Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity

[fan johnny]

I think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the US to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

I don't think it meets the legal requirement for collusion (but I'm not an attorney). Collusion involves fraud. Nobody is saying the straps can't exist, only that they agree not to talk about them.

Collusion is the just the word I to describe the behavior. What it's actually called is "Antitrust Laws". Basically they are in place to keep corporations and the like from joining forces to for out the competition. Another word is called monopoly. It doesn't have to involve fraud to be illegal.

I really doubt anti-trust laws apply. For two reasons. First ESPN, Ring etc are press organizations and thus protected by the First Amendment. No way the Gov't tries to tell them what they can or cannot talk about. Second, the anti-trust laws are generally geared around two things (sorry, I wrote papers on the Sherman anti-trust act in college), manipulating pricing and manipulating market shares. Neither applies here. Not mentioning them does nothing to impact the revenue of the alphabet gangs. They still can charge fighters sanctioning fees. In addition ESPN, Ring etc do not compete with the alphabet ganges. They are in different businesses. Ring/ESPN etc make money off subscriptions and advertising, NOT by obtaining sanctioning fees from fighters.

Think about it! Try to forget what you wrote in college. Law is generally vague so that it works for both sides. What then becomes more important is the "intent". The specific purpose of proposed alliance is to get rid of the abc belts. This is exactly what the antitrust laws are for. It doesn't matter about price fixing. What matters is the purpose of the alliance. The behavior is unethical because it's intent is to destroy the abc business.

[marbleheadmaui]

I think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the US to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

I don't think it meets the legal requirement for collusion (but I'm not an attorney). Collusion involves fraud. Nobody is saying the straps can't exist, only that they agree not to talk about them.

Collusion is the just the word I to describe the behavior. What it's actually called is "Antitrust Laws". Basically they are in place to keep corporations and the like from joining forces to for out the competition. Another word is called monopoly. It doesn't have to involve fraud to be illegal.

I really doubt anti-trust laws apply. For two reasons. First ESPN, Ring etc are press organizations and thus protected by the First Amendment. No way the Gov't tries to tell them what they can or cannot talk about. Second, the anti-trust laws are generally geared around two things (sorry, I wrote papers on the Sherman anti-trust act in college), manipulating pricing and manipulating market shares. Neither applies here. Not mentioning them does nothing to impact the revenue of the alphabet gangs. They still can charge fighters sanctioning fees. In addition ESPN, Ring etc do not compete with the alphabet ganges. They are in different businesses. Ring/ESPN etc make money off subscriptions and advertising, NOT by obtaining sanctioning fees from fighters.

Think about it! Try to forget what you wrote in college. Law is generally vague so that it works for both sides. What then becomes more important is the "intent". The specific purpose of proposed alliance is to get rid of the abc belts. This is exactly what the antitrust laws are for. It doesn't matter about price fixing. What matters is the purpose of the alliance. The behavior is unethical because it's intent is to destroy the abc business.

The issue has NOTHING to do with ethics does it? It had to do with the law. Or at least that was your claim. The intent is NOT to destroy anything. NOBODY is making ANY move on the revenue of the alpahbet gangs. NOBODY is dividing up market share. THOSE are the factors judges and juries have historically looked at. The First Amendment case it seems to me cannot be overcome anyway. Just no way the Feds tell magazines and networks what their content has to be. Just no way.

[fan johnny]

I think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the US to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

I don't think it meets the legal requirement for collusion (but I'm not an attorney). Collusion involves fraud. Nobody is saying the straps can't exist, only that they agree not to talk about them.

Collusion is the just the word I to describe the behavior. What it's actually called is "Antitrust Laws". Basically they are in place to keep corporations and the like from joining forces to for out the competition. Another word is called monopoly. It doesn't have to involve fraud to be illegal.

I really doubt anti-trust laws apply. For two reasons. First ESPN, Ring etc are press organizations and thus protected by the First Amendment. No way the Gov't tries to tell them what they can or cannot talk about. Second, the anti-trust laws are generally geared around two things (sorry, I wrote papers on the Sherman anti-trust act in college), manipulating pricing and manipulating market shares. Neither applies here. Not mentioning them does nothing to impact the revenue of the alphabet gangs. They still can charge fighters sanctioning fees. In addition ESPN, Ring etc do not compete with the alphabet ganges. They are in different businesses. Ring/ESPN etc make money off subscriptions and advertising, NOT by obtaining sanctioning fees from fighters.

Think about it! Try to forget what you wrote in college. Law is generally vague so that it works for both sides. What then becomes more important is the "intent". The specific purpose of proposed alliance is to get rid of the abc belts. This is exactly what the antitrust laws are for. It doesn't matter about price fixing. What matters is the purpose of the alliance. The behavior is unethical because it's intent is to destroy the abc business.

The issue has NOTHING to do with ethics does it? It had to do with the law. Or at least that was your claim. The intent is NOT to destroy anything. NOBODY is making ANY move on the revenue of the alpahbet gangs. NOBODY is dividing up market share. THOSE are the factors judges and juries have historically looked at. The First Amendment case it seems to me cannot be overcome anyway. Just no way the Feds tell magazines and networks what their content has to be. Just no way.

Rather than argue about the intent of what you have written, I leave you to ponder your own words on the subject. But know this: "Law" is society creating rules about what is acceptable behavior. i.e ethics.