Comments on: Matt Lindland claims UFC contracts are illegal

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 05:41:57 +0000

Does anyone here know how Linland got the nickname “The Law”? Because if he doesn’t get his way, he cries and then takes it to court. It worked for him and getting to the Olympics. He’s just mad because he didn’t get a contract offer from the UFC. I can’t say that I’m losing any sleep over not seeing him there.
His argument about the Ali Act is ridiculous. Anyone who reads it will see it clearly is made for boxing, where as fighters do not belong to a league, and just fight under different sanctioning bodies. The UFC is a league, just like the NFL. And in the NFL players sign contracts to play for the NFL only. And if these choose not to fulfill their contracts, they do not get paid, face legal action, and can not play anywhere else until they fulfill there contract or are released from the contract.

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: UPDATE: Why the Muhammad Ali Act Should Apply to MMA. | The Official Blog of the MMAFA

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 02:48:51 +0000

[...] Finally, Matt “the Law” Lindland also spoke out, declaring: “The UFC contracts are illegal. Based on teh Muhammad Ali (Safety) Act, you cannot be the promoter and the manager at the same time. If they are telling you who and when you are going to fight, they are the manager as well as the promoter.” http://fiveouncesofpain.com/2008/07/03/matt-lindland-claims-ufc-contracts-are-illegal/. [...]

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:45:33 +0000

matt “the law” lindland earned his nickname by sueing the US Olympic Committee for mis-judging a match. he lost the match, and was out of Olympic competition. He sued (all the way to the Supreme Court I think) to have the decision reversed and gain a spot on the Olympic Team. He won in court and won a Silver Medal in the Olympics.

that’s badass IMO.

he’s probably smarter tham most MMA fans think.

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: ACK!

ACK! — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:49:29 +0000

I’m not going to pretend to harbor any knowledge of this law, but I can say one thing for sure: Screw these companies, I just want to see the fighters in charge of their own careers while getting paid top-dollar!

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 05:23:04 +0000

roomservicetaco,

The UFC champion clause is for 12 months, not entirety.

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: Heatwaves

Heatwaves — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:55:12 +0000

Lindland would be singing a different tune if the UFC offered him $500K per fight and a shot at Silva. Sounds like someone fell down and hurt their feelings.

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: Ronny Z

Ronny Z — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:51:57 +0000

Someone at Bloody Elbow did an article why the Ali Act does more harm than good for Mixed Martial Arts. Here’s the link for those who didn’t read it:

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2008/7/2/563350/ali-act-not-a-step-in-the

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: tallsforeverybody

tallsforeverybody — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:07:58 +0000

I don’t want to see any boxing regulations forced on the UFC…boxing is as near a dead sport as there is. The UFC is the only successful promotion, and the way the other companies spend money and handle their business they are likely to stay the only successful business.

What thick skulled, visionless mouthpieces like Ortiz, Lindland, etc. don’t understand is that the UFC bled money years but built this business the right way by cultivating a solid foundation of fighters and a sound business plan.

Good business men don’t deviate from the business plan just because the competition is incompetent.

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: William

William — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 01:47:51 +0000

This statute applies only to Boxing; any lawyer would see that on its face. I’m sure the intent behind the statute may be similar to some of MMA’s situations today, but that is irrelevant. It applies only to boxing.

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 01:27:25 +0000

it all depends on the language of the contract, the case-law precendent, and the judge or jury.

some contracts have provisions that state that if one section is unenforceable, the rest remain in effect.

so it’s up to the judge, jury or negotiating a settlement.

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: Al

Al — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:55:36 +0000

Since the UFC contract is an exclusive contract and the UFC is the private sector association and league, I don’t know if you can get past section 2.1 before Lindland’s accusation fails. If the UFC were a only a title awarding entity like the WBA or whatever other lettered boxing association then I could see his point. It’s as simple as saying only a UFC fighter can hold a UFC title. To me that defines a league.

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: Joshua

Joshua — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:35:26 +0000

Yes, a clause can be voided without voiding a contract, for example non-compete clauses that unreasonably prohibit right to work.

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: T Money

T Money — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:27:51 +0000

ok maybe not pointless, i had a laugh reading.

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: T Money

T Money — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:27:01 +0000

you all are halarious. this type of speculation is pointless. wait and see what the court says. not that american courts are legit whatsoever.

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: matt

matt — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:50:49 +0000

this is the same as any sport contract the nfl teams tell their players when to play and when to practice same with the mlb, nba, nhl etc. Ufc contracts are the same as any contract in sports you sign with a organization or team, they tell you what to do and when to do it and if you dont like it you decline it and if you keep decling you get fired.

If anybody is doing anything illegal it is monte cox and adrenaline mma where monte is the president of the company and the manger of many of its fighters. That should be illegal. Ufc fighters are under contract and they have their managers such as ken pavia who help with the business side of things such as salary and who and when they fight it is not soley the ufc decisions.

Matt lindland is not making much sense to me and with these comments if i lived in oregon i would not want him having anything to do with politics in the place i live

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: mattman73

mattman73 — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:24:23 +0000

Nice point Ken.

But here is what I was wondering if a particular section of a contract is ruled invalid does that just void the whole contract or just make that section unenforceable?

Because that section may have been used as leverage to gain something else in another part of the contract therefore now making the contract unfair in another way.

So can you fairly eliminate one section of a contract without voiding the whole contract?

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:10:34 +0000

a contract is really only as good as the parties that sign it

a section of a contract that contains illegal provisions would probably be ruled invalid by a court

just because something is in a contract, does not make it enforcable. it has to be legal.

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: godzillad

godzillad — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:18:41 +0000

He’s just pissed that they didn’t offer him anything when he went crawling back.

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: alkatraz

alkatraz — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:01:10 +0000

why is it in the ufc only the fighter has to obey the contract?the ufc is always letting fighters go.shouldn’t both have to honor it?

Agree or Disagree: 0 0

By: mattman73

mattman73 — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:41:48 +0000

How about anyone here at the website with all your resources can you find us a copy of a UFC contract?

You posted a link to the Muhammad Ali Reform Act.

How about posting a link to a UFC contract?

Don’t we need to see the evidence to make an informed judgement?

Agree or Disagree: 0 0