Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: MMA fighters file class action against UFC alleging monopoly, (Jun 2, 2025)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D., and WK Editorial Staff

The complaint alleges that the UFC impairs professional promotions in their ability to attract a critical mass of top-level MMA fighters necessary to compete with the UFC and forecloses competition.

A professional mixed martial arts fighter has filed a class action lawsuit against the operators of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), on behalf of fighters who competed for MMA promotions other than the UFC. The complaint alleges that the UFC maintains monopoly power in the output market for Promotion of live Professional MMA Bouts, and monopsony power in the input market for Professional MMA Fighter services. The alleged scheme allegedly impairs MMA Promotions in their ability to attract a critical mass of top-level MMA Fighters necessary to compete with the UFC at the top tier of the sport of Professional MMA, and otherwise substantially forecloses competition in the markets relevant to this case. The UFC also allegedly restrains top-level fighters from applying their trade by preventing these fighters from competing for titles in a free and unfettered market. As a result, rival promotions have been foreclosed and fighters have had their careers impaired and their pay suppressed below the compensation that would prevail in a more competitive market, the suit alleged (Davis v. Zuffa LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00946-JCM-BNW (D. Nev. May. 29, 2025)).

The UFC is the world’s dominant mixed martial arts (MMA) Promoter, controlling approximately 90% of the revenues derived from live Professional MMA bouts, and has the vast majority of top-ranked Professional MMA Fighters signed to exclusive deals.

According to the complaint, the UFC acquired and maintained monopoly power in the market for Promotion of live Professional MMA Bouts and monopsony power in the input market for Professional MMA Fighter services through a series of exclusionary acts, including (1) direct acquisitions of actual or potential rivals (who were forced to sell to the UFC because they found it impossible to compete profitably due to the UFC’s anticompetitive scheme), and (2) a multifaceted scheme to impair and foreclose competition by leveraging the UFC’s market dominance—including its tight-fisted control over the supply of Professional MMA Fighters—to block actual or potential rivals from accessing inputs (such as, e.g., Professional MMA Fighters) necessary to compete successfully in the market for promoting live Professional MMA bouts and the market for Professional MMA Fighter Services.

Also, the complaint alleges the UFC has locked up a critical mass of the supply of top-level Professional MMA Fighters through a series of acquisitions designed to remove competing rivals and would-be rivals and thereby championship titles from the marketplace by acquiring the contracts of Professional MMA Fighters and shuttering the acquired promotions. Secondly, the UFC allegedly forces all UFC Fighters to enter into long-term exclusive contracts that bar them from working with would-be rival MMA Promotion companies all but indefinitely.

Remedies. The lawsuit seeks no money damages but instead seeks an injunction to prevent the UFC from continuing its allegedly illegal antitrust scheme. By shutting down the UFC’s allegedly anticompetitive behavior, according to Cramer, the suit intends to create conditions for free and fair competition among professional MMA promotions, which in turn would bolster the careers and pay of professional MMA fighters across the sport.

Prior lawsuit. The federal district court in Las Vegas, Nevada gave preliminary approval to a settlement of the long-running action brought by professional mixed martial arts (MMA) fighters against Zuffa, LLC, the owners and operators of the highly popular Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). The case was set to go to trial on October 28, 2024. Earlier, the court had rejected a proposed settlement of the action, along with settlement of another related action. The case involved an alleged scheme to acquire and maintain monopsony power in the market for elite professional MMA fighter services by the UFC. The court issued preliminary approval with a reported $375 million now going from the UFC to fighters who fought from 2010 to 2017. A related lawsuit—Johnson v. Zuffa, LLC—which covered fighters from the end of the Le litigation to present was not included in the settlement. It had been included in an earlier settlement for $335 million, which the court had rejected. The plaintiffs’ law firm is the same seeking an injunction in the current case (Le v. Zuffa, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW (D. Nev. Oct. 23, 2024)).

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-00946-JCM-BNW.

Judge: Mahan, J.

Attorneys: Benjamin D. Brown (Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC) for Phil Davis.

Companies: Zuffa, LLC

News: Antitrust NevadaNews