ASSOCIATION OF BOXING COMMISSIONS LEGAL COMMITTEE MINUTES



 
 
 

 

MINUTES

ABC LEGAL COMMITTEE CONFERENCE CALL

February 27, 2008

 

 

Members participating                             Members absent

Tim Lueckenhoff                                        Keith Kizer[1]

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.[2]  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


[1]  Following the January 16, 2008 meeting of the ABC Legal Committee, Keith Kizer (NV) announced his resignation from the ABC Legal Committee.  The ABC Legal Committee extends its appreciation to Mr. Kizer for his service.

[2] This situation, hopefully, soon will be rectified upon the "certification" of an MMA registry by the ABC; an MMA registry to which all MMA results and suspensions are to reported, recorded and disseminated.

03-13-2008


Brought to you by Saratogamist copyright 2001-2008