Mixed Martial Arts Law Blog

Iowa House Passes MMA Bill 89-6

David Nelmark — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:31:15 -0600

On March 9, 2010, the Iowa House passed Senate File 2286 (regulating amateur mixed martial arts) with one key amendment. Amendment H-8277 added language that puts under the auspices of the regulations any MMA event where "merchandise or refreshments are available for purchase."

The original language of SF 2286 governed any MMA event "open to the public." This was amended by the Senate to be limited to events where admission is charged or donations are requested. This was an important change because, in the absence of such language, exhibition matches at local gyms could have, unintentionally, fallen within the scope of the statute.

The new amendment by the House closes a loophole that would have allowed promoters to stage unregulated, public amateur fights by hosting them at venues where the money would be made by selling food and beer rather than tickets.

Because the House amended the bill, it now returns to the Senate. I anticipate quick passage, which would put the bill on the Governor's desk to sign. One possible snag is that some people are lobbying for an additional amendment that would remove the requirement for promoters to provide health/life insurance for fighters. If the Senate removed that requirement, the bill would then have to come back to the House as both chambers of the legislature must pass identical versions for it to ultimately become law.

Iowa Senate Passes MMA Bill 48-0

David Nelmark — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:12:58 -0600

On February 16, 2010, the Iowa Senate unanimously passed (with two Senators absent) Senate File 2286--a bill to regulate amateur and professional mixed martial arts matches. There were two notable amendments to the bill between its previous approval by the Committee on Business and Labor Relations and its approval by the full Senate.

First, the definition of "mixed martial arts match" was changed from one that is just "open to the public" to also requiring "payment of an admission fee" or donations requested from those in attendance. This prevents, for example, a training match at a jiu-jitsu school from falling under the auspices of the bill. The second change was that the minimum age for competing in a mixed martial arts event was changed from 21 to 18.

Senator William A. Dotzler, Jr. should be commended for listening to concerns that promoters and fighters had about the earlier version of the bill, and for submitting the above amendments prior to the full Senate vote. Iowa Athletic Commissioner David Neil also deserves kudos for listening to concerns and helping craft language to address them.

The bill still has to be passed by the House, but the 48-0 Senate vote certainly gives it a lot of momentum. Although MMA has long been "legal" in Iowa, if the bill ultimately becomes law, Iowa will finally recognize and be able to regulate MMA as independent sport rather that shoehorning it into existing regulations governing "shootfighting."

Iowa Takes Steps Towards Regulating Amateur MMA

David Nelmark — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:48:59 -0600

Amateur mixed martial arts matches are currently legal in Iowa, but they are not regulated. A bill that has just been forwarded to the floor of the Iowa Senate would change that, putting amateur MMA under the auspices of the Athletic Commissioner (just like professional events).

On February 9, Senate Study Bill 3192 was unanimously approved by the Senate's Labor and Business Relations Committee. The bill, which revises the existing Iowa Code Chapter governing boxing and professional wrestling events will now go to a vote by the full Iowa Senate, likely within the next 12 weeks.

As reported by Tony Leys of the Des Moines Register, proponents of the bill are concerned with several injuries that have occurred in amateur MMA events in Iowa. Although the article's discussion of the terrible injury to Nebraska fighter Zach Kirk is not entirely accurate, there is no question that allowing fighters to compete without pre-fight medical examinations and without appropriate medical staff on site is a dangerous combination.

The bill does more than just impose safety regulations on fighters and promoters, however.

The bill's other provisions include a new minimum age limit of 21 for participation in an amateur or professional MMA event.

This is a departure from amateur boxing, where Iowa defers to the rules of USA Boxing, which has a junior olympic program for contestants as young as 8 years old.

In addition to opposing the new age limit, some critics of the bill say the medical testing regulations are too stringent. As as example, some promoters believe that amateur MMA will cease to exist if unpaid fighters are forced to foot the bill for pre-fight blood tests, which typically cost at least $99.

As professional MMA is well on its way to becoming legal in nearly every state, I believe regulation of amateur MMA is the next big legal issue for the industry. What do you think, MMALB readers? Should amateur MMA be regulated? If so, should it face all the same restrictions as professional events?

More on MMA in New York

David Nelmark — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:13:02 -0600

When I recently wrote that Assemblyman Kenneth Zebrowski was the first New York legislator to come out in support of the bill to regulate mixed martial arts, I did not give proper credit to Rob Walker and Johnathan Bing, the two Assemblymen who co-sponsored the bill. To learn more about Walker and Bing click the links to their interviews with CagePotato.com from March 2009.

Interview with MMA Proponent Assemblyman Kenneth Zebrowski

David Nelmark — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:19:58 -0600

Kenneth Zebrowski is the youngest member of the New York State Assembly, and the first to come out publicly in support of regulating mixed martial arts. Assemblyman Zebrowski was kind enough to share some of his thoughts on the issue with MMALB readers in the following interview.

MMALB: Why did you inject yourself into the MMA controversy in New York?

Zebrowski: It seemed that this year with this budget cycle and the budget problems around the country that it could be the perfect time to get this ban lifted. Sometimes you get certain things passed not necessarily because of the absolute merits, but because it was the right timing. I think in this budget cycle we may be able to take advantage of the economic downturn to do some things in the state that we have been trying to do over the years and this is one of them.

MMALB: Have you ever been to an MMA event or participated in MMA yourself?

Zebrowski: No.

MMALB: So your only experience with it is as a casual fan, then?

Zebrowski: As a casual fan, and I have a lot of constituents and frankly friends and relatives that enjoy the sport. So, I’ve been able to watch events and also do some research on the rules and read some studies and certainly read articles that talked about injuries and what has been done over the years to regulate the sport more.

MMALB: Why has it taken so long to lift the ban on mixed martial arts?

Zebrowski: To be honest with you, I think there is a lack of understanding of MMA among the state legislators, and I think there may be a generational gap because it is a newer sport. I am 29 years old, and I am the youngest member of the New York state legislature. Many older members just don’t watch, have never followed it, and sort of see it as a no-holds bar injury ridden sport. They don’t necessarily understand that it a tough sport with a certain amount of violence, but it has rules and if it is regulated you have real, legitimate athletes that train hard and a large fan base.

MMALB: Have you gotten any feedback since your column went out?

Zebrowski: Sure. I think there is growing support for the bill. When you look at an individual legislator and he is thinking to himself, do I have to cut funding to my schools when there is a possible other revenue source out there that I am not taking advantage of, because of possible misinformation. . .

MMALB: Speaking of the opposition, Bob Riley is basically the face of anti-MMA in New York. What is your relationship with him or what do you think of him as an assemblyman?

Zebrowski: I have a good relationship with Bob. He’s a very decent guy, well respected in the assembly, someone that thinks out his position on the issues, so I have nothing negative to say about Bob. I just think he’s wrong on this issue.

MMALB: Looking at the other side of the issue. Have you ever talked with anyone from UFC or their lobbying group about this?

Zebrowski: I have not. We’ve received e-mails from supporters and constituents, but no one from the UFC has reached out to me.

MMALB: What still has to happen for mixed martial arts to be regulated in New York?

Zebrowski: Last year the bill cleared the Arts and Tourism Committee. If it passes that same hurdle this year, it will go to the Codes Committee, which I am on. Then it would go to the floor to be voted on by the full assembly.

MMALB: I am not familiar with the Codes Committee, what is that?

Zebrowski: Codes Committee essentially is the committee that takes up anything that is a change of a code in New York. It’s really a far reaching committee that has jurisdiction over anything that’s really regulated through a major code of conduct in New York state law. But, if the new MMA regulations get passed as part of the Governor’s proposed budget, the bill wouldn’t even have to go through the committee process.

MMALB: How does that work?

Zebrowski: It is in kind of counter-intuitive, but within the budget there’s often times substantive law changes that have something to do with the revenue of the state. So, you can make substantive changes through the budget, and sometimes frankly that’s how a lot of things get passed because you vote up or down on a budget. We don’t take individual votes on every aspect of the budget.

MMALB: When is the earliest that the proposed budget would get voted on?

Zebrowski: The earliest it would probably be voted on would be the week of starting with the 22nd of March. There’s nothing procedurally that says we can’t adopt it earlier, but there’s no realistic chance of it taking place before then.

MMALB: So, how confident are you that one way or the other the bill to legalize MMA will end up passing in 2010?

Zebrowski: I’m increasingly confident this year. We have heard stats that maybe 80 or 90 percent of legislators have come around to support this. Now I don’t have that in writing anywhere, but that’s what my staff is telling me.

MMALB: Is there anything else you’d like to share with the readers of MixedMartialArtsLawBlog.com?

Zebrowski: People that read your blog and people that watch MMA as a whole, need to understand that writing me and writing other legislators is important. The more people that contact their legislators and explain to them that they are fans of this sport and make rational arguments for it, the more legislators will understand it really is a sport.

MMA Is in New York's Proposed 2010-11 Budget

David Nelmark — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:20:31 -0600

Earlier today, New York Governor David Paterson proposed a budget for fiscal 2011 of $136 billion. Buried within those billions is a $2.1 million revenue line for taxes from regulated mixed martial arts events. This is a significant development because, if this item remains within the budget as passed, it will effectively legalize MMA in New York without the proposed legislation having to start back over through the committee process. The budget is likely to be voted on in late March or early April.

Stay tuned for an interview with New York Assemblyman Kenneth P. Zebrowski about this development and his decision to openly support the regulation of MMA in New York.

New York Assemblyman Champions Legalization of MMA

David Nelmark — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:30:33 -0600

New York Assemblyman Kenneth P. Zebrowski has put out a press release urging his colleagues in the New York Legislature to legalize Mixed Martial Arts. His main points are that the sport has evolved since it was banned in the state in 1997 and that New York needs the tax revenue that hosting MMA events would provide. There is not a lot of new information in the column, but it makes a persuasive, concise case for legalization. Fans who want to see the UFC in the Empire State should be greatly encouraged by the fact that a seated politician is attaching his name to the legalization effort. The release can be downloaded here: Zebrowski: "Lift Ban on Mixed Martial Arts" Article 01_14_10.DOC

I've posted a link to this previously, but if you missed my own thoughts on the future of MMA in New York, see this interview I did with Mid-Atlantic MMA.

MixedMartialArtsLawBlog Year-End Updates

David Nelmark — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:54:05 -0600

As 2009 comes to a close, I wanted to provide updates on a few of the year's MMALB columns.

Rapper DMX Pulls Out of MMA Fight. According to this statement released by the promoter, the entire event had to be canceled because "[w]hen [DMX] decided to back out of the event due to our refusal to fix his fight, it left Thunder Promotions LLC with little time to promote an event with a replacement headliner." According to other sources only a few hundred tickets had been sold.

While there is a tremendous amount of comedic value in writing about an MMA event where DMX is deemed a "headliner," the cancellation does have sad consequences for the other fighters on the card, especially Iowa's own Travis Fulton (who has 192 MMA wins on his record). Fulton was looking to reinvent himself and make it to the big show. Instead, according to his manager, Chad Bergmeier, all Fulton got after arriving in Alabama was a redeye flight back home. To date, the promoters still have not come through with Fulton's paycheck.

MMA Organizations Battle Piracy - The Square Ring v. UStream lawsuit has gotten bogged down, but UFC co-owner Lorenzo Fertitta recently testified before the House Judiciary Committee (along with executives from Major League Baseball) about the importance of cracking down on online piracy. I think it's a watershed event when an MMA bigwig gets to go to Washington to speak alongside a Big Three (NFL, NBA, and MLB) representative.

This related Cagewriter article is interesting. It covers the testimony and also provides an example of why if you are planning to tell people how to steal a pay per view broadcast you should not first send an email to event promoters.

Jon "Bones" Jones's Appeal to the NSAC is Denied. MMAJunkie provides a full recap. While I am not surprised at the denial, I am still waiting for someone to comment and resolve the discrepancy between the referee only deducting a single point, but then calling Jones's downward elbows an intentional foul.

And, most importantly, Kimo is still alive!

I leave you with one of my favorite MMA quotes of the year. It's not law-related, but it is nonetheless worth sharing, and it comes from MMA Journalist Jim Genia:

BJ Penn is without a doubt some kind of fighting deity, but I definitely think Gray Maynard, Frankie Edgar and Jim Miller can beat him. However, they have to coordinate it so they all attacking him at once, i.e., Maynard comes in low, Edgar comes in high and Miller blasts him with a shotgun. Otherwise, they're doomed.

Happy New Year, MMALB readers!

MMA Regulation Continues to Expand

David Nelmark — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:25:41 -0600

On December 17, the City of Vancouver gave the UFC an early Christmas present when it passed a resolution to regulate mixed martial arts for a two-year trial period. CagePotato.com has a good recap of the events surrounding passage and links to related quotes here. Also interesting is this report prepared by Vancouver's General Manager of Community Services, which provides an overview of MMA regulation in Canada and responds to some of the arguments made against regulation.

As states (and provinces) continue to jump on the MMA bandwagon, it seems only a matter of time before Mixed Martial Arts wins over New York. I was recently interviewed on that subject by Mid-Atlantic MMA (MAMMA-online.com). The interview can be found here, and the MAMMA site as a whole is an entertaining read.

Jon Jones Files Appeal Over DQ Loss to Hamill

David Nelmark — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:11:32 -0600

At the finale for the 10th season of The Ultimate Fighter, Jon "Bones" Jones, took on Matt "The Hammer" Hamill. Jones dominated the fight and was nearing a stoppage victory when referee Steve Mazzagatti halted the contest as a result of illegal "12 to 6" elbows a/k/a "striking downward with the point of the elbow" which is prohibited by the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts. Mazzagatti took away a point, but when he returned to Hamill, he concluded that Hamill could not continue and stopped the fight. Jones did a celebratory cartwheel and viewers headed into the commercial break thinking Jones' perfect record was intact. However, when Bruce Buffer announced the results, Hamill was given the victory by virtue of a disqualification.

MMAJunkie.com has a great recap of what happened during the break. In short, Mazzagatti took advantage of a new Nevada State Athletic Commission rule that allowed him to consult instant replay. When he looked at the tape, he decided the illegal elbows were what prevented Hamill from continuing, and he thus ruled the fight a DQ. NSAC Athletic Director Keith Kizer backed up Mazzagatti saying that if the fight was stopped as a result of an illegal blow, there was no choice but to render a disqualification.

Now, Jones's managers have filed an appeal with the NSAC seeking to overturn the result. Their arguments include the fact that Mazzagatti tried to ascertain whether Hamill (who is deaf) could continue by verbally asking him the question. Hamill can read lips, but had blood in his eyes and might not have seen Mazzagatti let alone understood the question. Based on the timing of the halt in the action, Hamill likely thought he had lost by TKO. The complaint also asserts that prior, legal elbows and/or a shoulder injury sustained during a throw by Jones caused the damage that prevented Hamill from continuing. Both of these arguments are persuasive, but they are factual questions.

NAC 467.770 states that, absent collusion, a disciplinary violation such as a failed drug test, or a scoring error:

The Commission will not change a decision rendered at the end of any contest or exhibition unless . . . [a]s the result of an error in interpreting a provision of this chapter, the referee has rendered an incorrect decision.

Accordingly, as I read this provision, the NSAC cannot overturn Mazzagatti's decision just because it thinks a different blow ended the fight. It has to decide that he misinterpreted a rule. This is where the plot thickens.

If Mazzagatti had believed the foul was accidental, the fight would have been ruled a no contest pursuant to NAC 467.7966. So, to disqualify Jones, Mazzagatti had to determine the foul was intentional. I have no beef with such a determination because, while Jones might not have known he was committing a foul, he certainly intended to drop the 12 to 6 elbow and, like all laws, ignorance of an MMA rule is no excuse. But, Mazzagatti's earlier actions implied that the foul was not intentional.

Before stopping the fight after Hamill failed to respond to his question, Mazzagatti deducted a single point from Jones during the break in the action. (Fight is available here on YouTube, until it gets pulled for infringing Zuffa's copyrights.) He pulls Jones off of Hamill at 1:07 and then very clearly says "1 point" at the :57 mark.

NSAC 467.698 states:

If the referee determines that a contest or exhibition may continue despite an injury caused by an intentional foul, the referee shall immediately inform the Commission’s representative and the judges and shall deduct two points from the score of the unarmed combatant who committed the intentional foul.

Although a mandatory two point deduction for an intentional foul does not appear in the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts, it seems to be clearly the rule in Nevada. (Some Nevada rules for unarmed combat state that they don't apply to MMA, but 467.498 contains no such caveat.) Thus, a one-point deduction implies that the foul was accidental (which leaves the amount of the deduction in the discretion of the referee pursuant to NAC 467.7964).

I don't know that Mazzagatti's mistake rendered the result an "incorrect decision" but it appears that he did make at least one misinterpretation of the Nevada rules. Dana White is likely not surprised.

M-1 and Affliction Face the Music

David Nelmark — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:07:05 -0600

Although I've not yet commented on the case, most MMALB readers are probably aware that M-1 and Fedor Emelianenko sued Affliction for its cancelation of the Affliction: Trilogy event that had been scheduled for August 1, 2009. (For a good discussion of the case visit MMAPayout.com.)

What most of you don't know, however, is that M-1 and Affliction are on the same side of another pending federal case. A company called Freeplay Music LLC has sued both companies in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged misuse of a song called Legion (which can be heard by doing a keyword search for "Legion" on Freeplay's website). The copyrighted song was allegedly used in at least 412 television commercials for the event.

MMA promotional companies frequently face a serious issue of others' infringing on their intellectual property. (See Square Ring v. UStream or, generally, Joe Hand Promotions.) It is interesting to see the shoe on the other foot.

As always, the filing of a complaint doesn't necessarily mean anyone has done anything wrong. Neither M-1 nor Affliction has yet filed their answer to the complaint so we have not yet heard their side of the story.

Mixed Martial Arts in Massachusetts

David Nelmark — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:53:32 -0600

A Massachusetts blog that keeps a close eye on government happenings has reported that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed into law a bill making the Bay State the 42nd state to regulate mixed martial arts.

MMALB has not been able to confirm the signing, but even if it has not yet occurred, it seems to be only a matter of time. According to the official history of the bill, the Massachusetts Senate passed a draft 35-1, and the House of Representatives approved a modified version 144-10. The Senate concurred in an amendment made by the House, and the bill went before the Governor on November 23, 2009.

Dana White is excited that the UFC will get to promote an event in his former hometown, and he should be equally excited about the manner in which the bill has sailed through the Massachusetts Legislature. With the oft-discussed New York bill still in limbo, having 94% of legislators supporting the bill in a nearby state can only help the cause.

DMX is a Rapper/Actor/Boxer/Defendant

David Nelmark — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:07:19 -0600

Rapper DMX has been sued for $1 million backing out of a celebrity boxing match that was part of a Boxing/MMA card called "Alabama Pride" slated for December 12, 2009 in Alabama.

Documents posted by TMZ (add requisite grain of salt) indicate that DMX wanted the "fight" staged in a way that protected both his safety and his reputation. While Thunder Promotions is not above advertising a fight featuring a rapper whose best martial arts credential is that he co-starred with Steven Seagal, it does draw the line at fixed fights. DMX is out. Coolio is in. Really.

Several lessons here:

1. Before you promote a fight, make sure those on the card actually plan to take part in a real fight. (Of course, this may have happened here as a lawsuit has been filed, but see Number 2.)

2. The amount of damages sought in a lawsuit often have nothing to do with reality. (19,000 people wouldn't pay to see DMX rap, let alone fight.)

3. If you are going to send out a document that makes your client look really bad, a confidentiality provision in that same document does not help you if the other party decides to go public with it instead of signing it.

TUF 10's Zak Jensen Sued for Wrongful Death

David Nelmark — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:55:15 -0600

Zak Jensen has been named as a defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit filed in Minnesota state court. The suit involves an altercation that Jensen had with 20-year-old Josh Gunderson in Mexico during a spring break trip in March 2009 when Jensen was serving as a bodyguard.

Jensen traveled to Puerto Vallarta with Gunderson and 19-year-old Ashley Jones. At some point, while the three were sharing a room, Gunderson allegedly tried to kiss Jones while she was in bed and Jensen pulled him off. From there, accounts differ, ranging from there being no fight to Jensen engaging in a confrontation in self defense.

According to the Pioneer Press's account of the Mexican police report, Jensen stated to authorities:

I grabbed Josh by the shirt and took him off of (her) ... then he went to the bathroom, closed the door, and I stayed with (Jones) consoling her, and after a few minutes, I heard a loud noise," Jensen is quoted as saying in the Mexican police report. "I opened the door and that is when I saw Josh laid out on the floor of the bathroom.

According to a witness statement recounted by the Star Tribune, Jensen told the following to a hotel concierge:

"I was sleeping and I heard Ashley screaming and saying 'Get off of me,' so I got up and I saw Josh on top of her, he was attacking her, I took him away from her and he attacked me so I just defended myself and told him to go away, and he walked in the direction of the bathroom," Jensen is quoted as telling Perez. "We heard a strong noise in the bathroom, so I walked there and I found the boy right there," he told Perez, pointing to Gunderson's body.

In sum, it seems that Gunderson passed out in the bathroom and ultimately died after aspirating his own vomit, but it is unclear whether it was due to his blood alcohol content of .12 or due to an altered mental state resulting from the alleged altercation with Jensen. As with any litigation, it is important to keep in mind that the statements in the filed lawsuit are just allegations and the defendants have not yet had a chance to tell their side of the story in court.

Ashley Jones' father, Jason Jones, and an industrial cleaning company he owns called Sterling Systems are also named as defendants. Jensen was employed by Mr. Jones and/or Sterling Systems to serve as Mr Jones's chauffeur. Accordingly, these defendants could arguably be held liable for Jensen's actions, depending largely on whether the actions were within the scope of Jensen's employment. It is not unusual for a lawsuit to name multiple defendants in the hopes to find someone who is able to pay a damages award or settlement. Here, a business owner presumably has deeper pockets than a 7-3 mixed martial artist.

Jensen recently fought on national television on The Ultimate Fighter. Jensen had no fights between Gunderson's death and his fight on the show. Jensen also serves as a guest blogger recapping TUF 10 episodes for Cagewriter on Yahoo! Sports.

One has to wonder whether Yahoo!, Spike TV, or the UFC knew anything about the incident before putting Jensen in the national spotlight. Gunderson's death did get a fair amount of publicity in his native Minnesota, but early reports did not name Jensen.

School Sued Over Impromptu MMA Matchups

David Nelmark — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:54:16 -0600

A high school in Blue Springs Missouri is being sued because some students began MMA-style fighting in the gym when their scheduled wrestling practice was canceled. (Video of some of the fights that allegedly occurred that day is available here.) Predictably, one student was injured and his family is now suing the school, its superintendent, its athletic director, the head wrestling coach, and an assistant coach who was allegedly present when the fights took place.

According to the Kansas City Star:

The lawsuit alleges that the Blue Springs wrestling program promoted extreme fighting and created Wildcat (school’s mascot) wrestling T-shirts that featured the Ultimate Fighting Championship emblem. Also, the school once employed a wrestling assistant coach, Matt Cox, who has since started a career as an MMA fighter.

Interestingly, the reason that Matt Cox (also known as Chris Cox) is a former wrestling coach at the school is that he was fired in 2006 for his own participation in mixed martial arts. (I can't locate the original article on this story, but it was reprinted at MMAUniverse.)

Although the school will argue that the activity was not sanctioned and that it disapproves of MMA (as evidenced by its prior firing of Cox), I think the school is in hot water here. The activity allegedly occurred on school grounds in the presence of a school employee. Whether or not you think that juveniles should be allowed to participate in MMA (a subject for a future MMALB.com post) the bottom line here is that these kids didn't have parental permission. It doesn't matter if the sport involved is MMA, wrestling, or cheerleading--starting the competition before mom or dad has signed off is a sure way to find yourself in court.

Video of Josh Neer's Arrest is Released

David Nelmark — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:46:20 -0600

We thought we'd have to wait until UFC 104 on October 24th to see new footage of a Josh Neer fight, but authorities just released the video of Neer's arrest that followed his alcohol-induced high speed chase on New Year's Eve. Although Neer received a suspended sentence back in April, the footage remains relevant because Neer is contemplating a lawsuit for police brutality.

"The Dentist's" thinking was clearly not rational that night, but the police report stating that force was necessary to prevent Neer from biting and head butting officers does not seem to match the video clip of Neer leaving the car with his hands held high over his head. Besides, head butting is currently banned in the UFC and biting wasn't even legal in UFC 1.

While I'm not above cracking wise on this situation, it is troubling... on both sides. We've come a long way since Rodney King (who, young MMALB.com readers, was famous for his own arrest video 18 years ago, ultimately resulting in his own recent connection to combat sports) and any situation that is even arguably excessive force brings bad some bad memories. Neer certainly shares some blame here as well, having put lives at risk on the road and putting the officers in a situation where they could not have known what to expect.

A Mixed Martial Arts Promotion By Any Other Name...

David Nelmark — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:58:54 -0600

In July, I blogged about the Ultimate Cage Fighting Challenge's possible infringement of the UFC's trademark and predicted that when the UCFC's website resurfaced it would be under a new name. From the new version of the website it appears that the UCFC is now the XCFC (Xtreme Cage Fighting Challenge).

The XCFC homepage discusses a September 19 event, but the XCFC Facebook event page indicates that the event was moved to November 13, 2009. The name of the organization and the event name (The Backyard Battle) remained the same, so intellectual property issues do not appear to have played any role in the postponement.

There is already an XCC (Xtreme Cagefighting Championship) based in Michigan, but they are less likely to make a trademark claim than the UFC. Trademark laws are governed by both federal and state law. (State trademarks can usually be obtained quickly and easily, but provide less protection than federal marks.) Since the UFC has a federal trademark, it can prevent any confusingly similar uses anywhere in the country. In the absence of a federal trademark, a promotion can typically only go after competitors in its own state (absent certain circumstances that would still provide for cross-border confusion.)

It remains to be seen whether the XCF (based in Missouri) which does have a federal trademark for "XCF Xtreme Cagefighting Federation") will make a claim against the XCFC or XCC.

The bottom line here is that trademark law is murky and any promotion looking to protect its brand (or avoid stepping on the toes of someone else) should seek professional guidance.

Talk to the Hand

David Nelmark — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:11:26 -0600

The UFC has extended its agreement with Joe Hand Promotions allowing the company to continue serving as the exclusive commercial distributor of UFC pay-per-view events in the United States.

What does this mean to MMA fans? Well, if you prefer to go out to your local drinking establishment to watch UFC events, you might find yourself facing a steeper cover charge than you are used to.

While a residential viewing of a UFC PPV typically costs $44.95 ($54.95 in HD) it costs much more for a bar to order the event. Commercial establishments are charged based on their seating capacity. For example, a restaurant that holds 150 people will pay around $1000 to show the broadcast. Some places try to get around that fee by using an illegal "black box" to steal the signal or just by hooking up a dish and trying to get the event at the residential rate. That's where Joe Hand comes in.

As explained in the court's opinion in Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Easterling, 2009 WL 1767579, 2 (N.D.Ohio, 2009):

As part of its normal business operations, [Joe Hand] engages in anti-piracy activities designed at protecting the legitimate purchasers of the event. [Joe Hand] utilizes Agencies which hire auditors to visit non-subscribing establishments during the broadcast of the entire bout to determine whether any such establishments are illegally exhibiting the broadcast.

In other words, Joe Hand hires people to look for bars and restaurants that are broadcasting the UFC, but that have not paid Joe Hand for the right to do so. Those folks go the bars, confirm that the broadcast is being shown, and write down details like whether prices are jacked up and how many people are there in attendance. As the "exclusive distributor," Joe Hand then has the right to sue those establishments. This practice helps Joe Hand recoup the licensing fees it pays to the UFC. The causes of action in the lawsuits include 47 U.S.C. § 605 ("Unauthorized Publication of Use of Communications") and 47 U.S.C. § 553 ("Unauthorized Reception of Cable Service").

There is no requirement of "intent" with respect to these statutes. Thus, even if a bar owner truly thought that their $44.95 gave them the right to show UFC 103 to patrons, he or she can still get dinged for statutory damages of up to $10,000. If the bar owner was willfully violating the statute, the damages can go up to $100,000 and the owner can face criminal penalties.

The risks of getting caught might seem small, but Joe Hand is actually quite vigilant about tracking down violators. In the last 12 months in just the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa (my home district), Joe Hand has filed thirteen lawsuits against bars and restaurants that allegedly had unauthorized broadcasts.

As Joe Hand himself noted in an interview with Bernard Fernandez of the Philadelphia Daily News (and yes, Joe Hand is a real guy... there is even a Joe Hand, Junior) the UFC broadcasts are big business, bigger than boxing:

People ask, 'Do you think UFC will kill boxing? It already has. Boxing's dead.

Look, the next [Floyd] Mayweather fight [Sept. 19, against Juan Manuel Marquez] is the same night as UFC 103. Does that make any sense?

If you own a sports bar and you can buy a UFC event for $1,000, and you know you're going to pack the place, why would you buy the Mayweather fight for $2,200 and not do as well?

My guess is that Joe Hand isn't having lunch with Bob Arum anytime soon.

"The Law" Lays Down the Law

David Nelmark — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:00:23 -0600

Willamette Week Online has reported that Matt "The Law" Lindland has sued former TUF contestant Gerald "Hurricane" Harris for allegedly failing to pay management fees.

Harris had previously been interviewed about his departure from Lindland's Team Quest after Harris appeared on The Ultimate Fighter's seventh season. Thus, the dispute may stem from confusion over whether the departure from the camp also ended the representation agreement.

As the economy continues to struggle, I expect to see more of these kinds of suits.

Kimo Fights Back

David Nelmark — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:33:13 -0600

In July, I quoted a report that Kimo Leopoldo was considering legal action against the internet troll that started the frenzy of false reports about Kimo's death. It appears that a lawsuit is on the horizon, but against a far more well-known opponent: TMZ.com.

Although many blogs ran with the erroneous story of Kimo's untimely demise, TMZ was the first to report that the death had been "confirmed." This threw fuel on the fire as TMZ's confirmation was republished by countless other sources.

TMZ ultimately took down the story, but the website's prior articles on Kimo still, to this day, show a link with the headline "UFC Legend Kimo Leopoldo Dies." Kimo's attorney, Stephen Doniger, understandably finds TMZ's actions unacceptable. Doniger and his client have thus been making the media rounds with Kimo submitting an "open letter' to MMA blogs and both attorney and client appearing on Fox Fight Game.

Doniger explained to me that he had contacted TMZ to try to get a retraction and to see if a resolution could be reached without litigation. However, according to Doniger, TMZ has not only refused to post a retraction, it has not even bothered to reply to the correspondence. Doniger says TMZ is running out of time, and a California state court lawsuit is being prepared which accuses TMZ of defamation and other related causes of action. Doniger believes that TMZ's report caused Kimo harm because, among other things, the report said that Kimo had died of a heart attack. Kimo is trying to clean up his image and such a report hearkened back to earlier reports of a drug-related arrest and may make MMA promoters hesitant to give him a fight for fear of a possible heart condition.

I'll leave it to Doniger and the California courts to sort out whether a false report of someone's death can amount to defamation, but it's absolutely clear that TMZ engaged in irresponsible journalism, which troubles me a great deal. (Unless you've been a MMALB reader since the beginning you might not know that I went to journalism school so I take this somewhat personally.)Saying that someone's death has been "confirmed" has a very specific connotation. While Beau Taylor should never have originally posted the false comments, the situation would not have gotten so out of hand so quickly if TMZ had not jumped into the fray without getting its facts straight.

While any media outlet can make an honest mistake (see Jewel, Richard) TMZ seems to have something against Kimo. In February, it ran a story with the headline: "UFC Legend Has Finally Meth His Match." The story related to an incident where Kimo was arrested near an automobile containing methamphetamine, but Kimo was never charged with possession of that drug. In TMZ's defense, the police report was somewhat confusing and TMZ was not the only outlet to get the story wrong. Unlike TMZ, however, Sherdog.com posted a correction/retraction and later ran a detailed article allowing Kimo to provide his side of the story. TMZ did neither.

Score one for the MMA media.

UPDATE: This blog post was uploaded on September 6, 2009. The morning of September 7, 2009, TMZ posted "Update: Kimo Is Alive!" MMAJunkie.com scooped TMZ by 47 days on that one, which was not particularly difficult since Kimo held a press conference at the Orange County Sheriff's Department debunking the rumors of his death.

Score two for the MMA media.