LAS VEGAS (CN) — A federal judge on Wednesday denied a motion to dismiss a class action involving the Ultimate Fighting Championship, ruling the companies that own the mixed martial arts enterprise should respond to monopoly claims.
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Boulware said that Endeavor Group Holdings, which owns Zuffa — UFC’s parent company — must present evidence about the claims. Ruling from the bench, the judge said he would oversee the discovery process.
The plaintiffs, individuals who fought in a bout promoted by the UFC, accuse it of eliminating competition from other MMA promoters by stymying their access to top-ranked athletes. They say in their suit, filed in 2021, that UFC placed severe restrictions on fighters, stopping them from fighting for others both during and after their time at UFC.
That led to UFC fighters receiving a fraction of what they would have garnered in a competitive market, the plaintiffs say.
Endeavor pushed back, arguing there’s no valid argument supporting the case. It said in court documents that it has no connection to the claims of monopsony — a market situation with only one buyer. Endeavor itself is only mentioned in one short paragraph in the amended complaint.
“In 2021, they entered a record-setting deal with ESPN and ESPN+,” said Josh Davis, an attorney for plaintiff Kajan Johnson. “This played a role in Endeavor building a monopoly in MMA.”
The other named plaintiffs are Clarence Dollaway and Tristan Connelly.
“They acted by inflating prices for its events, promotions, and other dealings,” added Davis. “Endeavor did the same thing with their deal with ESPN, which decreased output. Decreased output means less fights and less pay for the fighters.”
Bill Isaacson, an attorney for Zuffa, argued that the agreement with ESPN was not an anticompetitive act.
“UFC would produce the output for the contract,” said Isaacson. “There are also the producers, the performance centers, and other entities that have no direct connection regarding output for UFC and its parent company, Endeavor. I don’t think the law extends to antitrust injury.”
The companies noted that UFC has produced countless events and promotions, even when owned by Endeavor. Additionally, they argue the plaintiffs have no valid argument about Endeavor’s monopoly power and instead cling to the claim of its stranglehold on the mixed martial arts business.
The plaintiffs said Endeavor hasn’t produced any documents pertaining to its anticompetitive defense, and it’s refused to participate in the discovery process in response to a pair of requests.
The judge said the requested documents must be produced in the next 10 days.
The class action is similar to one filed in 2014 that accuses the UFC of violating antitrust laws by paying their fighters far less than what they were owed. It also claimed the UFC got an unfair advantage through years of anticompetitive tactics and “monopolizing” schemes in the mixed martial arts industry.
The UFC argued it invested in mixed martial arts while pointing to rival promotions emerging over the past three decades.
The 2014 action involved a class from December 2010 to June 2017. The latest class action affects fighters promoted by the UFC starting on July 1, 2017.
Parties reached a $375 million settlement in the 2014 action last September. It exceeded a proposed $335 million settlement Boulware rejected last summer. The settlement received final approval on Feb. 6.