I can attest to the fact that MMA contracts are not very popular amongst most fighters. For examples of some of the provisions that fighters don't like one only has to look at last years stories on Bellator's sticky contracts or the class action lawsuit filed against the UFC. The question is what can be done about them?

One possible solution sometimes raised is the idea of either expanding the Muhammed Ali Reform Boxing Act to cover MMA or introducing something similar for the sport of mixed martial arts. While such a solution would obviously be supported by fighters, promoters may be less receptive. This is what makes Scott Coker's opinion on the subject so surprising: he's a promoter that's not wholly against the idea.

BE: There's a lot of complaints amongst fighters about the type of contracts in MMA. Would you like to see some sort of strict guidelines that all promoters follow for contracts? Do you believe there should be some rules in affect for certain limits on these contract provisions, or not?

Coker: You know, that's a good question. I think something needs to change. What it is I haven't pinpointed it yet but I think something needs to change. And I think to get all the promoters on the same page is going to be really challenging unless it comes from the government or is something that's government mandated. But everyone is kind of running their own business, right? So you have ten different versions of a contract. But I think something needs to change because I think it would make it a more competitive landscape if there was something...

BE: You know how there is the Muhammed Ali Reform Boxing Act that supposedly protects boxers, would you like to see something like that in MMA that sets up the guidelines for what can be in a contract and what can be allowed in MMA?

SC; You know, I'm not saying that the Muhammed Ali Act would apply to MMA, but like I said, something needs to be done. And I think, if it was fair because there's two sides to every story, right? There's the fighter side and there's the promoters side. We've always tried to make it a fair relationship. So I think that if somebody really understood the promotion side of the business and took in to account what it takes on this side and it came to the table with something that worked for both sides and not just one side or the other. Maybe it's over here right now, maybe it needs to shift back a little bit but if it goes way over here then I think you're going to have problems because now it's going to create a whole other set of problems.

BE: But in the current conditions would you say that it is much more in the promoters advantage the way contracts are then the fighters? Or at least certain provisions?

SC: I think that - I can't get into the contracts specifically - but I think that we operate a fight company that we deal with our fighters in a very fair manner. So I can't speak to other organization's contracts - you probably know more about that then I do, so you can probably speak to it better than me - but you know, I think that our contracts are fair and we treat our fighters with respect. If they ever had a problem they could come to us.

BE: Some of the provisions that fighters have been complaining about, that they find really egregious, if those are in their contract is that something you would change?

SC: We definitely would have a conversation and it depends on what the situation was. I don't think any fighter would come to us with the same issue. I've never had that happen before. They all come to us with different issues. You know there's what's language with lawyers and the paper and then there's the spirit of the agreement, right? I'm about making a fair deal. Something that works for you and something that works for us. We need to protect some rights because we're going to own the footage. We're going to own the footage in perpetuity. We do international deals, we do different kind of footage deals so we are going to have to have some rights. But that doesn't mean you could come in and sit and we could have a fair conversation.

BE: I'm sure you've heard the complaint in the antitrust suit is the idea that the UFC own's your image rights forever, for perpetuity. Is that something Bellator has no interest in, or is that something that is up to the individual fighters?

SC: Well I would think that our rights, and again I don't want to get too deep into it because you know I can't speak about our contracts

BE: I know there's non disclosure -

SC: Tracy will come over here and start yelling. But you know the real issue is we need to have protection as well. So we need to have the rights. I mean, we have to have some rights to where we can show the footage and own the footage otherwise you know it's -

BE: But beyond that, the idea that besides the footage the owner of the name and the image rights and stuff. That stuff that Bellator is not interest in or is that...?

SC: I think that when you say the name, I mean we are not in the business of owning your name as a fighter. We're not going to trademark your name.

BE: But that's in some contracts. So is it specifically you use if for promotional reasons for the fight that took place but you're not going to come back and say "we're going to make WIll Brooks T-shirts or put him in a video game without his knowledge in the future.

SC: Right that's not the business we're in. We're in the fight business and we're in the broadcast business and so we have to protect our rights for the fight business and for the broadcast business. And that's really what 90% of our core business is in the broadcast and the live event.