Truth & Rumors > MMA

Fedor suing Affliction

Views
10534
Comments
29

Bloody Elbow's Michael Rome is reporting that M-1 Global and WAMMA heavyweight champion Fedor Emelianenko filed a lawsuit against Affliction on October 29th. M-1 is claiming that among other things, Affliction colluded with the UFC to cancel "Affliction: Trilogy," which caused M-1 Global to breach several international contracts.

Fight Line

Fedor Emelianenko, Emmanuel Dumand/Getty Images Fedor Emelianenko, Emmanuel Dumand/Getty Images
November 5, 2009  08:54 AM ET

Yes... clearly Affliction tore down the entire event just so they could sell T-shirts and advertise at UFC events... as if Donald Trump, if it had any chance of succeeding, wouldn't throw money at it to keep it afoot like he did the USFL and his USFL team in the 80s.

November 5, 2009  09:01 AM ET

God damned M-1 Global criminal goons.

If you're going to sue someone, sue Josh the Dillhole Barnett.

November 5, 2009  09:17 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

God damned M-1 Global criminal goons.If you're going to sue someone, sue Josh the Dillhole Barnett.

there should be stipulations in contracts that DO put the blame on Barnutz. HOWEVER, M-1 is playing Hardball..

November 5, 2009  09:22 AM ET

Commie from Russia sues Affliction wants mucho rubles. No speak english but can say clearly- I WILL SUE YOU! American Dogs. Beat it back you bald headed Russian turd.

November 5, 2009  09:49 AM ET

Of course nobody was willing to fight Fedor on short notice and get some serious ink headlining a national card. The event had to be cancelled. Pardon me while I break down in giggles.

Affliction sells more gear by having UFC fighters wear their shirts, so I can see them wanting to sink Trilogy and jumping on the opportunity when Barnett withdrew. I just don't see UFC giving enough of a crap either way to threaten their golden goose by engaging in collusion.

November 5, 2009  09:50 AM ET

Well, looking at it from the outside, the circumstances behind the downfall DO look funny, even if they were coincidences. I mean, the company folds, then immediately signs a promotional deal with their biggest competitor? If the deals with the UFC were discussed before Affliction officially canceled the event, M-1 might technically have a case here.

November 5, 2009  10:21 AM ET

But Affliction was also minus several million dollars already...who are they sueing...Donald himself? Tom, what does he have?

November 5, 2009  10:42 AM ET
QUOTE(#5):

Of course nobody was willing to fight Fedor on short notice and get some serious ink headlining a national card. The event had to be cancelled. Pardon me while I break down in giggles. Affliction sells more gear by having UFC fighters wear their shirts, so I can see them wanting to sink Trilogy and jumping on the opportunity when Barnett withdrew. I just don't see UFC giving enough of a crap either way to threaten their golden goose by engaging in collusion.

Dude, there were plenty of fighters willing to fight Fedor. It was a matter of if anyone would pay to see Fedor beat any of them. They decided that people wouldn't, and they would simply lose more money than they already had in their firs two events.

November 5, 2009  10:44 AM ET
QUOTE(#7):

But Affliction was also minus several million dollars already...who are they sueing...Donald himself? Tom, what does he have?

Affliction lost money as an MMA promotion, but they have plenty of money from selling t-shirts.

November 5, 2009  12:39 PM ET
QUOTE(#8):

Dude, there were plenty of fighters willing to fight Fedor. It was a matter of if anyone would pay to see Fedor beat any of them. They decided that people wouldn't, and they would simply lose more money than they already had in their firs two events.

Like I said, they make more money having UFC fighters wear their shirts than they do promoting fights themselves. They contracted to have Fedor fight. They had their pick of opponents. They elected not to stage a fight.

UFC had no need to collude because they were kicking Affliction's butt already. That was the point of my first post, which you elected to agree with by seeming to argue against.

November 5, 2009  01:18 PM ET
QUOTE(#9):

Affliction lost money as an MMA promotion, but they have plenty of money from selling t-shirts.

I think they went back to t-shirts though because Tom sank so much of his own funds. How much are they going to sue them for? I mean, here it sounds like M-1 thinks they are a player in the MMA game.

November 5, 2009  02:25 PM ET

There was no collusion. Affliction was already done, even with the Fedor/Barnett fight. All the Affliction guys going back with UFC means that all their negative banter was all bs to hype up their respective leagues.

November 5, 2009  02:39 PM ET

Fedor has the Iron Curtain Defense behind him he cannot lose. He won't take big money fights with Lesnar the white gorilla but will sue for a few bucks. Good stategy. That's why he lives in a small apartment near a frozen tundra.

November 5, 2009  03:02 PM ET

T&R should post the whole article. That paragraph they quoted is quite misleading because it does cover the complete report. It makes the collusion part between Affliction and UFC the highlight of story which in fact is only a portion of their complaint. So here goes:

"Under terms of the fighter's agreement with Affliction, Emelianenko was to fight for the promotion three times and earn $300,000, plus travel and accommodation expenses for each bout. Affliction delivered only two of those bouts and, according to the suit, also breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing as it related to its fighter agreement with Emelianenko.

According to the suit, after Josh Barnett failed a drug test and was knocked off the card, Brett Rogers was tapped as a replacement and was willing to fight Emelianenko at Trilogy. However, Emelianenko and M-1 allege that, "Affliction elected to serve its own financial interests at the expense of its partners" by sponsoring the UFC, instead of staging its third show.

Emelianenko and M-1 assert that Affliction didn't inform them about negotiations with the UFC to resurrect its sponsorship agreement, the successful outcome of which would have led to the cancellation of Trilogy."

November 5, 2009  03:03 PM ET

oops. sorry, i meant to say "does not cover the complete report"

November 5, 2009  03:11 PM ET

And so in reading this, it appears Emelianenko and his management has legal grounds to go after Affliction. "Lost wages" are as common a lawsuit magnet as say a workplace injury. And in California, just about anything can be brought to court.

It appears to have boiled down to this: Affliction was not only going to save face but millions of dollars by re-negotiating with the UFC and cancelling the Trilogy Card. The fact that Barnett tested positively tested for steriods is nothing but a convenient excuse for them to scrap the card and fold the MMA company altogether.

November 5, 2009  03:27 PM ET

Thanks for the complete report Kyrine.

If people would look past the M1 Global hate, you can see they have legal footing in this case. Besides obviously Fedor, fighters such as Mousasi, Babalu, Horodecki, Rothwell, Belfort, Santiago, Lauzon etc all got screwed out of a paycheck as well. And what about their training expenses? A fighter goes through a lot in camp. They spend for the gym, training partners, nutrition and equipment not to mention the emotional investment in getting ready to hurt and get hurt. And for all that effort to go down the drain because it made more business sense for Affliction to cancel (not postpone but to scrap all together) the show and re-up with the UFC is unfair, underhanded and downright cold. Affliction actually just insured they still got their $$ by re-negotiating with the UFC the same week they folded their MMA unit. As for the affected fighters left in the dark, well, its just business. Cold business.

November 5, 2009  03:29 PM ET
QUOTE(#14):

T&R should post the whole article. That paragraph they quoted is quite misleading because it does cover the complete report. It makes the collusion part between Affliction and UFC the highlight of story which in fact is only a portion of their complaint. So here goes:"Under terms of the fighter's agreement with Affliction, Emelianenko was to fight for the promotion three times and earn $300,000, plus travel and accommodation expenses for each bout. Affliction delivered only two of those bouts and, according to the suit, also breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing as it related to its fighter agreement with Emelianenko. According to the suit, after Josh Barnett failed a drug test and was knocked off the card, Brett Rogers was tapped as a replacement and was willing to fight Emelianenko at Trilogy. However, Emelianenko and M-1 allege that, "Affliction elected to serve its own financial interests at the expense of its partners" by sponsoring the UFC, instead of staging its third show. Emelianenko and M-1 assert that Affliction didn't inform them about negotiations with the UFC to resurrect its sponsorship agreement, the successful outcome of which would have led to the cancellation of Trilogy."

Thank you for the clarification.

November 5, 2009  05:00 PM ET
QUOTE(#10):

Like I said, they make more money having UFC fighters wear their shirts than they do promoting fights themselves. They contracted to have Fedor fight. They had their pick of opponents. They elected not to stage a fight.UFC had no need to collude because they were kicking Affliction's butt already. That was the point of my first post, which you elected to agree with by seeming to argue against.

I missed the sarcasm in your first paragraph. ;)

 
November 5, 2009  05:34 PM ET
QUOTE(#17):

If people would look past the M1 Global hate, you can see they have legal footing in this case. Besides obviously Fedor, fighters such as Mousasi, Babalu, Horodecki, Rothwell, Belfort, Santiago, Lauzon etc all got screwed out of a paycheck as well. And what about their training expenses? A fighter goes through a lot in camp. They spend for the gym, training partners, nutrition and equipment not to mention the emotional investment in getting ready to hurt and get hurt. And for all that effort to go down the drain because it made more business sense for Affliction to cancel (not postpone but to scrap all together) the show and re-up with the UFC is unfair, underhanded and downright cold. Affliction actually just insured they still got their $$ by re-negotiating with the UFC the same week they folded their MMA unit. As for the affected fighters left in the dark, well, its just business. Cold business.

Agreed. SI should have posted the entire article instead of an excerpt of the story. I feel bad for the fighters that were left out to dry. A handful were able to land in other organizations but even so these fighters still werent compensated for the work they already put in during training camp to get ready for Trilogy. No fight, no pay. Affliction copped out here. Barnett was their ticket to bail and they punched it. And to do a midnight deal with the UFC while supposedly trying to salvage the show? The timing of it all was all too convenient. They let go of their MMA pole while latching on to their T-Shirt pole with another org. Can you say two-face?

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


The Si.com Cover Hub Go to the Cover Hub

Stub Hub

The 2009 schedule has been released. Search for tickets!

Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    McDaniels takes jab at NFL Network
    Views
    8717
    Comments
    1364
  2. 2
    Who's Red Sox shortstop now?
    Views
    20243
    Comments
    185
  3. 3
    Giants DE takes it out on teammates
    Views
    40384
    Comments
    113
  4. 4
    Sosa facing lawsuit
    Views
    3700
    Comments
    94
  5. 5
    Can Jordan lure LeBron to Bobcats?
    Views
    21083
    Comments
    84

Most Active Users

Comments + Blog Posts + Throwdowns

  1. 1
    Chico 2.0
  2. 2
    BBK - Now it's all football
  3. 3
    rstowe
  4. 4
    gigi_iv
  5. 5
    Never NDing Struggle

Message Boards

  1. NCAAF > General NCAAF

    Your team sucks
    Views
    532
    Replies
    26
  2. NFL > Dallas Cowboys

    Good game against a Bad Team
    Views
    284
    Replies
    25
  3. NFL > Pittsburgh Steelers

    STEELERS VS RAVENS …
    Views
    137
    Replies
    38

Blogs

SI.com

Swimsuit

SI Photos