LEAD UP Spotlight #1 – Navigating Issues of Exclusivity in Sports Management Contract: Lessons from The MMA Cage
At Lead up, we are committed to providing our clients with the most innovative dispute resolution solutions that fit their specific industry contexts. To do that, we have to stay on top of the recent developments in our clients’ sectors, and analyse these developments in line with our clients’ needs. Every month, in “Lead up Spotlight”, we will share with you – our colleagues, clients and prospective partners – our analysis on a recent development relating to dispute resolution in an industry that matters to us and to our clients.
With the Paris Olympics fast-approaching, we chose to dedicate the first edition of “Lead up Spotlight” to the world of combat sports, specifically Mixed Martial Arts, MMA, a sport which many former Olympians have tried their hands in recently (see for example Ronda Rousey, Kayla Harrison, Slim Trabelsi, Daniel Cormier or Henry Cejudo). The popularity of MMA is currently growing exponentially with several key organizations being Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), Professional Fighters League (PFL), ARES Fighting Championship or Eagle FC, Inc. These organizations set up events periodically around cards, i.e. a list of several fights happening on one specific night. These fights pin down martial artists fighting according to weight classes.
To be able to fight, these martial artists generally sign contracts with such organizations. These agreements typically include exclusivity clauses binding the fighters to fight in the organization for a certain number of fights, a certain duration or both. The contract thus expires when the agreed upon milestone(s) occurs.
On 23 January 2024, Kayla Harrison, two-time Olympic judo gold medalist and two-time PFL lightweight champion, announced she had left the PFL and signed with the UFC. She will fight Holly Holm on 13 April 2024. Her signature with the UFC came as a surprise to many, given PFL had argued publicly that she had still one fight left on her contract before she could fight for another organization. Kayla Harrison, in turn, had argued that, in addition to a certain number of fights that has been agreed upon, her contract also included an expiry date effective as of December 2023, regardless of whether or not the agreed upon number of fights was achieved.
Now, let’s imagine that her contract did not include such expiration date. She would have been in the position of many other fighters, having to wait for her organization to propose her fights, until she fought the contractually agreed number of fights. In practice, however, if her organization did not want to organize such fights, which has happened in the past, she would have had to terminate the contract, possibly through a formal dispute resolution process, if her organization objected to the termination and lodged a request for compensation against her.
BOTTOM LINE: A combination between a certain number of fights and a specific expiry date in such contracts can prove a useful tool for athletes and MMA organizations alike. On the one hand, athletes would ensure their career are not derailed by disputes with their organizations, managers or agents over how long they are bound by the relevant agreement. On the other hand, MMA organizations would not be surprised by claims lodged by athletes for termination of agreements and compensation for forced idleness, despite their compliance with the terms of the relevant contracts.
THINKING AHEAD: Once the Paris Olympics conclude later this summer, there is no doubt other Olympic athletes will want to follow in the footsteps of many former Olympians and embrace a MMA career. Yet, Kayla Harrison’s story shows that MMA athletes and organizations should not run into signing MMA agreements without the appropriate legal support. After all, rien ne sert de courir, il faut partir à point.