Inside the CSAC

MaxBoxing.com's ran an interesting three part feature on the CSAC last week. The series provides an in-depth look at the policies and politics of one of the most influential athletic commissions in the country.

• Part I - Civil War?
• Part II - Overkill and Inefficiency?
• Part III - The Commission v. The Cornermen
  

Update on UFC's Push for Sanctioning in NY

The UFC's drive for sanctioning in New York continues. The company is bullish on its chances, targeting a debut by Q1 '09, if not later this year. The company is pushing hard the economic impact of MMA in its lobbying effort:

"Our events have brought millions of dollars in tax and tourist revenue to nearly every city we have held an event in," said UFC president Dana White. "Once New York joins New Jersey, Pennsylvania and 30 other states in regulating mixed martial arts, we will be thrilled to offer a UFC event this year to an upstate city and replicate its success all over the state."

According to the article UFC 82 in generated $11 million of economic activity in Columbus, Ohio.

Missouri Asked to Ban 'Cage Fighting' by Kids

Last's appearance of MMA for Kids on the Drudge Report has caused stir in Missouri where legislators are now seeking to ban children from MMA competition. Developing...

MMA Facts: Full Court Press for UFC in NY

New York is the last great conquest in Zuffa's push to sanction MMA across the United States. According to The New York Times, in November the company hired the Albany-based lobbying firm of Brown, McMahon & Weinraub at $10,000 a month as well as a political consulting firm, the Global Strategy Group, used by now former Governor Spitzer. The company also made a $25,000 donation to the state Democratic Party in mid-January.

This week Zuffa launched MMAFacts.com as part of its lobbying efforts in New York. The site is very well done, although I doubt it got much traction in NY this week given the resignation of Spitzer. Much of the information is old hat to the informed follower of MMA, however, there are some interesting new facts:

• The company's pay-per-view buys have had annual growth of 47%, 189%, and 352% in 2004, 2005, and 2006 respectively. Gross revenues from pay-per-view events have increased 47%, 232%, and 424% respectively during the same time span.
• Televised MMA content has grown 390% in terms of hours of monthly programming over the past four years.
  
• The average ticket price for an UFC event in 2006 was $273.68 (10 events), up from $81.45 (5 events) in 2001. In 2005 the average was $178.01.
• UFC 68 produced $11 million in external economic activity for the Columbus, Ohio with approximately 40% of attendees from outside of the state.
• UFC 67 in Las Vegas drew 72% of its attendees from outside of Nevada.

Overworked?: The Potential Impact of Comprehensive Steroid Testing

Underpaid gets a lot of attention as a buzz word in the MMA industry, but what about overworked? We may soon find out if the industry's top stars are currently "overworked," perhaps in addition to underpaid, thanks to a new comprehensive year round drug testing program recently announced by the Nevada State Athletic Commission. The news has been met mildly, especially considering that by all indications it has the potential to dramatically change the equation not only in the cage, but on the accounting ledger as well.

There are a series of important questions to be answered in a "clean" (ignoring the fact that testing cannot completely stop steroids, much less HGH) MMA industry, however, none is more important than those that relate to recovery time. Without steroids, how many times per year can the industry's top stars fight?

As a rough case study, consider the number of fights for headliners of major (i.e. numbered) UFC events in 2006 and 2007. Those 23 fighters (excluding Ken Shamrock and Royce Gracie) fought an average of 2.5 times per year during that period.

Even ignoring mitigating circumstances (contract status, booking choice, etc.), if any significant percentage of those fighters are on steroids and physically need them in order to maintain their current work load, then 1-2 fights per year may be a more realistic projection for the average top fighter than the current 2-3.

That reduced work rate would have significant consequences for the industry. People pay to see stars. The fewer times any given star is able to fight, the more stars the industry must develop to fill the top of the card.

That only leaves one question left to answer: how many fighters are using steroids in the "off season?" Dave Meltzer provided some context in the February 4th editor of The Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Meltzer wrote:

From talking with a few athletes since this announcement was made, the feeling is it is far more significant than most think. Nobody knows the percentage of MMA fighters who use steroids, but the number isn't low. According to one person who distributes with a major camp and named names, the best way I can put those results is, there were guys, based on looks, guys who you wouldn't think are using steroids who do during the off-season, guys you would be sure of who are; and guys who ar name stars who you would think are or at least might, but wouldn't be sure, who both are and aren't. The idea everyone is using them so it's a balanced field that many supporters of steroids in MMA claim is clearly not the case. But top guys, and mid-level guys are using, because they know the specific dates they are being tested, which is the day before or day of their fight. Whether the percentage of top guys is 25% or 60% (and based on name fighters at the specific camp in question I'd guess 50% of the name fighters in the camp isn't far off) who may use at some point during the year or much of the time except before a known test day, few if any are on leading up to the fight. But it is still both a physical and mental issue in the sport, and for those who use, a pretty significant psychological aspect of their training and mentality.

For now speculation is the best we can do about how widespread steroid use is and what the effect of comprehensive testing will be on the industry. Especially since one significant part of the equation is yet to be determined, namely, how aggressively will the NSAC enforce it's new program? The selection guidelines presented in the memo are vague to say the least and give the commission total discretion for all intents and purposes.

Regardless of its final form, in a rapidly evolving industry, comprehensive drug testing is just the latest in a series of upheavels that promises an interesting and tumltueous 2008.

The Untold Story of Zuffa's Purchase of the UFC

One of the most dramatic moments of the recent CNBC special, From Bloodsport to Big Time, was the scene in which Bob Meyrowitz claimed that Lorenzo Fertitta, a member of the Nevada State Athletic Commission at the time, blocked regulation of the UFC, essentially forcing Meyrowitz to sell the company to the Fertittas and Dana White. Lawyers for Zuffa immediately contacted CNBC and got the segment pulled from subsequent airings.

In The Wrestling Observer Newsletter, Dave Meltzer recently offered what he believes to be the accurate version of the story, partly based on his first hand knowledge, as well as the story of the early history of Zuffa. The highlights according to Meltzer:

A hearing concerning sanctioning the UFC was scheduled before the NSAC on April 23, 1999. Meyrowitz had been told that NSAC sanctioning was a prerequisite to returning pay-per-view. As the hearing approached, Meyrowitz believed that he had the votes (3-2) for sanctioning, but the night before the hearing he was informed that one of the commissioners had switched his vote. Meyrowitz withdrew his request for sanctioning because he was told that he could only ask for one vote and a negative result would doom the company's future on pay-per-view.

"I don't know which commissioner it was, but the commissioner who had the 11th hour change of mind that caused Meyrowitz to pull out was not Feritta," Meltzer wrote. It is interesting to note that one of the other commissioners during this period was Gina Carano's father, Glenn.

More than one year later the New Jersey State Athletic Commission under Larry Hazzard did sanction the Meyrowitz-owned UFC. At that point Dana White contacted Meyrowitz about purchasing the company with the Fertittas, including Lorenzo who had subsequently left the NSAC, as his backer. Meyrowitz was interested in retaining an interest in the company, however, the Fertittas were only willing to buy outright. Meyrowitz decided to sell for $2 million because he was under the impression that sanctioning from the NSAC was unlikely, which meant no pay-per-view.

Meltzer noted that while in the CNBC piece Meyrowitz claimed no regrets about the way things worked out that in reality he has always thought he was treated unfairly and has been working to return to MMA for several years. Shortly after the special aired Meyrowitz did announce a new MMA project in association with Live Nation, a subsidiary of Clear Channel and the leading promoter of live events in North America.

NSAC sanctioning and pay-per-view didn't turn out to be the immediate saviors as expected. The first Zuffa promoted show on pay-per-view did 75,000 buys behind a strong marketing campaign, however, following that "horrible show," according to Meltzer, subsequent events settled in the 30,000-50,000 buy range until Ortiz-Shamrock I did 150,000. Following that pay-per-view numbers returned to the former range.

To make matters worse, in order to get back on pay-per-view the company signed an unfavorable distribution deal which guaranteed the cable companies a certain amount of money. The early buys weren't even close to what they needed to meet the guarantees and they lost a lot of money as a result.

The other revelation from the CNBC piece was that at one point the Fertittas were ready to get out and had White shop the company. One of the people White approached was Shane McMahon, believing that all the UFC needed was a television partner and the WWE could get it on Spike TV with RAW as a lead in. Ultimately, White got a $7 million offer and the Fertittas declined because they'd lost over $30 million at that point.

The rest as they say is history. White reached his own deal with Spike (only after agreeing to pay all production costs), The Ultimate Fighter was born, and the UFC exploded. However, none of that could have happened if Vince McMahon and the WWE hadn't signed off on the deal, a decision which McMahon may or may not regret today.

There Are No Winners in Sherk Steroid Saga

The train wreck that was the Sean Sherk steroid suspension proceedings finally came to an end on December 4. Neither Sherk, the California State Athletic Commission, nor the UFC emerged unscathed after six months of grand standing by all parties involved. No one had much to be happy about at the end of the day.

The CSAC's creditability was left in doubt after it reduced Sherk's suspension from one year to six months on the strength of evidence calling into question the chain of custody of his urine sample and thus the validity of its testing procedures. Actually the commission found no merit to those claims and stood 100% behind its testing procedures and the result they produced.

Instead, the commission was moved by Sherk's candor and honesty in admitting that he had made a mistake in taking performance enhancing drugs leading up to his UFC Lightweight Title defense against Hermes Franca in July. Except, instead of showing contrition, Sherk stood defiant, insistent about his innocence before, during, and after the proceedings. What then prompted the commission's leniency? If only we knew.

This after the commission, in it's highest profile doping case yet, with a man's reputation and livelihood on the line, failed to provide even a semblance of organization and preparedness, much less a fair, rational proceeding. Instead, Sherk was left to face a kangaroo court, reminiscent of the star chamber of English lore, that made up the rules as they went and handed down penalties as they pleased.

The UFC and its President Dana White fared little better. White was steadfast in his support of Sherk, publicly professing his belief in Sherk's innocence and refusing to strip him of the Lightweight Title up until the bitter end. Following the CSAC's postponement of Sherk's initial hearing, White signaled solidarity with Sherk, vowing to leave the Lightweight Title around his waist regardless of the CSAC's ruling.

The tenability, or lack there of, of such a position seemed abundantly evident from the outset. Ignoring the ruling and questioning the authority of a major regulating body of your sport while touting your company's embrace of regulation is not the most coherent of positions. Risking the creditability your company has built as a champion of regulation on a dominant fighter who has marginal box office value seems like a fairly high risk, low reward situation.

White subsequently backed away from that position and ultimately bowed to the commission's ruling, reluctantly stripping Sherk of the title while maintaining his belief in Sherk's innocence. However, his respect for the ruling, or lack there of, is evident from the fact that immediately after stripping Sherk of the title he announced that Sherk would be next in line for a title shot at the winner of January's BJ Penn-Joe Stevenson fight for the vacant Lightweight title.

Last, but certainly not least, in the parade of the disgraced and disappointed is Sherk. He spent considerable time, financial resources, and personal creditability in defending his name. At the end of the day he was left frustrated, if not downright bitter, at a haphazard process that more closely resembled an informal straw poll than a quasi-judicial proceeding. Now he is left to face the fact that his career will forever carry the asterisk of a failed steroid test, regardless of its true validity.

At least in his defense, whether guilty or innocent, his behavior was completely rational and exactly what would be expected of any athlete in a similar position. The same cannot be said for the CSAC and the UFC who should have each reacted more professionally in the situation. The entire ordeal was an embarrassment to the sport, best quietly learned from and quickly forgotten.

UPDATED: Sherk's Suspension Reduced

UPDATE: Josh Gross has a great piece at Sherdog.com with Sherk and his attorney's reactions to the process afforded by the CSAC.

Sean Sherk finally had his hearing before the California State Athletic Commission today. The CSAC reduced his suspension to six months while upholding his $2,500 fine. Sherk will now be eligible to fight again in mid-January.

Dana White has not officially addressed the ruling, but based on previous comments it seems that the UFC has little choice but to strip Sherk. Of course, that's a moot point for all practical purposes since White has already indicated that the winner of BJ Penn-Joe Stevenson for the Interim Lightweight Title will face Sherk when he is eligible to return. That appears to setup Penn/Stevenson v. Sherk for April or May of 2008.

The ruling is really the worst of both worlds. The CSAC once again reduced the penalty of a fighter who it apparently believes has been proven guilty. Worse still for the creditability of the commission, this mercy was granted despite the fact that Sherk showed no remorse and made no admission. Sherk was obviously upset with the ruling, continuing to protest his innocence and promising to continue the fight to clear his name following the hearing.

SI.com: Vasquez's Death Leaves Unanswered Questions

Luke O'Brien has an article at SI.com detailing the online MMA community's reaction (including that of MMAPayout.com) as well as quotes from a ringside physician with the Nevada State Athletic Commission and preliminary reactions from the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation.

UPDATE: Dave Meltzer reports that Fox News was expected to do a story on Vasquez's death at some point today.

Regulated MMA Endures Its First Death

Sam Vasquez died last Friday as a result of injuries suffered in a sanctioned MMA fight against Vince Libardi on October 20 in Houston, Texas. Vasquez death marks the first death in a regulated MMA contest in the United States. The only previously reported death resulting from an MMA bout occurred in an unregulated bout in the Ukraine in 1998.

While this is obviously first and foremost a human tragedy, it's implications for the MMA industry cannot be ignored. In October, regarding the remote possibility of Zuffa's collapse, I wrote:

The only thing on the horizon that could have such a dramatic effect would likely be an in ring death, but as the number of events continues to rise, and with it the number of less skilled competitors, promoters, referees, etc., the odds of the first death increase as well. If the sport continues to grow and thrive, the sad truth is that someone will die in competition, and the reaction that follows will determine the future of the industry. The good news, or bad news depending on your disposition, is that such an event is largely out of the industry's control. Even with the best precautions, it's almost an inevitable occurrence if the sport is here to stay.

Unfortunately, that inevitability has arrived. Fortunately, for the UFC and industry as a whole, the death involves an unknown fighter on a low-profile show and took place weeks after the fight, far removed from the cage. None the less, it will be interesting to see what, if any, reaction Vasquez's death garners from the mainstream media.

Zuffa smartly positioned itself for this day as Dana White has carefully emphasised that the UFC has not had a death in the octagon (as he did on CNBC last week), with increasingly little mention of MMA as a whole. The company will still almost certainly take some hit from the death, as will the sport in general, but I don't see the story gaining much traction other than as a sobering footnote in major MMA pieces moving forward. However, the timing is particularly terrible for Zuffa as it gears up for a full court press to overturn the current MMA ban in New York.

Perhaps more importantly, the story can easily be worked into what may be an emerging doom and gloom narrative that the UFC, and with it MMA, was simply a fad that ran out of steam in 2007. As Dave Meltzer pointed out in the latest edition of The Wrestling Observer, the mainstream media has never fully accepted the UFC as anything more than a niche sport and now has plenty of ammunition to back up that point of view.

As I emphasised last week, the UFC (and hopefully it goes without saying at this point--MMA with it) has benefited tremendously from positive media coverage promoting MMA as the new "it." But the numbers this year, at least on their face, will no longer support that narrative. Based on the success boxing is enjoying this year, the most likely storyline next year is the rise of boxing and, at the very least, the stagnation of MMA.

It will be interesting to see how the UFC handles the potential shift in the mainstream media's attitude. Will White go on the defensive or take things in stride, confident in the future of the sport? Will the company live to regret its antagonism of the new media? These are only some of the questions that 2008 hold for the industry.