update October 18, 2016 – ESPN reports that GSP’s setting is that “UFC breached (his) contract by not offering him a fight” indicating that GSP has been looking for a return bout since February.
When Zuffa was provided a “10 day deadline” by GSP’s team to offer a bout they replied with “a “letter” that referenced a prospective bout against former welterweight champion Robbie Lawler” however no other details such as date, location , number of rounds etc.
So can this amount to a breach of contract? Perhaps. It will depend upon the terms contained in GSP’s contract which is not a matter of public record. Assuming the contract contains common clauses that other Zuffa contracts contain there is a great deal of grey.
If the contract does not phone call for times to offer a Bout courts will deem a ‘reasonable time-frame‘ as being applicable. Failing to offer a bout from February – October is likely unreasonable provided the short shelf-life of a fighter’s career.
Aside from the problem of timeframe, Zuffa contracts contain these common provisions about promotion which may come into play
“Each Bout shall be a mixed martial arts contest, one-on-one fight between competitor as well as opponent designated by ZUFFA, subject to Fighter approval not to be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned, conducted pursuant to the rules ad regulations of the athletic commission, federation or official authority having jurisdiction over the Bout or ZUFFA (in unregulated jurisdictions)”
“ZUFFA shall be deemed to have complied with its obligations to promote any type of Bout if ZUFFA shall have made an offer to competitor to promote a Bout according to the provisions hereof as well as competitor shall have refused to participate.”
“All Bouts shall be on dates as well as at sites to be designated by ZUFFA, in its sole as well as absolute discretion.”
“For each Bout, competitor shall execute as well as comply with the terms of a Bout contract which shall be either the standard fighter contract needed by the applicable athletic compensation or pursuant to the Nevada Rules, as applicable, as well as a other contract needed to be executed by law, the terms of which shall be consistent with the terms of this Agreement. To the degree of any conflict between this contract as well as a Bout contract with respect to a Bout, the Bout contract shall control“.
The essential concern is exactly how many specifics does Zuffa have to provide when offering a bout under the contract to fulfill their obligation? Is just floating a name sufficient?
These clauses do not go so far as to need Zuffa to provide a bout contract when making an offer to ensure that in as well as of itself is not likely a breach on their part.
Zuffa likewise has the “sole as well as absolute discretion” when selecting a date as well as choosing a location so it matters bit exactly how the blanks are filled in when making an offer. That said, failing to fill in the blanks can be problematic because of the truth that the contract specifies that mandatory bout agreements perform in truth override Zuffa’s contract terms where there is any type of inconsistency. Bearing this in mind a competitor likely is acting “reasonably” in thinking about jurisdiction when selecting whether to provide consent to any type of provided offer as the sport is not universally governed. GSP may have a fertile disagreement that a ‘name only’ offer is insufficient under the terms of the contract however it is far from iron clad.
The bottom line is if GSP as well as Zuffa can’t work things out litigation will likely be needed to choose whether GSP is indeed a free agent. A process that will take both time as well as money, assets that GSP fortunately seems to enjoy.
______________________________
Today Georges St-Pierre revealed that his attorney did some lawyering as well as he is now a free agent.
The UFC was quick to respond noting that GSP “remains under an existing contract with Zuffa, LLC as his MMA promoter. Zuffa means to honor its contract with St-Pierre as well as reserves its rights under the legislation to have St-Pierre do the same.”
So what’s the nature of the legal dispute? Other than the obvious (ie money) nobody other than the celebrations knows. But we can definitely speculate.
Two considerable modifications have crept into the UFC contractual landscape since GSP took a hiatus from the sport. Zuffa unilaterally imposed the USADA medication testing plan as well as a Reebok “outfitting” policy.
Assuming these modifications are at the root of the conflict (and not a more general allegation that Zuffa’s UFC contracts are of doubtful enforceability or just poor belief negotiating because of lingering sick will after GSP’s announced hiatus) what may GSP’s arguments look like?
When the USADA offer was brought in Zuffa needed fighters to indication a contract addendum
As previously discussed, this is in essence an admission by the UFC that fighters under old contracts (from the date one can presume this would cover at least all contracts that pre date December 2013) are not bound by the present anti-doping policy. GSP’s present contract pre-dates this time around frame.
Where things get fascinating is what occurs to a competitor that refuses to indication this addendum? Any very first year legislation trainee can tell you that a contract cannot be altered without consent of both parties. If a competitor selects not to indication this addendum as well as not be bound by the UFC’s heavy hitting ADP policy they would be within their rights not to so so.
GSP can definitely suggest that Zuffa have to offer him fights without being bound by the USADA deal. This would be a politically strange stance for GSP to take, however, provided his outspoken criticism of doping as well as his hiatus from the sport being largely because of concerns about the prevalence of doping. It is likewise noteworthy that GSP was tested at least 4 times by Camiseta Selección de fútbol de Países Bajos USADA in September, 2016 suggesting that he has already signed the USADA addendum.
This leaves the Reebok deal. This offer essentially stripped fighters of fight night sponsorship’s as well as an athlete like GSP would be out considerable money by this change. It can be argued that this is a unilateral modification of contract as well as GSP can firmly insist that Zuffa offer him fights with his old sponsorship rights intact. As previously discussed, however, this is not an iron clad legal setting as Zuffa common contract language was structured in a method that any type of non Reebok brand might probably be in dispute with the special Reebok deal.
Whether it is the Reebok deal, USADA, a combination of the two or other legal arguments, GSP has hired a heavy hitting attorney with an impressive listing of accomplishments in the Camiseta Selección de fútbol de México sports/business world who will be advancing his position. If GSP is not back in the cage anytime soon this legal battle will be sure to bring fireworks of a different variety.
Advertisement
Share this:
Twitter
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
Related
GSP apparently Back – Camiseta Ajax will USADA testing Sideline him for 4 Months?February 15, 2017With 1 comment
Talking GSP, Contracts, settlement as well as Litigation on The fight NetworkOctober 20, 2016
GSP tested 4 Times by USADASeptember 28, 2016With 2 comments
