UFC ruins Pro-Wrestling's chances in Oklahoma

[Trill Co$by]

UFC and Oklahoma's Athletic Commission enter into a lawsuit over event fundings which results in the OK Commission permanently banning all combat sports, including Pro-Wrestling, from taking place. With Oklahoma being a widely successful territory for WWE, this may come back to be a very big bite in the ass caused by one stupid act by the overrated MMA company.

This may sound bias, and it very well is. I don't think it's fair for the commission to ban all combat sports just because of problems with UFC. Especially with OK being an area where WWE puts a lot of nice matches on display, and likewise seems to be a very significant part of the WWE fans seeing Jim Ross on a WWE television.

But anyway, what do you think of the mater?

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Good thing the WWE isn't pro wrestling. Missouri (probably not anymore) used to not allow blood at pro wrestling shows. Vince gets around it by being "sports entertainment".

See, Vince wins again. If he hasn't won yet, he will win. Vince will say "well okay, if you're going to ban "combat sports" you can't ban us, we aren't a sport, we aren't pro wrestling, we don't call ourselves pro wrestling, we are and have been sports entertainment. If you ban us, you have to ban all kinds of theater".

Which is true. Of course, only the dumbfucks in Oklahoma would ban something that makes them a lot of money. Probably why that state is such a shithole.

PS, I'm not being a bias missourian. I don't like Missouri much more. I've been through several parts of Oklahoma, it sucks.

 

[Rayne]

UFC and Oklahoma's Athletic Commission enter into a lawsuit over event fundings which results in the OK Commission permanently banning all combat sports, including Pro-Wrestling, from taking place. With Oklahoma being a widely successful territory for WWE, this may come back to be a very big bite in the ass caused by one stupid act by the overrated MMA company.

This may sound bias, and it very well is. I don't think it's fair for the commission to ban all combat sports just because of problems with UFC. Especially with OK being an area where WWE puts a lot of nice matches on display, and likewise seems to be a very significant part of the WWE fans seeing Jim Ross on a WWE television.

But anyway, what do you think of the mater?

What I think of the matter is that you don't really understand the situation, but are having an emotional reaction to being told that professional wrestling will be temporarily unavailable in Oklahoma.

You reduce the whole issue to "problems with the UFC", and then instantly lay the onus on "a stupid act by an overrated MMA company". (Whether UFC is overrated or not is a matter for debate- their Saturday night specials are pulling in huge ratings, the WWE is finishing out the Saturday night specials on their contract with NBC by showing WrestleMania reruns that draw lower than Impact.) Bias would mean that you have examined both sides of an issue, and have personal reasons for favoring one side over the other. That is fine. What you are being is "ignorant", because you have deliberately chosen to ignore the UFC's arguments in this case.

At issue here is a 4% tax that Oklahoma charges on live Pay-Per-View, regardless of where it is transmitted from. This tax doesn't apply to non-sports offerings, and is a source of a majority of funding for the OSAC (Oklahoma State Athletic Commission). Effectively, this means the UFC, WWE, and boxing promoters. (I'd say TNA, but no one's been buying their PPV's.) The UFC's argument is that they shouldn't be singled out for a tax that other companies are immune from when they are not performing a business activity within the state.

Now then- the reason that live combat sports are being cancelled in Oklahoma is because the UFC is filing a lawsuit against the OSAC. The OSAC doesn't have the funding to both fight a lawsuit and operate at the same time, and so they have chosen to cancel events rather than regulate them. The Oklahoma Attorney General doesn't seem to think that the OSAC has much of a case. (Source)

Ask yourself that question. Why should a company have to pay taxes in a state where they themselves are conducting no business activity? (Rather, the cable companies are the ones performing the business activity. HUGE legal difference.) The UFC has a really reasonable argument, and one any profit-oriented business should make. The OSAC can't, however, simply snap their fingers and go "you're right!" That requires a change from the Oklahoma legislature, and to seek redress for their grievances in the absence of legislative action, you can petition the judicial system or "sue". This all takes time. In the meantime, the OSAC doesn't have money, and absent action from the Oklahoma legislature, they cannot operate.

The UFC wants redress from a law that is well-intentioned but quite frankly unreasonable. You can't tax someone in your state if they aren't doing anything in your state. (For reference, look at the ever-ongoing effort from states to get online retailers to charge sales tax. They've been trying, hard, for a decade and haven't moved an inch closer to it.) The 4% sales tax on live PPV constituted 65% of the OSAC's funding, which goes towards regulating all combat sports in the state. If the UFC had chosen not to perform an event in Oklahoma in a given year, under the law as worded, they would still have to subsidize independent wrestling competitions, toughman contests, even Bellator, as a cost of existing on a pay-per-view network.

That's totally unreasonable. You can require companies to pay for the organizations that regulate them, but you can't require a company to pay for those organizations when they aren't doing anything in that state which requires them to be regulated. The UFC will still likely end up paying for the OSAC, but through a much more fair process, such as user fees.

 

[ShinobiMusashi]

Sounds like the Ok athletic commision is to blame for this.

I don't understand why this would effect Pro Wrestling. Pro Wrestling isn't a combat sport, its live theater, and it doesn't need regulation from athletic commisions.

Sounds typical though. Most of the athletic commisions I've ever dealt with didn't even really do anything at the events. A bunch of little tests that are a joke, and easy to work your way around because the guys just really don't give a shit, and are only there to draw a check.

This is terrible news for promoters who were planning on running shows in OK in order to pay their bills, and feed their families.

 

[DirtyD79]

I agree with UFC for deciding to nip the problem in the bud. If they had to pay a tax on pay per views airing in every state they'd go broke with every single show. Same with wrestling feds and boxing. And you know if one state got away with it the others would try it too.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Sounds like the Ok athletic commision is to blame for this.

I don't understand why this would effect Pro Wrestling. Pro Wrestling isn't a combat sport, its live theater, and it doesn't need regulation from athletic commisions.

Sounds typical though. Most of the athletic commisions I've ever dealt with didn't even really do anything at the events. A bunch of little tests that are a joke, and easy to work your way around because the guys just really don't give a shit, and are only there to draw a check.

This is terrible news for promoters who were planning on running shows in OK in order to pay their bills, and feed their families.

If you have a family to feed you shouldn't be in wrestling. Unless you've already made it and already get a steaky income from it, it's irresponsible and dumb to try to make a living in pro wrestling. The highest drawing indy shows I've been to are ROH shows, which is maybe 1,500 people in their number 2 market (chicago). In St. Louis, that number is only maybe 600. Most other indies I've seen are around 200 on a good day, 25 on a bad, probably 75 on average.

If you are going to chase your dream, that's YOUR dream, you sacrifice. Don't be a dumbass and not be able to feed your kids because of it.

In other words, I don't feel sorry for those promoters. Plus a large portion of indy promoters are assholes, so fuck them anyways. I don't see this shit flying though. Dana and Vince are both too good at winning.

 

[Rayne]

The OSAC isn't to blame for this, really. This is more on the Oklahoma legislature.

The OSAC gets a limited amount of funding from the organizations that it regulates, which is a common way to fund athletic commissions. Voters don't want to pay to regulate professional sports, but at the same time, voters want to have professional sports be regulated. The most expedient political solution to this "we want it both ways" attitude is to have the regulated organizations pay for their regulation.

This approach has actually been working pretty good, for the most part, which is why it's been used for so long. What we're seeing in Oklahoma is what happens when the process doesn't work perfectly. The UFC believes they are paying an unfair share of regulation fees, and the aforementioned PPV tax is the root cause of this. The OSAC doesn't have access to invisible money; the only money they can have by law is the funds they collect from taxes codified in law.

In theory, a special bill could be passed by the Oklahoma legislature, granting emergency funding to the OSAC to cover their legal bills. Beyond whatever budget rules would have to be circumvented to pull this off, it would be a HUGE political no-no in this era of fiscal conservancy in government. Don't hold your breath here.

The OSAC really doesn't have a choice but to fight this in court, postponing their ability to regulate events. If they don't contest the UFC's claim, they lose the source of funding they have and have to wait for the legislature to change their funding laws. They wouldn't be able to regulate events in that event, either. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The real fault is with people in general, not wanting to actually pay for the things that they want. That's not going to change. It's a poorly worded law that will likely be rewritten to require user fees for the commission. Blame your elected leaders for them never trusting you to accept that you can't have it both ways, then blame yourself for giving your elected leaders reasons to think that.

 

[Trill Co$by]

Because it's not "FOX" on the name of the PPVs, it's UFC on the name of the PPVs. If UFC wants to have its events broadcasted in Oklahoma, then they should take a chance to sit down, look over the guidelines and follow them. I'm pretty sure that after years of broadcasting PPVs, WWE has been following these guidelines for a while.

As for people thinking WWE will be around this because it's "Sports Entertainment"... think again.

To a general public, it's still a Combat Sport. If it involves two men fighting (whether legit or not) it's classified as a combat sport. States across the entire United States all have athletic commissions that classify wrestling as a combat sport. In fact, in a lot of states, you need a license to be involved in wrestling.

So yes, this is UFC's fault because they're the ones wanting to broadcast in Oklahoma. And if they want to broadcast or host in that state, they should follow that state's given guidelines. But because Dana wants to be all "Oh I don't like overhead fees" he's now ruined chances for not only Vince, but lower promotions as well who are in fact trying to help their communities.

Believe it or not, independent companies usually are a big part of their communities. There have been plenty of State Fairs or benefit Rally's that got a lot of visitors because of a local company hosting a show. It also puts more money into local economy and that's always good for business.

 

[Rayne]

Because it's not "FOX" on the name of the PPVs, it's UFC on the name of the PPVs. If UFC wants to have its events broadcasted in Oklahoma, then they should take a chance to sit down, look over the guidelines and follow them. I'm pretty sure that after years of broadcasting PPVs, WWE has been following these guidelines for a while.

A couple things here.

1) It's InDemand, not FOX on pay-per-view. As well, you are referring to "branding". The UFC sells InDemand a show. InDemand then sells in to consumers via cable networks, such as CableVision, Comcast, COX, Charter Communications, etc. The UFC isn't selling anything in Oklahoma. Coca-Cola sells their products to convenience stores- that doesn't mean Coca-Cola has hundred of thousands of stores in America.

2) Simply because one company follows a guideline doesn't mean that it's fair or just, especially for other companies in different positions. The WWE schedules at least one event in Oklahoma a year, usually three to four. They would be paying fees to the OSAC almost regardless. The UFC tours far less than the WWE does, and frequently won't host an event in Oklahoma in a given year. Again- why should the UFC have to pay for other people to be regulated when they aren't selling anything in the state? Just because you make "a guideline" doesn't make it a legally enforceable one.

So yes, this is UFC's fault because they're the ones wanting to broadcast in Oklahoma. And if they want to broadcast or host in that state, they should follow that state's given guidelines. But because Dana wants to be all "Oh I don't like overhead fees" he's now ruined chances for not only Vince, but lower promotions as well who are in fact trying to help their communities.

It's not, "I don't like overhead fees". Firstly, you act like that's an insane idea for a business to have. It's a business. You spend as little as possible while earning as much as possible, the difference between is called your profit and that's what determines how successful you are. Second, the UFC pays for regulation boards in every state that requires it. What they don't like is having to pay for other people to be regulated if they aren't doing anything that requires regulation. If the UFC doesn't host an event in Oklahoma in a given year, they are doing absolutely nothing that the OSAC has to regulate. Why, then, should the UFC have to pay for other people to be regulated in Oklahoma because they are producing a television show in New Jersey?

The entire purpose of our judicial system is to seek redress from laws we believe are unfair. This is Civics 101 stuff here. It's not "well, the UFC should just suck it up and deal with it, because I like professional wrestling." Oklahoma's own Attorney General, the defense in the case, even admits that Oklahoma has almost no chance of winning this one. You can't tax someone when they aren't performing a commercial activity in your state. If you can't get your head around the difference between InDemand and the UFC, that's on you.

So if I can sum up your argument- to the best of my interpretation- it's that it doesn't matter if a tax is fair to a company or even legal, a company should have to pay it because it helps out other companies? Specifically, their competition??? I don't think your argument's much of a winner here.....

 

[ShinobiMusashi]

If you have a family to feed you shouldn't be in wrestling. Unless you've already made it and already get a steaky income from it, it's irresponsible and dumb to try to make a living in pro wrestling. The highest drawing indy shows I've been to are ROH shows, which is maybe 1,500 people in their number 2 market (chicago). In St. Louis, that number is only maybe 600. Most other indies I've seen are around 200 on a good day, 25 on a bad, probably 75 on average.

If you are going to chase your dream, that's YOUR dream, you sacrifice. Don't be a dumbass and not be able to feed your kids because of it.

In other words, I don't feel sorry for those promoters. Plus a large portion of indy promoters are assholes, so fuck them anyways. I don't see this shit flying though. Dana and Vince are both too good at winning.

That may be true about wrestling, but not for MMA. Most guys that own MMA gyms don't make much money from them. Most of the fighters are trained for free(the good ones), and they really only make enough money to keep the bussiness running(and that money usually comes from kids classes, womens boot camp fitness classes etc).

The profit(you know money to pay rent, and buy groceries) comes from when those gym owners put on their own shows. Me personally, I've never fought in a show that wasn't a sell out(between 800 people in a bar to 2,000 at auditoriums/convention centers), and I've fought a bunch. I fought in one circuit that traveled around putting on shows in a popular chain of bars/saloons here in the south that paid the promoter a guaranteed 8,000$ for every event as long as they put on a certain amount of fights(usually 8 is the minimum). The promoter was one of the hardest working men I've ever met(worked 24 hours a day). That guy had a wife, and kids, and if one of those guaranteed shows were to be cancelled over some stupid shit like this it would have hurt them pretty bad.

Any time someone that works hard gets screwed out of money that they were planning on getting to stay afloat, I feel sorry for them.

But that is just me. I'm glad to see that you care about who I feel sorry for though, thanks.

Athletic Commisions are pure scum. I've seen commisioners let injured fighters fight, allow terrible mismatches to go down(like a debut fighter up against someone that is 12-4, or a fight with 30 lbs of weight difference) where one guy needs reconstructive surgery after the fight. All they do is show up, give a speach about rules, let everyone walk by them for a "medical exam", and then just draw a check. They don't check to make sure the weigh ins are legit, they don't check for a fighters background, or experience, or record, they don't care! Absolute scum that make money off of other peoples hard work, and in some cases, pain & misfortune.

The Louisiana commision isn't so bad, but Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, and Oklahoma are just strait up trash. I highly advise any boxers/wrestlers/fighters to avoid those states at all costs.

 

[BaconBits]

UFC and Oklahoma's Athletic Commission enter into a lawsuit over event fundings which results in the OK Commission permanently banning all combat sports, including Pro-Wrestling, from taking place. With Oklahoma being a widely successful territory for WWE, this may come back to be a very big bite in the ass caused by one stupid act by the overrated MMA company.

This may sound bias, and it very well is. I don't think it's fair for the commission to ban all combat sports just because of problems with UFC. Especially with OK being an area where WWE puts a lot of nice matches on display, and likewise seems to be a very significant part of the WWE fans seeing Jim Ross on a WWE television.

But anyway, what do you think of the mater?

You're not thinking this through. You're just being the typical wrasslin' fan who resents the UFC for taking most of the WWE's market share.

The law in this matter is thin at it's absolute best. It may not even be constitutional. ZUFFA, who, you know, owns the UFC, has the cash and the lawyers to fight it, and in all likelihood, will win. Every report you read about the matter basically says as much.

When Zuffa does win this battle, it's going to be way easier for all combat sports entities, including your beloved WWE, to do business in the state.