UFC firmly disagrees with judge's antitrust settlement rejection; plaintiffs 'keeping an open mind'

The UFC is not pleased with a judge’s decision to deny the settlement agreement that would have marked the end of its near decade-long antitrust lawsuit filed by a group of former fighters.

Hours after Judge Richard Boulware of the United States district court of Nevada denied a $335 million settlement agreement proposed by both sides of the legal aisle, the UFC, through parent company TKO Group Holdings Inc., issued a statement expressing its displeasure with the decision.

“We obviously disagree with this ruling and believe it disregards the expertise of counsel from both sides, as well as that of an accomplished and expert mediator – all of whom have decades of experience in antitrust case law.

“It prevents the athletes from receiving what they have argued is in their best interest and unwinds an extensively negotiated settlement that, in the plaintiffs’ counsel’s own words, ‘would far surpass the typical antitrust class action settlement’ and ‘is an excellent result for the Settlement Classes by all traditional measures.’

“Additionally, by taking the unusual step of denying the settlement at this preliminary approval stage, the Judge is also denying the athletes their right to be heard during this pivotal moment in the case.

“As we have said throughout this process, we believe strongly in the merits of our cases and are evaluating all our options – including, without limitation, an appeal – and have initiated discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel who have expressed a willingness to engage in separate settlement discussions for the Le and Johnson cases.”

Plaintiffs’ attorney Eric L. Cramer told MMA Junkie in a written statement he is focused on the future, whether that means a trial or reaching a new settlement agreement.

“Plaintiffs respect the Court’s ruling rejecting the proposed global resolution of the Le and Johnson cases, and accordingly will be moving forward full speed on all fronts as directed by the Court. We now plan on ramping up preparations in Le for the imminent trial, and also will begin pressing forward with discovery in Johnson. At the same time, with the interests of our clients and the classes at the forefront, we are also open to reengaging with the UFC to see whether the parties could reach a settlement building off of the momentum achieved in the prior settlement, but working to satisfy the Court’s expressed concerns with that resolution.

“In particular, to eliminate several of the issues expressed by the Court regarding the prior proposed combined settlement of Le and Johnson, Plaintiffs believe the best path forward, if a new settlement becomes a possibility, is to attempt to resolve the two cases separately, focusing first on the Le case given its imminent trial date, and using the progress made to date as a jumping off point for further discussions.

“Thus, while Plaintiffs’ focus will be on preparing for trial, we are keeping an open mind with respect to a potential new resolution. At root, Plaintiffs want nothing more and nothing less than justice for the professional MMA fighters we have represented for more than ten years in the most efficient and effective way possible.”

Of the two coinciding lawsuits, the first (Le vs. Zuffa) has a tentative trial date of Oct. 28. A status conference for both Le vs. Zuffa and Johnson vs. Zuffa is scheduled for Aug. 19 and could result in a later official state date.

Judge Boulware had the ability to mark the end of the lawsuit had he approved the agreement the two parties reached in June. However, various concerns including the monetary damage compensation was insufficient, lack of injunctive relief, and more led him to reject the settlement, despite pushback from both parties.

Should the lawsuit go to trial, the former UFC fighters would need a unanimous vote from the jury. If they did not receive one, they could walk away with nothing. If they were victorious, they could look at years of appeals before any relief, whether monetary or injunctive, comes.

The Le lawsuit began nearly a decade ago. Five separate class-action lawsuits between December 2014 and March 2015 were eventually consolidated into one (Le, et. al), with a second separate lawsuit filed in 2021 (Johnson, et. al).

The lawsuits centered around alleged violations of the Sherman Act. Class-action lawsuits allow for treble damages, meaning the court could’ve tripled the amount it required the UFC to pay.

The group of former fighters claimed the UFC contract structure and business practices suppressed fighters’ abilities to negotiate and explore other promotional options, creating a monopsony. The efforts were headed by former fighters Cung Le, Kyle Kingsbury, Kajan Johnson, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, and others.