Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed below are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Sherdog.com, its affiliates and sponsors or its parent company, Evolve Media.
While a potential UFC sale may be the biggest MMA story of the week, it’s not the only important story with implications for the organization’s business.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Adam Hill on Tuesday first reported on new weight-cutting regulations that the UFC is soon to implement. The new guidelines outlined by UFC Vice President of Athlete Health and Performance Jeff Novitzky will debut during the week of UFC 200 in July and prescribes that athletes should be no more than eight percent over their contracted weight on check-in day, which is typically Tuesday for a Saturday fight.
“The only hard and fast rule in there -- and I think it’s probably the most important thing in terms of the guidelines -- is that eight percent number,” Novitzky told Hill. “If they’re not, it’s not in the rules the fight won’t happen, but we sure are going to pay very close attention to them, including taking daily weight, daily vitals, and as it progresses, if they show signs of being dehydrated, they will be pulled from the fight.”
Since the ban on intravenous rehydration took effect in October -- and since the United States Anti-Doping Agency starting testing more rigorously -- we’ve seen many UFC fighters change weight classes; and according to Novitzky, fighters across the board are routinely coming in at progressively lower weights during fight week. These are definitive positives. In terms of the practicality of the proposed system towards the goal of a universally higher standard of fighter wellness, I think it has the potential to work well. However, like just about any major structural decision the UFC makes, there are unintended consequences to discuss, some more valid than others.
The most common blowback I’ve seen so far is the idea that eight percent is too prescriptive and stringent, and worse, may lead to fighters doing a pre-cut weight cut before checking in, rehydrating moderately and then finishing their full cut. First of all, given the goal of curtailing excessive cutting, eight percent seems to strike a good balance between institutional progress and not putting an absurd onus on fighters. More importantly, Novitzky’s statements suggest a rational level of flexibility. Novitzky is a tough-on-crime type and an experienced politician, so he naturally claims that fighters who aren’t on target will be closely monitored and serious steps will be taken to protect their health, but the subtext to that statement is that compromise exists. That is to say, if Jon Jones shows up in Las Vegas on a Tuesday at 225 pounds instead of 221 pounds, we’re not losing the Daniel Cormier rematch.
A more interesting question I’ve seen posed is whether or not there is a negative impact on quality fighters being able to accept short-notice fights. It’s possible that those who to seek to be like Donald Cerrone will double down on the imitation and take fights at a weight class above if they wish to stay especially active. It’s also possible -- and I’m sure the UFC will subtly suggest as much to fighters privately -- that fighters will just be expected to stay closer to target weights out of regular training camp. This is where we get into the more tangible business consequences of the weight-cutting guidelines.
The reason I say the promotion’s push for fighters to consistently be near target weight will likely be a subtler one is that there are considerable ramifications to telling fighters -- once again, with gusto, independent contractors -- that they are expected to be in fighting trim constantly. One of the backbones of Zuffa’s independent contractor arguments is that fighters are paid to show up and fight for an agreed upon purse; they are paid for a task, assume the associated expenses in execution of that task and are not salaried or paid based on any duration of time. It isn’t unreasonable to suggest that demanding fighters be in fighting shape as a matter of rule changes that dynamic considerably if it’s an implicit expectation of their employment.
In the past, it has been suggested by many, myself included, that the UFC ought to pay specific fighters on a retainer as potential injury replacements in waiting. This is relevant in this case, as by doing this, Zuffa would be honoring a “fixed period” of employment expected from an independent contractor, as they’re not training in perpetuity but for a specific date, which they’ll be compensated for regardless of whether or not they fight. However, this seemed more realistic to me in 2010 or 2012. In 2016, if there’s a UFC fight that’s really, really good and you're worried about an injury, what are the odds you can afford to take fighters of similar status, stash them in the gym for a month or two, then not have them fight? I’m skeptical it’s a good solution for the modern UFC environment, where every legitimate pairing of elite fighters is relished.
This is all on top of the fact that the recent UFC-Conor McGregor drama introduced the question as to whether or not media engagements and fight promotion are true contractual obligations for UFC fighters; it’s an expectation that independent contractors should not perform basic and essential duties of a company at large, and you could easily argue “promoting fights” is a key duty of the fight promoter, not its contracted fighter, even if it’s an accepted expectation.
I’ve yet to even point out the most obvious, elementary objections from a business perspective. The UFC is a fight promotion that hires independent contractors, but this is yet another instance, whether the goals and larger outcomes are positive for fighter health or not, in which Zuffa is explicitly telling these allegedly independent workers how to perform their contracted tasks, which is typically a condition of employment.
Furthermore, while I think the UFC’s intent is noble and these measures represent an even-handed step toward a particularly salient goal, it doesn’t change the fact that the UFC is not a regulatory body. Zuffa did not aggressively lobby commissions all over the world to adopt this standard and successfully achieve it; the company mandated it internally. One of UFC President Dana White’s sword-and-shield arguments for everything over the years has been, “We're regulated by the government!.” However, the UFC has constant flirtations -- flings, really -- with self-regulation, and the track record is unkind, from allowing Vitor Belfort to cheat in Brazil to brutally bungling the Cung Le-HGH fiasco.
The eight percent guideline is less directly thorny and pernicious than the drug testing issue as it concerns self-regulation, especially with the aforementioned IV ban and the USADA’s efforts already having changed the landscape. However, it doesn’t mean that the promotion can’t falter in another particular realm of self-regulation. Revisiting my previous Jones hypothetical regarding the potential flexibility of the “rule,” that sort of leeway is a problem in and of itself. Even if you want to see real weight-cutting reform in MMA, you’re being obtuse if you think that a lightweight is in fundamental danger because he’s 170 pounds four days away from fight night instead of 167. How much flex is too much flex and who gets it?
How dehydrated is Jones allowed to be before weigh-ins versus some random undercard fighter? If Ronda Rousey announces her return for later this year and shows up on Tuesday weighing 150 pounds, how legitimate are the UFC’s health concerns going to be with millions of dollars on the line? We rationally understand why that flex is necessary and how the UFC may conscientiously use it, but it doesn’t mean it can’t go wrong; and while a real regulatory body is still subject to the influence of a promoter, especially one like the UFC, there is still a fundamental separation that can never exist when the UFC decrees these things itself.
There is a fascinating tension between Zuffa’s ongoing efforts to address fighter safety and wellness and the erosion of the independent contractor relationship. On the whole, health insurance for fighters, the USADA’s ramped-up testing and a serious effort to curtail extreme weight cuts have all been well-received in the MMA community. Yet all of those outcomes strengthen the notion that UFC fighters are more employees than contractors -- and rightfully so. It’s an unenviable position for any business, but I suppose if it all gets too much to bear, Zuffa could always just sell the majority of the company to China Media Capital and start basing all its contracts abroad.