As a lifelong gamer and MMA enthusiast, this news hits close to home. I’ve been following the UFC saga for years, watching my favorite fighters struggle with contracts that seemed unfairly biased towards the organization. The latest development in the case feels like a rollercoaster ride – one moment we’re celebrating a potential settlement, and the next, we’re back to square one.
In an unexpected turn of events, a federal judge declined to approve a $335 million agreement between the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and over 1,200 fighters who were filing a lawsuit alleging wage suppression.
“As a fan, I’m sharing that Judge Richard Boulware has denied the initial approval motion for the deal made by TKO Group (formed from the union of UFC and WWE), as stated in his court note issued on Tuesday night. He mentioned that a detailed written order explaining his decision will follow.”
After rejecting the initial decision, the court scheduled a trial for October 28th. Both parties might discuss a revised agreement to address the judge’s concerns, which include the perceived low payment amount and other issues. If UFC were to lose this case, they could potentially stand to lose over $4 billion, as damages in antitrust cases can be tripled.
Prior to the deal sealed in March, a trial slated for April 15 was planned to unfold over a four-week period. The trial’s estimated damages stood at approximately $1.6 billion. At the heart of the legal dispute were accusations that the UFC utilized long-term, exclusive contracts to significantly postpone or even block free-agency; forced fighters to renew contracts under duress; and acquired or shut down several competing MMA promoters in breach of antitrust regulations.
The class action claim suggested that UFC holds an excessive buying power, also known as monopsony power. This situation occurs when one buyer controls the market and can buy labor at prices below the market value. Last year, a significant court decision recognized the class consisting of 1,214 fighters who competed between 2010 and 2017. However, another group of plaintiffs, whose identities were alleged to have been misused by Dana White’s team, were not granted permission to continue with their claim.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-07-31 20:27