Athletes: mixed martial arts fighters.
Summary
Existing law, the State Athletic Commission Act, creates the State Athletic Commission and makes it responsible for licensing and regulating boxing, kickboxing, and martial arts matches and wrestling exhibitions. Existing law prohibits a promoter from having a proprietary interest in a boxer or mixed martial arts fighter without the approval of the commission. This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to protect mixed martial arts fighters from exploitive, oppressive, or coercive contracts and to support the establishment of standards to protect these fighters. This bill would require a licensed promoter to provide a copy of any written agreement with a professional athlete as well as a written and sworn statement, made under penalty of perjury, that there are no other agreements between the promoter and athlete with respect to that contest, and a list of any fees charged or reductions in the amount paid to the athlete, to the commission before the promoter can receive compensation from a boxing or mixed martial arts contest. By requiring a statement to be made under penalty of perjury, the bill would expand that crime and would thereby impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the commission to establish and enforce, upon receiving a complaint, a professional code of conduct for licensees, and would require the commission to suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew the license of a mixed martial arts promoter who enters into a coercive contract, as defined, with a mixed martial arts fighter. The bill would also require the commission to suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew the license of a mixed martial arts promoter or fighter who has been convicted of a felony or other specified crimes, or who has engaged in certain other actions. This bill would also exempt documents provided to the commission by promoters from disclosure to the public based on a finding by the Legislature that these documents contain proprietary business information. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill status
failed
1 of 4 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2012
Committee Review
Floor Vote
Governor
Introduced Feb 23, 2012
Last action Jul 2, 2012
Floor votes
How they voted
No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
15
Key actions
3
Committee
7
Amendments
1
May 21, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
May 3, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
May 1, 2012
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 3.) (April 25).
lower
Apr 17, 2012
Lower · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Apr 10, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on A.,E.,S.,T., & I.M.
lower
Apr 9, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on A.,E.,S.,T., & I.M.
lower
Mar 29, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on A.,E.,S.,T., & I.M.
lower
Feb 24, 2012
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Luis Alejo
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 2100
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 2100. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline