Promoters warn Commerce Casino fee increases threaten California fight calendar; CSAC says venue shifts likely

Promoters and a Commerce Casino representative told the California State Athletic Commission at its June meeting that recent increases in venue minimums and security requirements at Commerce Casino are forcing promoters to reconsider scheduled events and look for alternative sites in Southern California and Orange County.

Dennis Sloper, representing Commerce Casino, told the commission that the venue’s contract is with promoters and that rising security and staffing costs have driven a need to increase the food-and-beverage minimums the casino requires. Sloper said the casino learned of the agenda listing its name through other channels and asked the commission to treat venue operators as stakeholders for advance notice in future agenda items.

Promoters said the change in minimums has become economically risky. Promoter Roy Engelbrecht, who said he is the “oldest promoter in the state by years of license,” told commissioners that Commerce’s prior food-and-beverage minimums — historically structured as $25,000 against food and beverage in earlier agreements — had made it possible for many promoters to stage shows there without paying additional rent. Steve Bash, a long-time promoter at Commerce, said the minimum was pushed from a previously communicated $27,000 to $50,000 on short notice and that overnight increases of that magnitude could leave promoters liable for tens of thousands of dollars if a show performs poorly or bouts fall through.

Promoters and CSAC staff described concrete effects. CSAC Executive Officer Andy Foster told commissioners the commission ran 18 pro events at Commerce Casino in 2024 and that the commission had already run seven events so far in the current year; Foster said he expected event volume at Commerce to decline “somewhere around half” for the coming year if the new minimums remain in place. Steve Bash said promoters at Commerce had increased the number of bouts per card — as many as 16 or even 20 fights — to increase revenues and meet higher minimums, but that doing so makes events longer, raises security costs and leaves narrow margins for promoters.

Commerce Casino’s Sloper said the casino’s costs for events — staffing, security and protecting staff and guests — had risen and that the venue’s contract structure places the contractual relationship with promoters, not with the commission. He said a former employee’s emailed cost estimate had been misread or outdated and that the casino’s internal accounting showed higher event costs than the promoter community had expected.

Promoters asked the commission for help in two areas: continued public notice when major venue changes are being discussed, and support in identifying alternative Southern California venues while negotiations continue. Several promoters asked the commission to convene a working group or to facilitate talks between Commerce Casino and promoters to seek a sustainable arrangement. Promoters also suggested that the commission and Commerce jointly seek solutions that preserve California event capacity while recognizing rising venue costs.

Commission response Commissioners said CSAC has limited authority over venue contracts but that the commission needed to inform its planning and budgeting when a primary venue changes terms. Chairman Villegas and others urged improved communication between venue operators and the commission and suggested that the commission seek alternative venues in Orange County and elsewhere to preserve the state’s event calendar.

Ending CSAC staff said they would begin outreach to alternative venues and that commissioners would be kept informed if promoters cancel permits or shift events. Commerce Casino said it would monitor commission notices and would expect the venue to be treated as a stakeholder for future agenda items.