UFC Hit With Anti-Trust Class Action by MMA Fighters

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

The Ultimate Fighting Championship organization was hit with a antitrust class action lawsuit by a group of current and former mixed martial arts fighters alleging that the UFC engages in a scheme to hurt competitors at the fighters’ expense.

Plaintiffs Cung Le, Nathan Quarry and Jon Fitch claim in the class action lawsuit filed Tuesday in a California federal court that the UFC exploits fighters’ identities to promote its brand and create an illegal monopoly to purposefully eliminate competition from other promoters.

“Through a series of anticompetitive, illicit, and exclusionary acts, the UFC has illegally acquired, enhanced, and maintained dominant positions in the markets for (a) promoting live Elite Professional MMA bouts and (b) the market for live Elite Professional MMA Fighter services,” they explain in their UFC class action lawsuit.

The three MMA fighters allege that UFC has dominated the market when it comes to promoting live Elite Professional MMA bouts by making “the UFC the ‘only game in town’ for Elite Professional MMA fighters who want to earn a living in their chosen profession at the highest level of the sport of MMA.”

Le, Quarry and Fitch claim in their antitrust class action lawsuit that “the UFC controls the talents of Elite Professional MMA Fighters.”

They explain that “because an MMA Promoter can attract a significant live or Pay-Per-View audience based on the public notoriety of the Elite Professional MMA Fighters scheduled to appear, would-be rival MMA Promoters require access to them in order to become significant players in the market for promoting live Elite Professional MMA bouts.”

As a result, the UFC has control over 90 percent of the revenues which are made from live Elite Professional MMA bouts, they add.

“While the UFC dominates the sport of MMA much like the NFL dominates the sport of football, the UFC does not contain rival teams that vie to sign players based on their estimated value in a competitive market nor is the UFC a ‘league’ of any kind,” the class action lawsuit states.

The fighters explain that UFC is a “sport that issues championship titles” who win bouts, but that the UFC does not follow “independent ranking criteria” and it doesn’t follow any objective criteria that fighters must follow to win a bout either.

“By following no objective criteria, the UFC is able to exert considerable control over its roster of athletes who risk losing the opportunity to be afforded ‘title bouts’ or to earn a living as an MMA fighter,” the fighters said in their antitrust class action lawsuit.

“Further, the UFC shuts out rival promotional opportunities for promoters and fighters by refusing to co-promote events with would-be rival MMA Promoters and prohibiting its athletes from competing against any non-UFC MMA Fighters in live Elite Professional MMA bouts,” they add.

“The UFC has used the ill-gotten monopoly and monopsony power it has obtained and maintained through the scheme alleged herein to suppress compensation for UFC Fighters in the Bout Class artificially and to expropriate UFC Fighters’ identities and likeness inappropriately,” the UFC class action lawsuit explains further.

The three fighters are looking to represent two classes — a bout class and identity class.

Le would represent the bout class, which is for “all persons who competed in one or more live professional UFC-promoted MMA bouts taking place or broadcast in the United States during the class period.”

The bout class claims it was “injured by [UFC’s] illegally obtained market and monopsony power that resulted in artificially suppressed compensation for competing in UFC bouts.”

Quarry is seeking to represent the identity class, which is for “each and every UFC fighter whose identity was expropriated or exploited by the UFC, including in UFC Licensed Merchandise and or UFC promotional materials.”

The UFC Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit is Cung Le et al. v. Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC, Case No. 5:14-cv-05484, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.