Months ago, we mentioned the possibility of Randy Couture's promotional contract being deemed as unenforceable if it ever hit the court system. It looks like this could be the very issue that Mark Cuban was looking to key in on when he filed his lawsuit. News hit the 'Net that lawsuit revolves around the "retirement" clause in Zuffa's promotional contracts, specifically the length that the contract extends if a fighter retires. Zuffa's contracts hold the fighter to an indefinite amount of time if he retires from fighting under the Zuffa banner.

So, how can this help Couture? If the contract is deemed unenforceable due to the ridiculous amount of time that the contract locks a fighter down, it can be considered void. This would make Couture a free agent and allow HDNet's contract to become effective, and it would also get the wheels rolling on the end product of all of this; Fedor Emelianenko vs. Randy Couture.

The chances of this happening aren't as slim as you would think. Most contracts that have any type of time constraint that either involves a no-compete clause or a retirement clause usually cannot go past a certain length of time. This isn't set in stone, of course, but many lawyers will tell you that even a year no-compete clause is excessive in some instances. There are numerous accounts of no-compete clauses being deemed unenforceable for the average working man. Those clauses sometimes have 50-100 mile radius clauses attached as well that say you cannot work within 50-100 miles of your previous employer. Nearly all of those agreements are deemed unenforceable, and it would be an epic failure by the court system to say an indefinite clause in Couture's contract is enforceable. I recently read about a woman who signed a 2 year, 65 mile radius no-compete clause, which she had thrown out. It really doesn't seem that excessive when you compare it to some of the clauses that Zuffa asks of its fighters to sign, but a court found it ridiculous. It's up to the courts to determine if those standards should apply to Couture's retirement clause.

There are other concerns as well. The indefinite time period could simply be shortened to a "reasonable" time period, but would make it tough for an aging Couture to compete once it's over. Also, the severability clause states that pieces of the contract can be deemed unenforceable, but the rest of the contract would be valid.

The culmination of my points here is that the clause will be thrown out. It's almost a certainty that there is no court in America that would uphold a clause that indefinitely locks you into a contract. There are other pieces of the Zuffa contract that could come under fire such as the clause pertaining to a fighter refusing to fight which also carries an "indefinite" time period. Even the clauses in the PRIDE scandal are ridiculous. Sakakibara can't be involved in an MMA enterprise for seven years? Give me a break, Zuffa.

Another day, another lawsuit that could affect Zuffa in the big picture. What happens if the clause is thrown out and Couture is allowed out of his contract? Other fighters may begin researching their potential break from the contract as well. Zuffa has its hands full to the brim, and it's going to be an interesting few months.