Nearly ten years after launching a legal battle against the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), over 1,000 fighters—both present and former—are poised to receive payments from a settlement pool totaling $260 million. This settlement was recently preliminarily approved by federal judge Richard F. Boulware, marking the latest development in the long-standing case of Le, et al v Zuffa LLC.
This lawsuit accused the UFC of anti-competitive practices, including controlling fighter contracts and suppressing wages. Initially filed back in 2014 by several former fighters, including Cung Le and Jon Fitch, the case sought to challenge the UFC’s hold over mixed martial arts (MMA) and its influence on fighter compensation. Now, with the settlement impending, affected fighters can expect payments to be distributed starting next June, 2024.
Judge Boulware’s acceptance of the settlement is poised to bring closure to the initial class-action lawsuit, which targeted UFC’s business model and its restrictive contracts. The settlement funds represent part of a larger $375 million agreement related to two class-action lawsuits, with the latter group, dubbed Johnson, et al v Zuffa LLC, still actively pursuing additional claims concerning UFC’s contractual practices and the possible need for reforms.
The UFC, founded in 1993, has grown under the leadership of president Dana White, who helped turn it from struggling beginnings to become the world’s preeminent MMA promotion. It currently boasts more than 600 fighters from roughly 80 countries. The organization transformed significantly after being acquired by Zuffa LLC, and later by entertainment giant Endeavor for $4.2 billion, which vaulted its taxable value to over $12 billion.
The depth of the fighters' claims stems from the UFC’s dominance and consolidation strategies. Over the years, UFC absorbed several competing organizations, leveraging its position to impose restrictive contract terms on fighters. The allegations included accusations of stifling competition and paying fighters only around 20% of the revenue—a stark comparison to other major American sports leagues, where players commonly receive around half of the league’s earnings.
During the process of litigations, the UFC’s attorneys consistently maintained the company’s innocence, even challenging the nature of the suit itself. Notably, the UFC refrained from outright admitting any wrongdoing, emphasizing their desire to avoid the unpredictability and financial burden of a jury trial. They were initially slated to face the defending claims before the judge requested more substantial damages to disburse to the fighters.
Originally, the proposed settlement amount faced criticism from Judge Boulware, who believed it would provide insufficient compensation. He advocated for figures reflecting potentially life-altering changes for the athletes involved. This led to additional negotiations, resulting in the current $260 million pool, which, albeit hefty, was deemed more equitable based on the fighters’ declarations filed with the court.
The disbursement from the settlement will vary among fighters, as it’s structured based on several factors, including individual earnings and contributions to the UFC during the classified period of 2010-to-2017. Estimates suggest some fighters could receive over $1 million, with hundreds more landing payouts exceeding $100,000. This agreement is significant, especially when considering the historical precedent it sets for “[worker-side monopsonization](https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/players-share-of-revenue-can-go-as-high-as-48-8-percent),” which could have broader ramifications well beyond the sport of MMA.
With Judge Boulware’s recent ruling, numerous factors came to bear. The emotional weight and gravity of the fighters' shared experiences played heavily on the judicial decision. Some plaintiffs shared compelling personal narratives, illustrating the financial and emotional struggles faced by many of these athletes during their careers. Boulware noted the volume and impact of these fighter testimonials as pivotal to his determination. Notably, this settlement is viewed as precedent-setting, allowing athletes within this category to benefit more than any prior similar class-action claims.
Fighters from the 2010 to 2017 era are choosing this settlement route primarily due to the precarious nature of pursuing the case to full jury trial. Winning at trial could have potentially opened the door to unforeseen delays and hurdles, including appeals from the UFC. The current class members secured 25% more than they would have under earlier agreements and received roughly 70% of the total compensation the UFC distributed during the entire class adjudicated period.
The Johnson case, meanwhile, remains active, still deliberated separately, but incorporated fighters from the earlier settlements. Fighters involved there hold possibilities of additional damages and potentially broader changes to contracting practices within the UFC.
The prospect of such settlements heralds significant shifts for fighter compensation structures within UFC and possibly ignites changes across combat sports. From insights entrenched within litigation, this settlement signifies not just financial recompense but also sparks questions about equity labor policies and competitiveness within the industry. Fighters have long battled for fair pay against the organization’s immense financial weight, and what they extract from these legal standings could set the tone for upcoming negotiations, contracts, and the future of professional fighting.
Should similar trends emerge from the Johnson lawsuit, the ramifications may extend well beyond future UFC contracts and revenue shares, creating ripples across all professional sports reliant on labor and performance contracts. This case is one more step toward transparency and fairness, shaping how fighters may be treated by employers and how sports leagues develop financially responsible and equitable systems moving forward.
Regardless of the ultimate outcomes, the UFC’s decision to settle implies acknowledgment of pressures mounting from within and the outside scrutiny stemming from years of discontent among fighters. While organizers may claim innocence, the willingness to rethink their business models under legal duress could create new pathways for different contractual relationships within MMA.
What could arise from this settlement extends beyond just monetary compensation; it is pivotal for fighters asserting their rights and leveraging their experiences for future gains—both personal and collective—as the evolution of combat sports continues to evolve alongside cultural landmarks.
