You know, I find it hard to agree with Dana, and pretty much on everything business wise I disagree with his antics...... However..... I 100% agree with him here (man it was hard to write that). The state of New York and the culinary union says that Zuffa or rather the Fretitta's take money out of employees pockets by using non union employees..... So they decide to take money out of fighters pockets, AND local vendors by not allowing events... Logic
It's a little more complex than that. Massachusetts, for example, is a hard union state, as are several others. The original opposition to NHB came from a fairly broad coalition led by John McCain on the national level and supported across partisan lines here in NY. The event SEG held in Buffalo (UFC 7) was at the time considered a provocation and when Extreme Fighting 1 was scheduled to be held in Brooklyn, legislators reacted swiftly to get it out of town. The fiasco with Extreme 2 in Montreal only turned up the heat. Despite the reform efforts since the late 90s, many legislators here have still believed we're talking about the same sport NHB was in 1995. As recent as 2007 a legislator described the sport to me as if it was still Hackney vs. Joe Son.
In part this misinformation originated from an Assembly member named Bob Reilley who really took a "not as long as I draw breath" mentality on the sport. Zuffa tried to paint Reilly as paid for by the culinary union just as SEG had tried to paint McCain's anti-UFC stance as being due to boxing ties, but in both cases the answer was more complicated than graft. Both men were true believers in the idea that MMA was pure barbarism and nothing you could say would shake that moral resolve. Most of the rest of the legislature here simply didn't care, but if a colleague did, there was no reason to upset him, particularly when it could cost a vote that mattered down the line.
Holdouts in NY meant Zuffa began a lobbying strategy, as did the Culinary Union, who has had their much ballyhooed opposition to the Fertitta Brothers' obstructions in Nevada. I've commented on that fight on many other threads, but essentially it boils down to this: Station Casinos workers have tried to organize. Station has been found in court to have violated labor laws numerous times and to have illegally blocked workers rights to develop a union. Zuffa's PR machine has created a narrative where a few casinos full of ecstatic workers have been suddenly invaded by raving union madmen who hate democracy and just want a cut of the pie when every judge has found that to be absurd and not borne out by facts. One thing that's unclear in how this is impacting NY is who started the lobbying arms race. Did Zuffa begin lobbying legislators to legalize MMA, triggering a union response or vice versa? I'm sure this can be found in public finance disclosure records. I do know the rate of lobbying expenditures by Zuffa specifically has drastically increased in the last 8 years.
In 2008, following the financial collapse, the strategy was focusing on all the supposed revenue the UFC would bring to NY. While this was compelling for a minute, the subsequent recovery and the fact that we just weren't hit as hard by the downturn as many other states made the tiny fractions of revenue the UFC promised less attractive than Zuffa had hoped.
In general, there is a sense that there is more to lose and very little to gain by legalizing the sport. The UFC and its fighters have successfully alienated vast constituencies that the Culinary Union, to its credit, has been able to bring under a big tent of opposition to MMA. In 2011 or 2012, women's groups were successfully rallied after a litany of statements and actions by fighters were dredged up that painted the sport's attitude toward women in an incredibly negative light. Rampage sound bytes and the participation of athletes with histories of sexual assault and intimate partner violence were more than enough to convince legislators that this thing they'd opposed was as barbaric as they supposed. Former Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver voiced this concern exactly, though it's likely his opinion was at least partially paid for. In that regard, the UFC's courtship of the so-called coveted 18-24 male demographic backfired on them. Anyone who thinks it's a coincidence that the UFC suddenly decided to integrate the sport and push Ronda Rousey and others as a response to this criticism hasn't been paying attention.
Today's efforts in NY are too scattered. Dana White has basically publicly said "we're going to bribe the legislature," which is not endearing them to anyone, particularly in a state with an aggressive attorney general trying to ferret out corruption in NY politics. There's also been the revenue stratagem which has been called into question due to the UFC's credit downgrade and antittrust investigations. And honestly, I don't think any upstate politician is naive enough to believe the UFC will hold shows up there for long when the money pot is in places like the Garden or the Barclays Center (neither of which are hurting for big money shows and events).
The one convincing argument for regulation thus far that has seemed to gain some traction is the issue of fighter safety, but the UFC in particular has not made this a central part of their lobbying strategy. Most of the concerns around fighter safety have come from local gyms and journalists who have been agitating for legalization since before the Fertitta Brothers had even heard of the UFC. But this has not been a major part of the UFC's own lobbying effort. Why?
Well I speculate it's because 1) the UFC is not interested in regulated MMA in NY, only the UFC in NY. Their response to safety concerns has mostly been. "These amateurs don't know what they're doing, but we do. Let us in." 2) Current safety measures are considered inadequate even in regulated states. Recent drafts of the bill in NY and a bill Zuffa opposed in Connecticut contained provisions for lifelong coverage for injuries sustained in fights, extended catastrophic coverage and rights to organize and collectively bargain. Zuffa reps and many in the MMA media called this a "poisoned pill" because it was cost prohibitive. It was in direct response to language like this creeping into more and more iterations of the NY bill (and impending federal healthcare reform) that Zuffa preemptively began extending insurance benefits to its entire roster after not having done so for years. 3) The safety issue can horribly backfire because all the prefight medicals in the world can't prevent someone from being seriously injured or killed by just some freak chance. If the UFC hangs itself on the safety cross and something goes wrong, even in another promotion, the results will be catastrophic.
At the end of the day, most of the legislature doesn't care. Most of NY definitely doesn't care and most fighters doing unregulated shows really don't care. New Jersey is literally a $5 train ride away for downstate folks and upstate folks have created their own ecosystem of amateur semi-regulated shows or are able to drive a few hours to regulated areas. The case that a NY fighter will simply be trapped when they're surrounded on all sides by legal venues is not reflective of reality. What is true is that most of the fighters competing in unregulated, unsafe shows here are low income, undereducated and being exploited by promoters out to make a buck off them, but there's no evidence that culture will change when the big promoters roll into town, as we've seen time and time again.
I want MMA here. I want the guys I've trained with to have a venue to showcase their talent in front of family and friends. But I'm wary of the consequences of legislation bought and paid for by the sport's largest promotion and what it will mean for the future of MMA. I have a feeling we'll finally get meaningful legislative reform once the Fertitta Brothers give on some things, like not obstructing federal law or making life after participating in the sport more sustainable for its fighters. But thus far they've made only tepid steps in that direction while trying to paint everyone else as unreasonable.
