FTC Closes Investigation Into Zuffa Business Practices With No Action Taken

[VCURamFan]

From MMAFighting.com:

Jan 31, 2012 - A Federal Trade Commission investigation into the business practices of UFC parent company Zuffa, LLC has been closed with no action taken by the commission, according to correspondence sent from FTC secretary Donald S. Clark to attorney Stephen Axinn, whose Washington DC firm Axinn Veltrop, and Harkrider LLP, had been retained to represent Zuffa in the investigation.

The letter was posted on the FTC's website.

In it, Clark writes that while no action is warranted at this time, the closure "is not to be construed as a determination that a violation may not have occurred" and notes that the commission reserves the right to take future action.

The investigation was initially launched last spring, shortly after Zuffa, through its subsidiary Forza, LLC, purchased Strikeforce through its parent company, Explosion Entertainment, LLC. The FTC had been determining whether the acquisition along with other business practices violated section 7 of the Clayton Act or Section 5 of the Federal Commission Act, according to the correspondence. The former deals with the creation of monopolies and the latter deals with unfair or deceptive acts or practices.From the beginning, Zuffa officials denied that their dominance of the sport constituted a monopoly.

Last March, just days after completing the Strikeforce purchase, company CEO Lorenzo Fertitta dismissed talk of antitrust issues, saying, "There's plenty of competition and there's literally no barrier to entry. Anybody who wants to get in the business, they can go file for a promoter's license, put up some capital, go sign some fighters and go get a television contract. There's plenty of options there, too. It's a wide open market for anybody who wants to get involved."

Complaints about Zuffa business tactics combined with the non-public yet widely known nature of the investigation brought intrigue to the situation, even as company officials declined direct comment through most of its duration. Ironically, Zuffa's case might have been bolstered by one of its last remaining rivals. In October 2011, Bellator was purchase by media powerhouse Viacom, which promised a heavy investment in the four-year-old promotion.

Representatives from Zuffa could not be reached for comment late on Tuesday night.

This pic of the letter is from MiddleEasy.com:

[F34R]

throw enough "donations" their way, and it makes it all better lol.

[VCURamFan]

Originally Posted by F34R

throw enough "donations" their way, and it makes it all better lol.

Yup, the UFC bribed the federal government. You hit the nail on the head.

[F34R]

You're either being extremely sarcastic, which would include a severe degree of naivety; or you agree with me.

[flo]

My 2 cents - the FTC simply found there were no trade violations.

Bellator is, after all, a competitor.

[VCURamFan]

Originally Posted by F34R

You're either being extremely sarcastic, which would include a severe degree of naivety; or you agree with me.

So are you basing this on any proof or are you just another UFC hater who's going to assume that everything they do is corrupt?

[flo]

The UFC wants to continue legitimizing and promoting the sport of MMA and I doubt Dana or the Fertittas (or anyone connected with Zuffa who wants to retain that connection) would even consider compromising that goal by possibly incurring federal bribery or corruption charges.

[VCURamFan]

Originally Posted by flo

The UFC wants to continue legitimizing and promoting the sport of MMA and I doubt Dana or the Fertittas (or anyone connected with Zuffa who wants to retain that connection) would even consider compromising that goal by possibly incurring federal bribery or corruption charges.

Smart, talented and pretty: she's a triple threat!

[flo]

Originally Posted by VCURamFan

Smart, talented and pretty: she's a triple threat!

(The check's in the mail, Ben :-)


F34R, I'm not picking on you, bro, I'd just be flabbergasted if Zuffa tried to bribe the FTC.

[F34R]

Originally Posted by VCURamFan

So are you basing this on any proof or are you just another UFC hater who's going to assume that everything they do is corrupt?

I'm not a UFC hater lol. I do hate lobbyists though, and that's what this boils down to. Yes, it's an assumption.

Originally Posted by flo

The UFC wants to continue legitimizing and promoting the sport of MMA and I doubt Dana or the Fertittas (or anyone connected with Zuffa who wants to retain that connection) would even consider compromising that goal by possibly incurring federal bribery or corruption charges.

Again, lobbyists and contributions are legal... which is basically what our country has become now. It's how they get their promotions legalized, etc. Campaign contributions are the main source of this. That is a fact though, and definitely not an assumption. There were some reports a few years ago, maybe not even that long, about the UFC peeps getting all up in arms about a failed legalization in a certain state after they had given X amount of money for campaign contributions.

Originally Posted by flo

(The check's in the mail, Ben :-)


F34R, I'm not picking on you, bro, I'd just be flabbergasted if Zuffa tried to bribe the FTC.

No, it's all good Flo. I don't take it personally. I mean, if you get technical about it you could probably say that most of our Government and governing bodies are basically bribed, legally through the lobbying.