The “Real” Reason NY Doesn’t Have MMA (Editorial)
Madison Square Garden
With the regulation of MMA in Pennsylvania yesterday, and South Dakota last week, along with the expected regulation of MMA in South Carolina in the not too distant future things are look promising for the legalization of MMA in the USA. However, the one major stand out to still have an outright ban on MMA is the state of New York. While the usual scapegoat for the cause of this is ignorance, as some prominent political figures in the State still say that MMA is too violent, Adam Swift of MMAPayout thinks its Unions.
In brief summary, UNITE HERE is embroiled in a bitter struggle to unionize Station Casinos in Las Vegas. Coincidentally, it is also registered to lobby on the subject of Mixed Martial Arts in the state of New York. Disclosure forms show that it has actively lobbied on the topic for the past two years (See reports: here, here, here, and here). In fact outside of the UFC, it is believed to be the only group that has registered to lobby on the subject.
There was recently a poll conducted in New York, which found that 67 percent, of the 438 people that responded to the poll, said they opposed making MMA legal in New York. Apparently this poll was conducted by a Communications firm with ties to the SEIU. The article details what that may mean:
For those unfamiliar with labor politics, the SEIU is one of the largest and most powerful unions in the country. Coincidentally, it is also closely aligned with UNITE HERE. Both are members of the Change to Win Coalition of labor unions and according to Wikipedia have a joint local union chapter in New York called Service Workers United.
Someone paid the group to produce the poll and appears to have had a good idea of how they wanted it to turn out. I doubt a group of outraged citizens of New York is responsible, if such a group were behind it they most surely would have taken credit. Now on the other hand if a labor union were the benefactor, they might have good reason to keep there efforts hush hush.
I suppose that the fact that the poll was handled by a pro-union firm with ties to SEIU and UNITE HERE could be a coincidence. However, considered in light of the other facts and circumstances, I believe the logical conclusion is that opposition from pro-labor forces to the legalization of MMA remains alive and well.
While this may seem a bit like something from a “Conspiracy Theorist” to some, it is important to note that labor unions in New York have a lot of power. For example, it takes up to two years to fire a bad or unqualified teacher there, and said teachers are instead sent to “rubber rooms” where they get paid to sit in a room with several other bad or unqualified teachers all day. That being said, I think he may be on to something.
Loading ...
I guess that this notion of a conspiracy is plausible. It really doesn’t make any sense why NY would not want to regulate a sport that would bring in millions of dollars every year to the local economy.
They already do, it’s called the WWE. They even have their own tower downtown. Not saying this is a fact, but UFC going into Madison Square Garden on a regular basis, would take away the WWE fan base. Many people would not be able to afford to attend both.
Yes, you are right in the aspect that there is a high correlation in being a professional wrestling fan and a MMA fan. But, IMO, since the UFC is trying to establish a footprint in other countries (Canada, UK, Ireland, Germany and some Asian countries) I doubt that they would travel to NY more than twice a year. Having said that, I think that there is plenty of fans in the city and surrounding areas that are both interested in professional wrestling and MMA to have sale out crowds at both events.
True, but from what I have heard, Vince McMahon is not a business man that likes change. Once he took over reigns of WWF and pushed it westward from the NE, he has saturated the area. New York City being one of his largest areas and money makers. Just a thought of mine on a billionaire businessman playing parts in politics like usual.
etherbunny: “It really doesn’t make any sense why NY would not want to regulate a sport that would bring in millions of dollars every year to the local economy.”
Willyd: “They already do, it’s called the WWE.”
Am I reading this right? Did you really just call WWE a sport?
I know, Sports Entertainment. Thought of that after I pressed submit hoping no one would catch it. Damn you Justin!
The WWE quit being regulated years ago. That all changed when Vince found a loop hole so he wouldn’t have to pay the commision. He came up with the term “sports entertainment” and once he proved that his matches were pre determined the fee was waived. All Vince pays for is the use of Madison Square Garden, which by the way is not cheap.
Solution: tell the WWE to take a hike and get outta Dodge…..l think that works for mma fans.
“For example, it takes two years to fire a bad or unqualified teacher there, and said teachers are instead sent to “rubber rooms” where they get paid to sit in a room with several other bad or unqualified teachers all day. That being said, I think he may be on to something.”
Citation needed.
“up to” added that should have been there all along, I’ve heard that from multiple sources, mostly talk radio.
dbiz,
Here are three different places you can read about this… I haven’t read the whole articles on the longer two, but I know they talk about it.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36802.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-04-17/nyc-life/class-dismissed/
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/05/21/money-for-nothing
Good enough for me. I hate trying to google on a blackberry.
dbiz, get an iPhone. Googling is second nature to me now that I got this thing….
Why would I want an inferior service with a restrictive contract? No thanks. I’ll stay contract-free and lower priced.
It’s the cool hip thing to do duh,jk
I live in NY and love MMA. I know a lot of people up here who also love it. This conspiracy thing def makes sense to me since none of us understand why it is banned here other than the fact that boxing is so big here and they might be trying to block it as well!
There is plenty of proof that this is not some half-baked conspiracy theory. If you look in the article from mmapayout, it has links to the official reports that state that lobbyists UNITE HERE lobby on:
Subject(s) Lobbied
HOTEL INDUSTRY ISSUES, LABOR ISSUES, WEST SIDE REDEVELOPMENT, MIXED MARTIAL ARTS, IDA REFORM, FARMWORKER LABOR RIGHTS, ICIP
That is just too random. Its proof of the theory.
Nicely done Justin, good read thx
i dont know…sounds like some union bashing to me. if this labor union is so powerful, why are they having difficulty unionizing the casinos in vegas. i’m sure there are plenty of extra groups that would like to have UFC in NYC that would include other unions, and plenty more that have been mentioned that wouldn’t want UFC in the state (WWE, Boxing, anything that could possibly have to compete with a UFC event). Even NBA, MLB, and NHL might even be against it since NYC sports get most of the huge stars for huge paychecks…maybe a reach, but still a possibility.
not a bad article, hopefully more research is done to find out if this is more than a conspiracy.
I know that unions are more powerful in some states than others. North Carolina and Texas I know are both “right to work” states and NC is also “right to hire: right to fire” so unions aren’t very strong here. There are some unions, like postal workers, and meat packers, but they’re just not that strong. While in places like NY, PA, and KY the unions have more power. Unions in Philadelphia forced builders to install useless pipes (the linked article is prior to decision, but in the end the pipes and urinals were both installed). The point I’m making is, I don’t know how things are exactly in Nevada, but I suspect that the unions are less powerful there than they are in New York, which has long been a staunchly pro-union state.
Oh, and don’t take this personally if you’re pro union, but any opportunity I get to point out the negative (though usually unintended) consequences of having a unionized workforce, I’ll take it. But that’s not got much to do with MMA and more to do with politics, if you want to talk about that register with the site, and join the political discussion group I created.
Labor unions = inefficiency (e.g. The Big Three).
There was a time and place for labor unions but that time has passed.
“Labor unions = inefficiency (e.g. The Big Three)”
ok…i’ll stop political discussions after this post and join the convo on youre separate group…but i gotta respond to Etherbunny….
CEO’s + billions in bonuses + hemmoraging cash = inefficiency
The problem is that if business operated like it should, and bonuses/promotions/salary were based on performance then there wouldn’t necessarily be a need for unions. Give me one good reason why any company should pay a CEO millions of dollars to fail (see Hewlett Packard, The Big Three, Wall-street Bankers, etc). If you didnt have this behavior, you wouldnt need unions, you wouldnt have bailouts, and nobody would have a problem with successful CEOs making tons of cash.
The Japanese automakers (The Big 3’s biggest competition) have japanese gov’t subsidized healthcare for their employees…which decreases their cost of production. so the few factories they operate in the US are the only ones costing them much for healtchare…this makes their cars relatively cheaper, because in America, our govt doesnt subsidize this cost…yet. When the USA eventually does, our automakers can build cars cheaper…then unionbusters can attack them for better reasons.
Zac,
Companies can lose money and the CEO still deserve millions in bonuses (not that any of the examples you mentioned necessarily did). This is the case if the company stands to lose 100million, so they hire a new CEO with a track record for cutting losses for failing companies. If said CEO comes in and does their job and the company loses only 20 million instead of 100 million, they deserve a bonus, even if the company still fails, because their bonus is based on their ability to cut losses.
If bonuses/promotions/salary were based on performance, the union wouldn’t work, because in a union system bonuses/promotions/salary are based on position/length of employment and not necessarily the profitability of the employee.
In regards to the Japanese automakers, they also use 1/3 the workforce to accomplish the same tasks, while the big three have people on payroll to do nothing, due to union contracts.
i totally agree with your first paragraph, but if you look at what responsibility that most of the CEOs in the example i gave have done (Banking specifically…some people blame Clinton/Fair Housing…but only some banks overextended into the sub-prime mess, so nothing but the individual Bank CEO’s decisions and oversight can be blamed).
The second paragraph is what i was saying too. If you had the system of paying/promoting based on performance, you wouldn’t need a union…but that is clearly not what things are based on…i work in corporate america, and i’m doing pretty good for myself, and i can promise you that there are many people that suck at what they do but are friends with the right people.
From Hoovers.com:
Toyota employees as of 2008: 316,121
http://www.hoovers.com/toyota/–ID__41889–/free-co-factsheet.xhtml
GM employees as of 2007: 266,000
http://www.hoovers.com/general-motors/–ID__10640–/free-co-factsheet.xhtml
While they havnt updated the 2008 numbers for GM, i do find Hoovers to be a reputable source of info…and i dont see how GM could have grown 3x as large as they were in 2007 to dwarf Toyota. That would mean that in 2008 GM had hired 682,363 people to make toyota employ 1/3 the workforce. Something is skewed here.
=]
First paragraph, ok.
Second paragraph, I don’t want to get into why unions were formed in the first place, and the role they now fill. But suffice it to say that I know they weren’t formed originally, and I doubt much of it today has to do with, a desire to create a work place where people are promoted based on merit rather than who they know. I realize that happens, and agree that it shouldn’t, but Unions do little to change that situation.
Just because Toyota employs more people, does not negate my point. I may not have worded it properly, but basically what I was getting at is that the the number of people that have a literal hands on role in building 1 Toyota is 1/3 the number of people that have a literal hands on role in building 1 Chevrolet.
Anyways… that’s enough of that discussion for here, please continue anything else in the other location I mentioned above.