outside of fighting. But claiming that Moore is supporting the somewhat crass tendencies of DW and other fighters simply by supporting the sport in general is beyond ridiculous. By that logic, any fan of the NFL is an advocate for murder, dog fighting, and statutory rape, because clearly we are all mindless drones whose belief systems go hand in hand with that of the average athlete/promoter. What I’m saying is, you should all be ashamed.
A while back, we told you that the Culinary Workers Union was at it again, this time pushing the Nevada State Athletic Commission to pass ‘A Bill of Rights for Professional Mixed Martial Artists.’ After reading the document a time or two, it’s easy to conclude that the “MMA Bill of Rights” is eerily similar to SOPA in that they both look bad on paper and sound even worse when said aloud. Don’t get me wrong, I want the fighters to live long and prosper, but some of the points brought up are laughable. I feel it necessary to shed some light on this proposal while keeping in mind that it could have a major impact for promoters, fighters, and fans alike. Let’s take a closer look, shall we?
Amendment I: Equal protections for all fighters. – You shall have the same legal protections currently afforded to professional boxers under state and federal law. This includes extending the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 and its protections against exploitative treatment of boxers to professional mixed-martial arts fighters.
Problem: None, really. Having the promoter disclose how much money was made and who got paid what would be a great thing for fighters come contract renewal time. Additionally, not allowing fighters to be required to sign over future promotional rights just to fight seems reasonable. No real complaints here, it’s an excellent idea.
Amendment II: Right to work. – You shall have the right to sign non-exclusive contracts to participate in any professional mixed martial arts events of your choosing, where such opportunities are available. This right includes the right to refuse to sign exclusive or “automatically renewing” contracts with a promoter that does not guarantee sufficient opportunity for you to fight in professional events and earn a living.
A while back, we told you that the Culinary Workers Union was at it again, this time pushing the Nevada State Athletic Commission to pass ‘A Bill of Rights for Professional Mixed Martial Artists.’ After reading the document a time or two, it’s easy to conclude that the “MMA Bill of Rights” is eerily similar to SOPA in that they both look bad on paper and sound even worse when said aloud. Don’t get me wrong, I want the fighters to live long and prosper, but some of the points brought up are laughable. I feel it necessary to shed some light on this proposal while keeping in mind that it could have a major impact for promoters, fighters, and fans alike. Let’s take a closer look, shall we?
Amendment I: Equal protections for all fighters. – You shall have the same legal protections currently afforded to professional boxers under state and federal law. This includes extending the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 and its protections against exploitative treatment of boxers to professional mixed-martial arts fighters.
Problem: None, really. Having the promoter disclose how much money was made and who got paid what would be a great thing for fighters come contract renewal time. Additionally, not allowing fighters to be required to sign over future promotional rights just to fight seems reasonable. No real complaints here, it’s an excellent idea.
Amendment II: Right to work. – You shall have the right to sign non-exclusive contracts to participate in any professional mixed martial arts events of your choosing, where such opportunities are available. This right includes the right to refuse to sign exclusive or “automatically renewing” contracts with a promoter that does not guarantee sufficient opportunity for you to fight in professional events and earn a living.
Problem: This sounds brutal, I know, but fighters already have the right not to sign a contract they don’t like. If you don’t like the way it’s worded and cannot compromise, hit the road, jack. It’s clear that the Culinary Union has the UFC’s non-competitive and champion’s clauses in mind here. We could pretty much scratch the second amendment out, kind of like what Obama is doing right now, and the world would continue spinning.
If you’re the promoter, there is no way you want your champion taking a fight in Donofrio MMA and losing to a scrub or getting injured en route to a victory. You have to protect your assets. You also don’t want a guy winning the belt in his last fight, especially if it’s a controversial decision, and then jumping ship because his contract is up and the other promoter will let him do a reality tv show while under contract.
Solution: Promotions offer minimum fight contracts with a severance package being paid to the fighter if the contract is not fulfilled within a certain amount of time. This makes it easier for the promotion to cut dead weight if a guy keeps getting injured while showing that they (kinda) care for the fighter as a person. This also helps the fighter in the event that the promotion is unable (or unwilling) to give the guy fights. All contracts for guys who are “in the mix” will still be automatically renewing, however, the payment terms would still be negotiated upon for the new contract.
Amendment III:Inalienable right to your own name, likeness and image. – You shall have the right to refuse to give any promoter and/or manager the right to your own name, likeness and image beyond the duration of the contract you have with the promoter and/or manager. This right includes the right to participate in professional mixed martial arts events, where such opportunities are available, without being required to sign additional contracts to give the promoter, manager and/or anybody else the right to your own name, likeness and image.
Problem: This fails to help anyone already under contract with Zuffa, and a few that aren’t. Furthermore, if you don’t want to sign over your likeness then don’t sign the papers and go fight somewhere else. Now, had this been worded in a way prohibiting promotions to acquire likeness beyond the duration of the contract, we’d have a completely new argument on our hands — but it’s not.
Solution: It’s not Superstars we’re discussing, fictional characters that have steroids for breakfast and “wrassle” 350 days a year, it’s real men and women whose name, story, and likeness are not fabricated by some creative department. MMA promotions should renegotiate to have the rights to use a fighter’s name, image, and likeness after their contract has ended in exchange for a percentage of the profits from its use, be it a video game, trading cards, or a ‘Best of’ DVD.
Amendment IV: Free market of sponsorships. – You shall have the right to choose your own sponsors outside of any professional mixed martial events in which you participate under a promotional contract. Outside of such events, no promoter shall restrict or prohibit you from signing sponsorship contracts with firms that choose to support you; nor shall any promoter or other entity require you to sponsor a particular product, business, or individual as a condition for participating in a professional mixed martial arts event.
Problem: Since the UFC landed that mega deal with FOX, we’ve seen a few sponsors tossed into body bags, most notably the gun and ammo sponsors. All promotions should have the right to deny a fighter’s request to be sponsored by a company even if they agree to pay the sponsor tax. Don’t agree? Would you want to see a fighters shorts plastered with KKK logos or a slogan so appalling that only Westboro Baptist Church could have written it? Didn’t think so. It’s not just the UFC that doesn’t want that, it’s the NFL too — just take a look at their partnership and endorsement policy. I bet you didn’t know that NFL players are prohibited from doing anything with a long list of BANNED companies, including two of MMA’s favorites, Nutrabolics and BSN.
Solution: Fighters can still make appearances and be a spokesperson for a company in exchange for a paycheck, however, the promotion in which they fight will still have the right from prohibiting any sponsor from being on all clothing and banners for all fights, media workouts, or anything else fight related (i.e. Countdown shows, Talk show appearances, and press conferences).
Amendment V:Transparency of contracts and payments. – You have the right to receive a detailed and written financial accounting, certified by your local athletic commission, of any and all revenues associated with a professional mixed martial arts event in which you participated. The report shall be provided to you by the event promoter in a timely manner and shall include a description of all payments, gifts or benefits the promoter received from the event, including, but not limited to, gate ticket sales, pay-per-view sales, other TV revenues, and other sponsorship payments.
Problem: All promotions will be required to hire someone to carry out these duties, which by the way, are to be done in a “timely manner,” whatever that means. It’s going to take time for the numbers to come in from cable and satellite providers.
Solution: Have the promoters issue all contracted fighters a quarterly summary of the above information, broken down by fight card. This allows the promotion time to get accurate numbers, receive certification from the athletic commission (when applicable) and still let the fighters know how much the company is making.
Take a two-minute water-break, and continue to the next page to read our dissection of amendments 6-10…
(In their defense, though, only the ones that made offensive jokes on Twitter about rape and called into work sick with a cracked skull.)
A somewhat bizarre incident from today’s Nevada State Athletic Commission meeting occurred when Culinary Union research analyst and union campaign organizer Chris Serres addressed the governing body to ask them to consider passing an “MMA bill of rights,” similar to the Muhammed Ali Boxing Reform Act.
Serres, whose union is currently embroiled in a publicized work and pay dispute with the Fertitta-owned Station Casinos in Las Vegas and has spearheaded several of the labor group’s smear campaigns against the promotion, spoke to the commission today under the guise that he was approached to do so by “an anonymous group of fighters and managers.” It’s more likely that the move was simply just another shot fired in the war between Unite Here! and the Fertittas.
(In their defense, though, only the ones that made offensive jokes on Twitter about rape and called into work sick with a cracked skull.)
A somewhat bizarre incident from today’s Nevada State Athletic Commission meeting occurred when Culinary Union research analyst and union campaign organizer Chris Serres addressed the governing body to ask them to consider passing an “MMA bill of rights,” similar to the Muhammed Ali Boxing Reform Act.
Serres, whose union is currently embroiled in a publicized work and pay dispute with the Fertitta-owned Station Casinos in Las Vegas and has spearheaded several of the labor group’s smear campaigns against the promotion, spoke to the commission today under the guise that he was approached to do so by “an anonymous group of fighters and managers.” It’s more likely that the move was simply just another shot fired in the war between Unite Here! and the Fertittas.
In the past the Culinary Union has contributed to the election campaign of New York Assemblyman Bob Reilly — a staunch opposer of MMA in the Empire State.
Commission reps told Serres, a former reporter with the Minnesota Star Tribune, that they appreciate his concern on the matter and that if they find anything in the draft of the document he presented them that could better help them in regulating the sport in the future, they will take a closer look at it.
The question is, should a group with no vested interest in the sport and with an obvious axe to grind with the UFC be allowed to lobby the government to put more stringent laws in place that will negatively affect the way the promotion does business?
If it is allowed, what’s to stop groups like the UFC from following suit and asking that NSAC put more laws in place to control things like boxing purses? It’s a slippery slope they’re treading with an issue like this.
Attached is the complete transcription of Serres’ presentation to NSAC that calls for such things as freedom of association, a fair portion of revenues and the creation of a universally accepted ranking body among other things, including the right to join a union such as the one they represent. Ulterior motives, anyone?
