Phil Davis, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, said he’s “proud to stand up for professional MMA fighters to unlock the UFC’s stranglehold on the entire sport.”
The UFC is facing a new antitrust class-action lawsuit that argues the promotion’s monosopsony powers financially harm all professional MMA fighters – not just those under contract with the UFC – and calls for an end to “the UFC’s scheme.”
Berger Montague, the lawfirm that secured a $375 million settlement against the UFC in February, filed the lawsuit Thursday in the U.S. District Court of Nevada, with former UFC and current PFL fighter Phil Davis named as the plaintiff. Zuffa LLC, TKO Group Holdings, which owns the UFC, and Endeavor Group Holdings are listed as the defendants.
Unlike the Le v. Zuffa lawsuit that was settled in February, the Davis lawsuit seeks to be certified with all-non UFC fighters represented and does not seek monetary damages. In a written statement, Berger Montague said it seeks an injunction to prevent the UFC “from continuing its allegedly illegal scheme” and aims to “create conditions for free and fair competition among professional MMA promotions which, in turn, would bolster their careers and pay of professional MMA fighters across the sport.”
“I am proud to stand up for professional MMA fighters to unlock the UFC’s stranglehold on the entire sport,” Davis said in a statement.
According to the lawsuit, “the UFC’s scheme impairs professional MMA promotions like PFL 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 substanstially forecloses competition in the markets relevant to this case. The UFC’s scheme further restrains top-level fighters such as Mr. Davis from applying their trade by preventing these fighters from competing for titles in a free and unfettered market. As a result of the UFC’s scheme, rival MMA promotions have been foreclosed and, as a result, would-be top-level MMA fighters at PFL and other non-UFC MMA promotions have had their careers impaired and their pay suppressed below the compensation that would prevail in a more competitive market.”
The lawsuit seeks to eliminate an array of restrictive clauses from UFC contracts and requests that fighters have the ability to terminate their contracts without penalty after one year.
“The suit alleges that the UFC impairs the ability of would-be UFC competitors to attract a critical mass of top-level MMA fighters necessary to compete with the UFC at the top tier of the sport,” Eric Cramer, lead attorney for Berger Montague, said in a statement. “We intend to prove that the UFC engaged in a predatory scheme to undermine would-be competitors to the UFC, which the suit claims had the effect of maintaining and enhancing the UFC’s dominance, and thereby impairing the careers and pay not just of the UFC’s own fighters, but also of professional MMA fighters like Mr. Davis competing for MMA promotions across the MMA industry.”
The Le v. Zuffa case covered UFC fighters who competed between 2010 to 2017. While that was still unfolding another lawsuit, Johnson v. Zuffa, representing fighters from 2017 to present day was filed and is still ongoing.
The Davis lawsuit comes on the heels of another filed by former UFC light heavyweight Misha Cirkunov to represent fighters who have signed the most recent and restrictive UFC contracts.
