The UFC returns to Halifax, Nova Scotia on February 19, 2017. Recently it was announced that Stefan Struve and Junior Dos Santos will headline the event.
Something these fighters may not know is how much they may be able to demand for headlining this card. Perhaps $380,000, maybe even more.
Unlike most North American jurisdictions, Nova Scotia has a unique legislative requirement on the books for prize fighters. Section 58 of Nova Scotia’s Boxing Authority Regulations (which apply to MMA bouts by virtue of the definition of boxing set out in s. 2(3) of the Regulations) require that The minimum percentage of the receipts to be paid to boxers in the main boxing match shall be not less than 10% for each boxer.
The last time the UFC came to Halifax the live gate receipts flirted close to $1,000,000. Assuming a repeat this would mean a minimum purse of $100k per fighter to comply with the law.
The language of section 58, however, does not appear limited to the live gate. The Regulation uses the broad word ‘receipts’. The Nova Scotia Boxing Authority Act defines gross gate receipts to include all money collected in respect of a boxing match including all television and film royalties. In other words, the fighters may be able to legally demand 10% of all the the UFC’s revenues pro-rated to this event.
With the UFC Fox deal being reportedly worth $115 million annually and with Fox televising 41 events in 2016 means a pro-rated value of $2.8 million per event. 10% of this is $280,000 and when added to the speculated gate you reach $380,000 for each headliner. Other revenue streams can be factored in to bolster this potential number even higher.
What if the UFC don’t comply with this section? What recourse would fighters have? They would be able to ask the Nova Scotia Boxing Authority to force compliance. If that fell short the fighters can turn to court.
Some have asked me if this means going to Court in Nevada. As the UFC class action plaintiff’s learned UFC contracts contain a ‘choice of venue’ clause for all lawsuits involving the interpretation of the contracts. Interestingly this likely would not apply, however, as such a lawsuit would not be a contractual dispute rather an action based on enforcing a local statutory requirement. In other words, this amount applies regardless of what a UFC contract has to say.
A lawsuit using the power of s. 58 can be quite revealing as, if successful, it would force the UFC open their books and account for all revenue streams pro-rated to the event. Time will tell these fighters will take advantage of this powerful legal protection.
—
Author Erik Magraken is a British Columbia litigation lawyer, combat sports law consultant, founder of the Combat Law Sports Blog, and deeply appreciated UGer.
