A 90-second explanation of the UFC’s new antitrust settlement. pic.twitter.com/sXG0HIrozd
— Eric McGracken (@erikmagraken)
September 26, 2024
Ultimate Fighting Championship has provided more funding to settle one of two antitrust lawsuits against the company.
Ten years ago, Zuffa’s former parent company to the UFC was sued for antitrust violations, alleging anticompetitive conduct that harmed fighters. The accusation was that the UFC was paying its fighters less than they were owed, hurting other organizations by holding down their fighters’ salaries. During the litigation, two distinct classes were formed, one of which was a class of competitors represented by former UFC talent Khun Le, who fought in the UFC from 2010 to 2017. Another former UFC athlete, Kajan Johnson, represents the second class. Athletes with UFC contracts starting in 2017 are eligible.
In early 2024, the parties had agreed to a $335 million settlement, which Judge Breuware partially dismissed on the basis that it combined two separate lawsuits into one agreement. The financial distribution at the time was such that Le Class members received the majority of the funds, while Johnson members received a much smaller percentage. The reasons behind the refusal were not fully explained by Judge Bulware.
This current arrangement would pay the full $375 million to the class established in the Le case, but it does not appear to require the UFC to change the way it negotiates contracts. In addition to damages suffered as a result of these agreements, the Johnson lawsuit could still seek to modify the UFC’s negotiating tactics. As a result, the Le-class fighters will receive approximately $70 million to $75 million more than they were scheduled to receive in the initial settlement agreement.
The promotion released a statement regarding the lawsuit shortly after announcing the settlement.
“We have reached a modified agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve the Le lawsuit on terms that we believe address the concerns expressed by Judge Boulware,” the UFC wrote. “While we believe the original settlement was fair and the plaintiffs share that sentiment, we believe it is in the best interest of all parties to end this litigation,” Johnson said. The case is in its very early stages and a motion to dismiss the charges is still pending.
