UFC Antitrust Lawsuit: Judge Denies Settlement, Sets New Trial Date for October
In a dramatic turn of events, the long-standing UFC antitrust lawsuit has hit a major roadblock. Judge Richard Boulware, presiding over the case that first erupted in 2014, has denied preliminary approval for a $335 million settlement between the UFC and former fighters. The court has now reset the trial date to October 28, casting uncertainty over the future of this high-stakes legal battle.
The proposed settlement was meant to resolve two separate antitrust lawsuits filed by fighters who accused the UFC of monopolistic practices that limited their earning potential. The deal, agreed upon in March, was celebrated by UFC and TKO Group Holdings, the UFC’s parent company, as a resolution that would avoid further disruption to their business operations. Fighters, too, had seen the settlement as a potential lifeline, offering immediate financial relief and a path to addressing some of their grievances.
However, Judge Boulware’s recent decision to reject the settlement underscores his concerns about the adequacy of the payout and potential issues with existing contracts. The judge has raised alarms about the settlement’s fairness, particularly regarding the protections for fighters covered under the second lawsuit, which involves athletes from 2017 to the present. The judge’s objections focus on the settlement’s perceived undervaluation and the restrictive clauses in UFC contracts that might undermine future class actions.
In court, fighters’ attorneys, including Eric Cramer, expressed their frustration and concern. Cramer argued that the settlement, while not perfect, would provide immediate relief to many fighters who are in dire need of financial support. He warned that pushing the case to trial could result in no compensation at all if they lose, a sentiment echoed by many fighters who feel the risk of trial outweighs the benefits of a tentative settlement.
The lawsuit combines two separate cases: the original suit from 2010-2017, initiated by fighters like Cung Le and Nate Quarry, and a subsequent suit covering 2017 onwards, led by fighters such as Kajan Johnson. The core allegation is that the UFC created a “monopsony” by using exclusive contracts, coercion, and acquisitions to stifle competition and control fighter wages.
Despite the setback, both the UFC and the fighters’ legal teams may return to negotiations to reach a new settlement. If a new agreement is made, it will still require judicial approval to close out the lawsuits. For now, the UFC must prepare for a lengthy trial process that could see the case drag on for years, especially if appeals are filed.
While the UFC and TKO Group Holdings had celebrated the settlement’s potential to avoid further disruption, this latest development pushes the case back into the courtroom. It’s a stark reminder of the legal and financial complexities involved in high-profile antitrust cases and the enduring challenges faced by athletes seeking justice.
