Alex Marvez of FoxSports.com reports that Randy Couture's resignation from the Ultimate Fighting Championship is not being accepted by president Dana White. White said Thursday that Couture will remain as the promotion's heavyweight champion, regardless of quitting the company. White also said that he refuses to release Couture from the final two fights on his UFC contract. [details (http://www.boxingscene.com/mma/?m=show&id=880)]

I'm basically not prepared to believe anything White says at this point. He obviously will say anything, true or not, in order to spin the situation in his percieved favor.

Theres a pretty good article on Sherdog which tells a somewhat different story of this situation; here's an excerpt:

Without access to the contract itself it is impossible to draw legal conclusions on the validity of a "retirement" clause, however, some preliminary research suggests that Zuffa might face an uphill battle in attempting to enforce such a clause regardless of whether Couture's action represented a retirement or a resignation.

The reported clause might be construed as an attempt by the company to compel specific performance through a contract in equity. In layman's terms, the clause appears to be an attempt by the UFC to compel Couture to fulfill his contract according to terms laid out in the deal. The problem with the clause is that it appears to be an attempt to contract for a remedy, which is the proper role of the court.

The general rule is that courts will not compel specific performance of a personal services contract. However, according to Corpus Juris Secundum, a leading legal encyclopedia, "the breach of a contract to render special, unique, or extraordinary personal services may be restrained," meaning that Couture is a unique property and is not easily replaced.

Unless prohibited by statute, it is now widely held that while the law will not compel specific performance, it will enjoin the employee from "working for others or doing positive actions in violation of the contract" if irreparable damage will be suffered as a result of the breach. In those cases an injunction may be issued to prevent the employee from furnishing those services to another employer for the duration of the contract.

The clause could also conceivably be construed as a type of non-compete clause.

Generally speaking, a restrictive clause in an employment contract such as a non-compete clause is valid and enforceable by injunction so long as it is for a reasonably limited time and space. However it must not go beyond what is reasonably necessary to protect the employer's business, must not be unreasonably restrictive on the employee, and must not violate public policy. The court will normally modify an unlimited or overly broad restriction and enforce it to its reasonable extent.

As a result of the foregoing analysis, based on the scant information available, there are reasons to doubt Zuffa's ability to retain Couture under contract longer than the scheduled duration of the agreement.

The situation seems ripe for litigation. It is hard to imagine that Zuffa is anxious to test the enforceability of its contracts in court due to the dire results that could accompany an adverse ruling. The company could face a legitimate labor crisis were key provisions of Couture's contract to be found invalid, allowing other fighters to follow suit in leaving the company or demanding new contracts.

Link: http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles.asp?n_id=9551

Edit: I bolded/colored the shit i thought most important