Congressman grills UFC executive during Ali Expansion Act hearing

It was a scrap almost from the gavel.

Congressman Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., grilled UFC executive Marc Ratner during a subcommittee hearing today in Washington, D.C., calling the industry-leading promotion the “Don King of MMA” after several testy exchanges over the way fighters are ranked and promoted.

Mullin, a former MMA fighter and co-sponsor of a bill to expand Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act to include MMA fighters, accused Ratner of “misleading the American people” about a statement in opposition to the bill.

“When you say boxers are treated like MMA fighters, clarify that statement that you’re talking about the health of the fighter, but not the professional ranking system, and not about the financial disclosures, because there are distinct differences,” said Mullin, who represents Oklahoma’s 2nd district in the house. “And the Ali Act is the backstop to boxers. There is no backstop for MMA fighter. It’s take it or leave it, and that’s why I say the UFC has become the Don King of MMA.”

Today’s hearing was the second time the Ali Act was publicly discussed on Capitol Hill. The bill’s first version, introduced during the 114th session of Congress, died in committee. Mullin reintroduced a new version, H.R. 44, during the 115th session.

The current bill has 57 co-sponsors and remains in the house’s Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection, which is a part of the house Energy and Commerce committee.

The bill, explored in depth in an MMAjunkie report this past year, aims to provide greater protections for MMA fighters by forcing promoters to provide greater disclosure of the revenues they earn, forbidding coercive contracts, establishing an independent rankings system, and eliminating conflicts of interest.

Ratner appeared on behalf of the UFC to argue why the expansion act wasn’t suited for the sport of MMA. Opposite on the dais was UFC Hall of Famer Randy Couture, a vocal advocate for the Act’s expansion since the bill was introduced, as well as Dr. Kristen Dams-O’Connor, an expert on brain trauma, and Greg Sirb, the Pennsylvania State Athletic Commission’s executive director.

Ratner read from a prepared statement that expressed the UFC’s commitment to health and safety standards and its contribution to the regulatory framework of the sport. He argued MMA fighters and boxers are treated the same from a regulatory standpoint, and that current regulatory standards are working as intended. He argued the imposition of a sanctioning model would run contrary to the promotion’s “merit-based, competitive matchmaking decisions.”

“We put on the fights that the fans want to see,” Ratner said. “Fighters, fans and sports reporters keep MMA promoters accountable. H.R. 44 would remove from the promoter the decisions regarding when and against whom fighters are matched, and might force inter-promotional fights. Because
different promotions have less comprehensive health and safety standards than the UFC, our fighters would be endangered.”

Mullin immediately went on the offensive in response to Ratner’s focus on health and safety, as well as his claim that MMA fighters and boxers are treated the same. He cited several instances where the promotion circumvented its own ranking systems to make fights, including this past Saturday’s UFC 217 headliner between Georges St-Pierre (26-2 MMA, 20-2 UFC) and Michael Bisping (30-8 MMA, 20-8 UFC).

“If the UFC is considered a professional sport, then it should be on a merit-based rankings system,” Mullin said, “when the fans know the No. 1 contender actually has a shot at the title. Because we haven’t seen that at (middleweight). How did Dan Henderson – and I like Dan Henderson, this is no knock on him – but he wasn’t even in the top-10, and when was he last in the top-10? He got to fight Bisping for the title shot. Did the (No.) 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 (ranked contenders) refuse?

“When Dan Henderson fought Michael Bisping, it was a natural rematch from a fight four or five years ago,” Ratner countered.

“But then it wasn’t a title shot, but yet it was for a title shot,” Mullin shot back. “Then that means the world championship belt that the UFC has isn’t really a world championship belt. It’s really what (UFC Chief Operating Officer) Lawrence Epstein personally told me: It’s simply an award they bestow on the best fighter that night. That’s insulting to every professional athlete.

“How did (Georges St-Pierre) get a fight for the title when he hasn’t had a fight in four years, much less at 185 pounds, where he never fought for the belt?”

“St-Pierre hadn’t fought in four years, you’re absolutely right,” Ratner answered.

“So how did he get a title shot?” Mullin questioned.

“St-Pierre was a former champion,” Ratner replied, “a former pound-for-pound best fighter in the world, according to our. …”

“So he still didn’t fight for a title,” Mullin persisted. “He fought for an award bestowed upon the best fighter of the night.”

Check out the above video to watch Mullin’s questioning of Ratner.

For more on the UFC’s upcoming schedule, check out the UFC Rumors section of the site.