SUMMARY
- In November 2023, the UFC faced a major setback due to a lawsuit involving hundreds of MMA fighters seeking over a billion dollars in unpaid wages.
- The organization's legal team had sought to delay the case for another 2-3 years through the appeals process.
As the UFC gears up for an anticipated 2024 blockbuster event, with UFC 300 scheduled for April, the focus is shifting from the octagon to the courtroom. In early November 2023, the UFC faced a setback as it failed to overturn the class action status of a lawsuit involving hundreds of mixed martial arts fighters seeking over a billion dollars in unpaid wages.
The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a crucial ruling, setting the stage for the commencement of the lawsuit in April 2024. The legal battle promises to be as intense as any championship fight, with fighters seeking justice for their claims outside the confines of the UFC octagon.
The plaintiffs involved achieved a significant victory late last year when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the UFC’s request to appeal class certification. The decision, issued in November by U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware of Las Vegas, dealt a blow to the UFC. The organization’s legal team had sought to delay the case for another 2-3 years through the appeals process.
Dana White on UFC potentially going to trial in the antitrust lawsuit: “I never think about it ever. It has nothing to do with me” 🧢 (via @aaronbronsteter) pic.twitter.com/ESWkwPT0vz
— Shakiel Mahjouri (@Shak_Fu) January 18, 2024
Boulware’s denial sets the lawsuit, initiated in December 2014, for a trial date of April 8, unless a settlement occurs before then. As the 9-year-old case approaches a critical juncture, potentially leading to damages and significant changes in the UFC’s business practices, UFC CEO Dana White appears unfazed.
When asked by Sportsnet’s Aaron Brosteter about his concerns regarding a possible trial, White responded, “No. Zero. I never think about it ever. It has nothing to do with me.” This statement was made two days before UFC 297 in Toronto.
Is Dana White involved in the lawsuit?
Dana White, who took on the position of UFC president in 2001 under the ownership of Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta, intricately links the current case to reality. Recently unsealed documents in the antitrust case have brought to light aggressive negotiation strategies employed by UFC executives, including White.
In White’s deposition on August 9, 2017, a text exchange with Lorenzo Fertitta revealed a ruthless attitude towards Jon Jones. In May 2014, the UFC aimed to schedule Jones against Alexander Gustafsson at UFC 165, but Jones preferred to face Daniel Cormier, leading to complications. “What’s up with Jones? Did he straighten up or is he still being a s**mbag?” White texted Fertitta at that time.
“Still a douche, but we’re inching closer,” Fertitta replied. “Haven’t moved on money, but sent the letter with an ultimatum.” “Awesome,” White responded. “F*ck that punk, Lorenzo. He needs to know we don’t need him, or he will f*ck us over more than he already does”.
Further revelations of ruthless business practices surfaced in another text exchange between White and Fertitta after successfully preventing Gilbert Melendez from joining Bellator. “Bro, u know I love u to f*kn death as it is but what u pulled off this week with Melendez and ‘other dude’ is fukn BAD A**!” White wrote. “F*kn cutthroat nasty business like u see in movies!!”
“We gotta keep taking these f*ckers oxygen till they tap out. We have sacrificed too much to let anyone get traction now,” Fertitta replied. “I agree! U r 100% correct and i LOVE IT,” White wrote back. The plaintiffs in the case allege that the UFC suppressed fighter pay through anti-competitive tactics. If proven during the trial, the UFC would potentially have to pay a hefty price.
All about the antitrust lawsuit against the UFC
The roots of the legal battle trace back to 2014, when the UFC found itself in lawsuits with fighters. The fighters alleged the abuse of its monopoly power to suppress fighter pay. Notable names among the plaintiffs include Cung Le, Nate Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Javier Luis Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury.
They argue that the UFC, purportedly holding a 90% market share, strategically secured dominance to underpay fighters significantly. This allegedly allows the organization to pay fighters less than what a competitive market would dictate. Francis Ngannou is the prime example of a fighter who stood up against the UFC by leaving the promotion entirely.
The crux of the fighters’ argument is that the UFC’s acquisition of major rivals created a monopsony, violating antitrust laws. A monopsony occurs when one buyer dominates a particular market. Reportedly, the UFC treats fighters as independent contractors, not employees, with no salary or benefits. Fighters are also restricted from competing with other organizations during their contracts.
The fighters, numbering over 1,200, seek to recover money and prompt changes in the UFC’s business practices. Notably, they aim to halt unfair contract terms, advocating for a ban on long-term contracts to allow for early exploration of alternative opportunities and “free agency.”
The recent class action certification by U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware encompasses more than 1,200 fighters who participated in UFC-promoted bouts between December 2010 and June 2017. Unless a fighter opts out, the lawsuit will include their claims, which is what it means.
The class seeks damages ranging from $800 million to $1.6 billion. Some antitrust cases can triple damages, potentially exposing the UFC to paying nearly $5 billion. While the rejection of the UFC’s appeal to contest class certification is a significant development, the legal battle is far from over. Judges have scheduled the trial for April 2024, a decade after the initial filing.
In addition to the ongoing antitrust lawsuit involving fighters up to June 2017, the UFC faces a subsequent legal challenge from two former fighters covering the period from June 2017 to the present day.
Given the inherent risks tied to an antitrust trial, the UFC might contemplate pursuing a settlement with the plaintiffs. While such an agreement would undoubtedly pose a financial strain on the organization, it represents a strategic move to avoid a potentially unfavorable outcome that could result from a jury trial.