|
MINUTES
ABC LEGAL COMMITTEE CONFERENCE CALL
February 27, 2008
Members participating Members
absent
Tim
Lueckenhoff Keith Kizer
Greg
Sirb
Joanna Aguilar
Linda Acampora
Tim Dunlop
Bruce Spizler
New Business
1. Regulation of MMA
in States and on Tribal Land by an MMA promoter or an entity with a financial
interest in an MMA contestant.
There has been
a proliferation of the sport of Mixed Martial Arts throughout the United States
over the past several years, both amateur and professional. While some states
and tribes have enacted legislation and/or regulations providing for the
regulation of both amateur and professional MMA contests, others have not. Even
in states and on tribal land with such legislation and/or regulations in place,
the absence of a recognized "central registry" of MMA contestants (to which
results and suspensions can be reported and disseminated) lends itself to an
unwarranted "cross-over" between professional and amateur contestants.
With the regulation of MMA contests (both amateur and professional) having been
thrust upon boxing/athletic commissions, a number of private entities have
offered to serve as the "regulator" of both amateur and professional MMA
contests in jurisdictions with such laws/regulations and a commission and
in jurisdictions without such laws/regulations or a commission,. Accordingly,
the ABC Legal Committee deems it necessary to opine in regard to the propriety
and legality of a private entity serving as the "regulator" of an MMA contest.
First, in the
absence of state or tribal authorization for the sport of MMA to take place in
its respective sovereignty, such activity is illegal. If there is such
legal authorization, the regulation of MMA may be delegated to a private entity,
if so authorized by law/regulation. This may occur more frequently in amateur
MMA, as opposed to professional MMA; as, unlike boxing, where there is a
"nationally recognized organization" which regulates amateur boxing (USA
Boxing), there is no such "nationally recognized" organization which regulates
amateur MMA. Accordingly, certain safeguards should be applied if the regulation
of MMA is delegated to a private entity. First and foremost, the private entity
should be wholly devoid of any conflict of interest, or the appearance of any
conflict of interest, when regulating MMA. Thus, a private entity regulating
MMA should have no financial interest in: (1) any MMA contestant; or (2) the
promotion of any MMA contests. Such a glaring conflict of interest should, in
and of itself, disqualify the private entity from regulating an MMA contest.
Second, the private entity should administer and enforce MMA regulations which
are promulgated or endorsed by the state or tribal sovereignty in which the
activity is taking place.
On behalf of
the ABC, the ABC Legal Committee opines that its interest in the regulation of
the sport of MMA is three-fold: safety; safety; safety.
2. Local Canadian
boxing commissions as full, voting members of the ABC.
Currently,
pursuant to the ABC Constitution/Bylaws, local Canadian boxing commissions are
"associate" members of the ABC; and, as such, the local Canadian boxing
commissions are without voting rights. It has been proposed, with such a
proposal to be fully discussed at the 2008 annual meeting of the ABC, that a
local Canadian boxing commission be granted full ABC membership, with full
voting rights; provided the local Canadian boxing commission agrees, in writing,
to fully comply with all of the provisions of the U.S. federal law governing
professional boxing [Professional Boxers Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali
Boxing Reform Act, codified as 15 USC §6301, et seq.] including,
specifically, full compliance with the "Conflict of Interest" provisions [15 USC
§6308].
While such a
measure must be voted on, and approved, by the ABC membership, the ABC Legal
Committee opines and reiterates that a mandatory prerequisite to such membership
is the need for a sworn written affirmation from a local Canadian boxing
commission that neither it, nor any of its members or employees, presently or
prospectively, belongs to, contracts with, or receives any compensation from any
person who sanctions, arranges, or promotes professional boxing matches, or
otherwise has a financial interest in an active boxer. With such assurances in
place, and continued monitoring of the same, the granting of full membership to
a local Canadian boxing commission appears to be consistent with the goals of
the ABC.
3. Tommy
Morrison
The ABC Legal
Committee reviewed the "open" letter sent by President Tim Lueckenhoff to Mr.
Jose Sulaiman, Chairman, World Boxing Council, regarding boxer Tommy Morrison
participating in a four round boxing contest, as part of the undercard for a
boxing show entitled "Latin Fury" which featured a bout between Julio Cesar
Chavez, Jr. v. Jose Celaya for the WBC "Continental Americas" light middleweight
title, in Guanajuato, Mexico on 2/16/08 (letter attached). In light of
Mr. Sulaiman's suggestion that such a bout was proper considering "countless
boxers from Mexico have gone and still keep going on to fight in the United
States while they have been medically suspended in Mexico," the ABC is extending
efforts to meet with a national association of Mexican boxing commissions known
as "Fedcombox" in an effort to ensure the accurate reporting of boxing results,
and suspensions, for fighters who participate in both Mexico and the United
States.
4. Efforts of
Greg Sirb
The ABC Legal
Committee reviewed the actions, and acknowledged the diligence, of Past
President and ABC Legal Committee member Greg Sirb regarding the following
matters:
a. Boxer
Saoul Mamby (age 60 and currently on "administrative suspension" from North
Carolina) and Iran Barkley (age 48 who hasn't fought since 1999 and is reputed
to have "eye problems") being scheduled to participate in separate bouts on a
fight card being regulated by the Nez Perce Tribe in Idaho on 2/23/08. As a
result of Mr. Sirb's efforts, neither bout occurred.
b. A "open"
letter written by Mr. Sirb to Jose Sulaiman, President, WBC regarding the
impropriety of the WBC taking $25,000 from boxer Kelly Pavlik as a "fee" for
Pavlik participating in a non-sanctioned, non-championship bout against Jermain
Taylor at the "catch weight" of 166.
Old Business
1. Sanctioning
organizations' solicitation/receipt of "sponsorships" from promoters.
In its Minutes
of December 12, 2007 (¶5), the ABC Legal Committee opined that the solicitation
and receipt of "sponsorships" by sanctioning organizations from promoters
constitutes a violation of 15 USC §6308(c) which states, in pertinent part:
" … no officer or employee of a sanctioning organization may
receive any compensation, gift, or benefit, directly or indirectly, from a
promoter, boxer, or manager."
In a letter
dated January 16, 2008, addressed to Francisco Valcarcel, President, World
Boxing Organization (with a copy being sent to Tim Lueckenhoff), Andrew W. Horn,
an attorney practicing in Miami, Florida, set forth his "Legal Opinion" to the
question, he couches as: "whether there are any restrictions on Promoters,
Boxers, or Managers from advertising in the WBO Annual Convention
Magazine" (emphasis added). Having characterized the activity at issue
as "advertising," the attorney goes on to conclude that the Federal Law does not
constitute a restriction on advertising, as to do so would "restrain trade and
restrict commerce." The attorney also opines that the above-quoted portion of
the Federal Law is not applicable to a sanctioning organization itself, but only
to an officer or employee of a sanctioning organization.
The ABC Legal
Committee finds such arguments to be non-persuasive. First, the
"advertisements" at issue were respective, full page displays in the WBO "Best
20 Years Collector's Edition" booklet, each expressing "Our (the WBO's) Warmest
Thanks To Our Platinum Sponsors!" (suggesting other, lesser categories of
"sponsorship"). Each such WBO "thank you" is followed by a large photograph of
the respective "sponsor" together with the "sponsor's" name and company logo
(including, in order of appearance, Golden Boy Productions, Inc., Sports
Network, Banner Promotions, Top Rank, Don King Productions, Spotlight Boxing,
Best PR Boxing, Universum Box-Promotion, and Warrior Boxing).
Further, the
suggestion that the receipt of these "sponsorships" from promoters do not
contravene the Federal Law because the receipt of the "sponsorship" was by the
sanctioning organization itself, and not by an "officer or employee" of the
sanctioning organization, is specious at best; an interpretation which advocates
the very dangers the United States Congress, by the enactment of these
provisions, intended to thwart.
Accordingly,
the ABC Legal Committee, not dissuaded from its original position and, as
planned, will send a letter to the major sanctioning organizations (WBO, WBA,
WBC and IBF) advising them, respectively, to cease and desist from this
practice.
NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, April 2,
2008 at 2:00 p.m. EDT
Respectfully submitted,
Bruce C. Spizler
Chair
03-13-2008
|