BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2100
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 25, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2100 (Alejo) - As Amended: May 17, 2012
Policy Committee: Arts Vote:5-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill enhances regulation by the State Athletic Commission
over mixed martial arts contracts. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the commission to establish a professional code of
ethical conduct for mixed martial arts (MMA) promoters and
fighters and, upon receipt of a complaint, to enforce the code
of conduct.
2)Authorizes the commission to suspend, revoke, or refuse to
issue or renew a license for violations of the code of
conduct.
3)Stipulates a violation of the code of conduct includes
entering into a promotional contract in California or into a
contract for a contest to take place in California, with an
MMA fighter licensed in California, that includes, but is not
limited to, one or more of the following provisions:
a) Is for a period exceeding five years.
b) Automatically extends the term or conditions of the
contract.
c) Requires a party to negotiate exclusively with the other
party.
d) Grants a party the right to match the terms of any
offer.
e) Grants a party unrestricted rights to the use of the
identity of the other party.
4)Clarifies that current law prohibiting a promoter from having
a proprietary interest in a boxer or MMA fighter competing on
premises owned, rented or leased by the promoter without the
AB 2100
Page 2
commission's written approval applies only to promoters
licensed in California.
5)Prohibits a promoter licensed in California from receiving
compensation in connection with a boxing or MMA contest until
the promoter provides the commission with specified
information, including a copy of any written agreement between
the promoter and a contestant and any fees to be charged by
the promoter on an athlete participating in the event.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Minor ongoing costs (about $50,000) to the commission for a
half-time analyst position to develop regulations and for
enforcement.
2)To the extent the bill's provisions cause major MMA events to
relocate outside California, the commission would experience a
loss of gate tax and television tax revenues. For example,
commission revenues from Ultimate Fight Championship (UFC)
events held in California (see Opposition below) totaled
$400,000 in 2010-11 and $200,000 to date in 2011-12.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, "The purpose of the
bill is to prevent the mistreatment of MMA fighters in
California by banning certain exploitative contracting
practices that violate athletes' freedom to work and
their ability to support their families. Many California
MMA fighters have retired after suffering multiple
concussions, bone fractures, muscle tears, nerve damage
and spine injuries, which threaten their ability to earn
a living and support their families as they grow older."
2)Opposition includes Zuffa, LLC-a promoter of the UFC and
Strikeforce-and by Top Rank, Inc., the Honda Center (Anaheim),
and the HP Pavilion (San Jose). Opponents argue the proposed
requirements will drive MMA events out of California, with a
resulting loss in economic activity in the state.
(Since this entertainment activity generally represents
discretionary consuming spending that likely would be directed
to alternative activities, the net impact on the California
economy would not be significant.)
AB 2100
Page 3
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081