News The Federal Trade Commission just banned all "non-compete" provisions in employment contracts. This has implications for UFC fighters.

Non-compete is different than signing a length of term contract.

This would only matter if UFC was saying fighters can't sign with another org for xx amount of months/years AFTER the expiration of the contract with the UFC.

I'm sure someone as smart as me has already mentioned this though.
 
It depends on the wording of the FTC rule and UFC contracts. But I suspect it wouldn't affect the UFC all that much. It seems like the goal of the rule is to prevent employees from being stuck in their current jobs (i.e., if they leave their current job, they're unable to work in that industry within a particular distance radius). That's not exactly what's going on with the UFC, where the employees are free to work for whomever they want once their contracts are over.

Perhaps it would affect the UFC's right to match after the contract expiration. But again, it depends on the wording of the FTC rule and of the UFC contracts.
 
svmr_db said:
UFC fighters aren't "employees", they're "independent contractors" sucka.

0926abf094a783243b8628ca5fe2c55c.gif
Click to expand...
They are "Opportunity Enjoyers", not employees or workers or whatever, get with the script, sir.
 
chrisdiaz said:
I dont think UFC fighters are "employees" or workers and this likely wouldnt apply to them. Either that or Dana will retitle what the fighters fall under. They arent stupid.
Click to expand...


This bans all non-competes, and non-compete clauses make even less sense for independent contracts.

Also, the UFC fighters are "employees" if you look at the actual relationship that they have with the company. Labor law makes the distinction between employees and contractors based on the circumstances of the employment relationship rather than what they're called.

The reason that the UFC has been allowed to carry on like this is because no active fighter wants to throw away their entire career (like Curt Flood did) to challenge the contracts in court.
 
svmr_db said:
UFC fighters aren't "employees", they're "independent contractors" sucka.

0926abf094a783243b8628ca5fe2c55c.gif
Click to expand...
This makes no sense because independent contractors can work for any company anytime they want.
 
chrisdiaz said:
I dont think UFC fighters are "employees" or workers and this likely wouldnt apply to them. Either that or Dana will retitle what the fighters fall under. They arent stupid.
Click to expand...

'They' may not be stupid. But anyone who thinks that two-time first semester college dropout, public wife beating, figurehead mong 'Dana' has anything to do with TKO's intricate manipulation of contracts certainly is.

People have got to stop believing that the carnival barker runs the circus.
 
chrisdiaz said:
I dont think UFC fighters are "employees" or workers and this likely wouldnt apply to them. Either that or Dana will retitle what the fighters fall under. They arent stupid.
Click to expand...
Some way somehow they are classified as subcontractors but are still not allowed to work with competitors of the ufc. Got to get whoever did the paperwork for that credit
 
chrisdiaz said:
I dont think UFC fighters are "employees" or workers and this likely wouldnt apply to them. Either that or Dana will retitle what the fighters fall under. They arent stupid.
Click to expand...
They aren't, even though they essentially are. Idk if the Kajun Johnson case addresses this, but they would have to get a judge and appeals court to rule in their favor.
 
Noncompetes aren't the same as exclusive contracts. It might make it easier for some fighters to leave the company entirely, but not to go and come back as they please. They can still say that if you leave to fight somewhere else, your contract is done and you can't come back.


This should be extra fun when people can now sell their business, take the money and then turn around and open the same thing immediately after.


Dana's Conscience said:
They aren't, even though they essentially are. Idk if the Kajun Johnson case addresses this, but they would have to get a judge and appeals court to rule in their favor.
Click to expand...
They aren't in any sense. They don't even have regular work schedules ffs. Where else can employees just say "nah" and take years off and still be an employee the way Jon Jones has?
 
Last edited:
nostradumbass said:
They aren't in any sense. They don't even have regular work schedules ffs. Where else can employees just say "nah" and take years off and still be an employee the way Jon Jones has?
Click to expand...

If I told my landscaping crew that they had to wear uniforms I developed, couldn't wear any other clothing brand when they're working for me, can't work for anyone else without my permission, and had to be at my property at a date and time that I specify, they'd laugh their asses off and drive away.
 
Dorkman said:
Does it extend to independent contractors I guess is the real question?
Click to expand...

A better question is why would non-competes be legal for independent contractors in the first place? I mean the word independent is right there.
 
milliniar said:
It would depend on wording but it is possible that the UFC contract that says they cannot fight for another organization might be void.
Potentially this means that the guys at the bottom could take fights in other orgs for whatever they pay. And the guys at the top may be able to go get beat in boxing.
Click to expand...
Exclusive Contracts and Non Compete Clauses are not the same.
While under contract with the UFC or WWE they can only compete in that ORG. What the non compete clause typically says is when your X year long contract ends you cannot work in the same industry for X amount of time.

I don't see this affecting the UFC but it could affect the WWE??? But maybe not even them as iirc some wrestlers that were free agents went to the competition the next day. Rick Rude actually appeared on a pre-taped WWE show and then on WCW Nitro on the same night.
 
Only Here for Attachments said:
If I told my landscaping crew that they had to wear uniforms I developed, couldn't wear any other clothing brand when they're working for me, can't work for anyone else without my permission, and had to be at my property at a date and time that I specify, they'd laugh their asses off and drive away.
Click to expand...
Good for them? Not sure what landscapers laughing at you and telling you they'll show up whenever the fuck they feel like has to do with UFC fighters not being employees, but cool story nonetheless.


<{vega}>

Not every contractor is a landscaper who has no respect for you. Personal trainers are also contractors, and they generally have to wear a shirt given to them by the gym with the logo on it, they can't show up wearing whatever they want, skip appointments, and take clients to another gym.
 
gotBooched said:
Hopefully the FTC mentions contractual basis of non competes as well as employment

E.g. closed any loopholes

Surely this came up
Click to expand...
They are government employees, I doubt it.

Seriously, the ruling will be challenged so let's see what happens there first.
 
nostradumbass said:
Good for them? Not sure what landscapers laughing at you and telling you they'll show up whenever the fuck they feel like has to do with UFC fighters not being employees, but cool story nonetheless.
Click to expand...

They're both independent contractors, yet one group can't enjoy any of the benefits/rights that the other can. A bit counterintuitive, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,488
Messages
55,494,881
Members
174,790
Latest member
stor

Share this page

Back
Top