History shows this top dog MMA company is no stranger to signing checks to law firms as a way to cope with some of their most outspoken opponents and critics. Among those faced with legal woes in the past thanks to the the long arms of these high-powered Zuffa attorneys are various bar owners, Mixed Martial Arts Agent Ken Pavia, Bellator Fighting Championships, Frank Shamrock and his brother Ken, streaming video site Justin.tv, Ubisoft (a video game company), and even Hall of Fame UFC Fighter Randy Couture.
Zuffa's latest brazen legal move marks a huge first, though. This is the only time the company ever tried suing an entire state, naming Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman and District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. as primary defendants. Their argument hinges on recognizing the "arts" in Mixed Martial Arts and classifying the need for athletes to participate in the sport across the state as something that should be protected under the First Amendment. Zuffa is not the only plaintiff in the case complaining about the state's ban impacting their ability to do business there. The litigation is also headlined by Jon Jones, Gina Carano, Frankie Edgar, Matt Hamill, Brian Stann, Daniel Hobeika, Beth Hurrle, Donna Hurrle, Steve Kardian, Joseph Lozito, Erik Owings, Chris Reitz, and Jennifer Santiago.
Paragraph 4 of the suit lays out the whole sordid scenario in plain terms:
"New York's Live Professional MMA Ban violates numerous provisions of the United States Constitution, including the First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, and Commerce Clause. The Live Professional MMA Ban limits the liberty of those who would, but for the Ban, attend live professional MMA events, as well as those who train in MMA and want to exhibit their skills as professionals before a live crowd. Indeed, for the many New Yorkers who devote endless hours to training in MMA and who cannot afford to displace their homes and families to fight elsewhere, New York's Live Professional MMA Ban presents a serious infringement of their rights."
The complaint goes on to claim the ban even has the potential to block training facilities for MMA from operating in the state and could result in legal action taken against those who broadcast the sport in New York. Though there's been no definitive efforts to shutter any New York State MMA gyms based on the ban's framework, the suit alleges that authorities could legally target such facilities under the tenets of the ban as it is written. The ban, according to the complaint, forbids the joining of different disciplines of martial arts despite the fact that those individual forms of competitive combat are legally permitted within the New York State's borders. Further, the filing explains that the ban's institution in 1997 dates back to the less refined days of MMA that simply cannot be compared with the state of the sport today. Along with the changes in the rules that make the sport safer than ever these days, the complaint cites the significant mainstream sponsors backing athletes and organizations New York won't allow to compete within state borders.
A strange twist to the case is the fact that Female MMA Star Gina Carano is named as a plaintiff. For one, Carano's been more involved in film-making in recent years than fighting, and she's currently focused on promoting the action movie Haywire, which she has a starring role in. Secondly, UFC President and Part-Owner Dana White is known for decrying women's mixed martial arts. Since Zuffa acquired Strikeforce, women's MMA has been virtually non-existant in that league. The company's most recognized female champion Cristiane "Cyborg" Santos just signed a new contract with the league, but Carano is not likely to fight again until early next year. Looking at the way Strikeforce's operations seem geared toward a complete dismantling of the company and eventual UFC merger, there doesn't seem to be much of a long term future for women's MMA under the Zuffa banner.
White's been adamant that women will not fight in the UFC, and naming Carano to this suit seems more of a ploy to make the league look more female-fighter-friendly than it actually is. This is especially true in the actual language of the case describing why Carano is a named plaintiff (which seems to indicate White and the UFC actually celebrate and fully endorse women competing in the sport):
"Carano performs MMA live because it allows her to connect with other fighters, as well as with outsiders, and send a message about the strength and determination of women to succeed. She also performs MMA live as a way of showing the world that the stereotypes surrounding the sport are not true; that the sport is not about masculinity and brute force, and that a woman, like herself, can compete in MMA and have a meaningful career that showcases, rather than hides, her gender. Were it not for the Live Professional MMA Ban, Carano would fight professionally in New York."
What the lawsuit doesn't say about Carano is equally intriguing. After all, were it not for the UFC's ban on women competing within that league's ranks, Carano would fight professionally there.
Matt Hamill recently announced his retirement, so his name being on the plaintiff list is also puzzling. Again, due to Hamill's handicapped status as a deaf fighter, he appears to be more window dressing for an already tenuous case. Should the litigation gain any real traction, it would open the floodgates for other athletes to file suit under the same grounds. The NBA's current lockout would represent a wide-open climate for similar suits, and the NHL's looming labor issues could also give rise to hockey players suing under the First Amendment in the near future. The judge overseeing this case will certainly be aware of the Pandora's Box effect of both ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and just allowing the case to continue as written. These factors make this case more of an intimidation attempt than a seriously threatening stream of litigation. The end result may not favor the plaintiffs, but it will cost the state of New York in legal fees, public relations damage, and plenty of aggravation.
The major flaw in reasoning behind the claims of those bringing the suit is the comparison of the sport to more accepted artistic practices like singing and dancing. The suit argues, "Live professional MMA is clearly intended and understood as public entertainment and, as such, is expressive activity protected by the First Amendment. As is true of ballet, music, or theater, for an audience, attending a live MMA event is an experience that cannot be replicated on a screen."
The complaint criticizes the lack of a state assembly vote to repeal the ban, claiming New Yorkers can participate in amateur MMA events despite the prohibition against professional MMA fights:
"Not only does the Live Professional MMA Ban put New York at odds with almost every other state in the country, it is incongruous even within the State. Countless New Yorkers watch MMA on television; it is widely available throughout the State. Tens of thousands of children and adults train at New York's many MMA gyms and schools. The plain language of the Ban permits amateur MMA matches. Leading fighters train here. It is only professional MMA events before a live audience--and anything that advances or causes one to profit from live professional MMA--that is prohibited by the Ban."
So, how does MMA really represent a participating athlete's exercising of his or her freedom of expression? The suit's language is most inspiring and prophetic in this regard, claiming:
"During a live performance, these professionals express themselves with their bodies and with their abilities, conveying messages of, among other things, skill, courage, self-discipline, self-confidence, the value of intense training, humility, strategic thinking, and respect for one's opponent. Their objective is to win, not to harm. MMA before a live audience is also expressive in a highly individualistic way. A woman fighter may use her performance to demonstrate to other women that they are capable of protecting themselves in any situation. A fighter who enters the arena draped in his home country's flag pays tribute to his countrymen. Fighters pay homage to religious faith, various disciplines of martial arts, and personal heroes. None of this expression is about 'violence.'"
Further arguments in the case criticize the MMA ban being allowed while even more intensely violent video games, movies, and music lyrics are permissable in the same confines. There is a detailed history of the sport and how the New York ban came to pass, and the public statements of state legislators that allegedly misrepresent the sport are also highlighted in the complaint. Key to the political backlash against the sport in New York is the purported "message" MMA fighting sends to youth, so in many ways this is the case's strongest point of contention. Even opponents of the sport seem to admit it's a matter of human expression, so perhaps that's enough to classify the right to participate in the sport on a professional level as protected under the First Amendment.
The suit also touts the recent blockbuster business deals made by Zuffa with the Fox Network and Bellator Fighting Championships with Viacom as signs of the sport's mainstream acceptance. Mention is also made of the multiple other states that allow MMA and the growing popularity of The Ultimate Fighter reality show. Other MMA promotions are also highlighted, including M-1, Maximum Fighting Championships, DREAM, and Shark Fights. Much ado is made about the sport's ability to produce major retail and tax revenue for the locales where live events take place as well as the embracing of the sport by countless mainstream press outlets. In other words, the benefits outweigh the risks of regulating professional MMA in New York.
The complaint reads more like a position paper or dissertation on the sport of MMA as a whole, and the thesis is not narrowly construed to the named plaintiffs as uniquely damaged parties. Though it may not be required, there are countless athletes, organizations, and business entities who are not named complainants and perhaps should be. Those "similarly situated" to the plaintiffs are also forbidden from performing their craft at the professional level in New York, so the short list of plaintiffs seems wholly insufficient as a result. This is one situation in which Zuffa needed to embrace their competition and work together in coordination with their colleagues and fellow professional MMA leagues on this case. Should this case be successful, it would benefit more than just those named as plaintiffs, and bringing this action on behalf of a limited number of plaintiffs is counter-productive. It seems more likely that this case would be better fought with a unified front, but instead Zuffa makes it personal, which could be a fatal flaw.
Even more puzzling is why this case didn't wind up being filed at the federal level against a wider array of defendants. If there is cause to sue New York State, isn't every state that does not allow professional MMA events also subject to suit? It seems logical that the general scope and breadth of the claims made in this complaint would also apply to any other state that prohibits the regulation of MMA. Of course, New York could simply be the first victim, but it's more likely the state is only forced to defend this case because it is the last state containing a major metropolis Zuffa wants badly to break into. The novel-length complaint makes a fantastic argument as to why MMA ought to be accepted and embraced, but it seems short on legal precedent and reasoning. Look for the presiding judge to show some patience with this complaint and allow it to continue for now, but it shouldn't take long for the state's best legal minds to find a technicality or loophole that allows the case to be thrown out or settled in the state's favor before trial. CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL COMPLAINT.
