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

[nostradumbass]

They're both independent contractors, yet one group can't enjoy any of the benefits/rights that the other can. A bit counterintuitive, no?

Your landscaper isn't a contractor, they're freelancers. The word contract is right in the title, so if you do have a contract with them and they still laugh at you and tell you they'll show up whenever they feel like, that's on you if you still pay them.

Your kids aren't contractors either just because you pay them an allowance to do chores. Employees have set hours and regular schedules with regular salary or hourly pay, and full time employees means a certain number of weekly hours. Contractors are paid an agreed upon amount to do an agreed upon job under agreed upon conditions, and freelancers sell their work or services on an individual basis.

 

[Dana's Conscience]

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.



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?

I'm not disagreeing with you. The title of "independent contractor" is a lie. At the end of the day though, most fighters don't seem to really care about any of this.

 

[Momentosis]

I don't think this has any effect on UFC contracts. Fighters are free to fight wherever after their contract ends with the UFC already.

This affects things like someone who works IT who leaves a company and is then unable to work for another company of the same field. A "competing" company as the naming of the clause would imply.

This banning on non-compete clauses is a very good thing but has no bearing on UFC contracts.

 

[Bobby Boulders]

Do they have non compete clauses? They have matching clauses which they mostly never use, but are they the same thing legally?

The only time I remember this coming up, with regards to the UFC, is when they bought PRIDE and Strikeforce and didn't want Sak or Coker to run another org for xxx amount of years. I think it was 7 for Sak, and only a few for Coker. Idk that this has ever been anything that hindered a fighter.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

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.

Tbf technically a UFC fighter can turn down a fight or a date if they don't want to do it.

 

[MrCoffee]

This won't make a dent.

 

[Dr Fong]

As the shills are gleefully pointing out, the UFC fucks its slaves in many different ways with its contracts, but this is not really all that relevant.

This could have an impact on any future championships clauses that they try to bring in post-Ngannou though. But the UFC will always find ways to mess with contracts until we get comprehensive reform.

 

[Goutfather]

i don’t like this at all. setting aside whatever views you may have on non-compete covenants, this sort of ruling has massive implications for businesses everywhere. people have been using non-competes for over a century at least, and courts have routinely upheld them against various legal challenges. in summary, this is the way we’ve been doing business for a very long time. so why, after all these years, does it fall upon an agency (read: unelected bureaucrats) to “ban” a practice that courts wouldn’t ban? why should the ftc be the one to upend business as usual? assuming that such contracts could be banned (there is a “contracts clause” in the constitution, fyi), shouldn’t congress be the one to ban it? in other words, shouldn’t such a ban require a specific statute? the law the ftc interprets here has been on the books since 1914, but they just discovered that noncompetes violate that law? it was legal for the last century, and then it just became illegal by decree without any new laws being passed. that doesn’t bother anyone?

sadly, there are probably tons of people cheering for this (almost none of whom would ever be affected by a non-compete). i don’t think most of these people understand that the process for creating any sort of nationwide “ban” is almost as important as the ban itself. even if you agree with it, it should bother you that some person you never voted for thrust it upon you.

as for ufc, as someone else pointed out, an exclusivity agreement is not the same as a non-compete covenant. as far as i know, ufc contracts don’t forbid ex-ufc fighters from fighting in bellator, pfl, etc.