UFC hit with 2 new antitrust lawsuits filed by former fighters

UFC Fight Night: Davis v Bader — Phil Davis | Photo by Michael Campanella/Zuffa LLC/Zuffa LLC via Getty Images

The UFC has been served with two new antitrust lawsuits filed by fighters while another antitrust lawsuit continues to play its way out in court.

The latest antitrust lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Nevada on Thursday is led by former UFC light heavyweight Phil Davis. Berger Montague—the same law firm that represented fighters in a recently settled antitrust lawsuit against the UFC as well as the ongoing lawsuit originally filed by fighters such as Kajan Johnson—is leading the charge with this latest lawsuit as well.

“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 the fighters said in a press release.

“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 newest antitrust lawsuit isn’t seeking any financial damages, but instead the fighters are looking for “an injunction to prevent the UFC from continuing its allegedly illegal scheme” with hopes that a successful argument in court could lead to “create the 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.”

“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.

The lawsuit led by Davis and others seeks “injunctive relief in the form of changes to [the UFC’s] business practices, including the elimination of restrictive and/or exclusionary clauses from [the UFC’s] agreements with professional MMA fighters, the elimination of arbitration clauses and class action waivers” from UFC contracts and requiring an insertion to all existing and future contracts regarding a “sunset provision” that allows fighters the option to “terminate the contract with no penalty within one year after its execution.”

The second lawsuit filed against the UFC on May 23, led by veteran fighter Misha Cirkunov, specifically addresses the fighters who signed contracts with the UFC that included a clause regarding rules on arbitration or a class action waiver.

There were originally two antitrust lawsuits filed against the UFC—one led by fighters such as Cung Le that covered fighters from 2010 through 2017 and the second lawsuit filed by fighters such as Johnson that covered athletes from 2017 to the present. The first antitrust lawsuit that was initially filed all the way back in 2014 was settled with the UFC agreeing to a $375 million settlement.

The second lawsuit is still winding its way through the courts, but the UFC recently filed a motion to deny class certification or strike class allegations “on the ground that some class members had signed contracts with Zuffa that contained arbitration clauses and/or class-action waivers.”

The new antitrust lawsuit led by Cirkunov and other fighters attempts to remedy that issue by specifically representing the athletes who signed contracts that contained the clause regarding arbitration or class action waivers and prevent further delays in the original lawsuit filed by Johnson and other athletes who competed in the UFC.

Per the language of the lawsuit:

“Although Plaintiff disagrees with Defendants’ position, in order to (a) avoid unnecessary delay in Johnson, (b) ensure that the invalidity and unenforceability of UFC Fighters’ arbitration agreements and class action waivers may be adjudicated, Misha Cirkunov brings this case on behalf of those UFC Fighters, like himself, who fought in a bout promoted by the UFC from July 1, 2017 until the illicit scheme alleged herein ceases, and who signed a contract with Zuffa LLC that contained a clause purporting to require disputes between the fighter and Zuffa (and/or its parent companies or affiliates) to be submitted to individual arbitration (an “Arbitration Clause”) and/or a clause purporting to waive any right to participate in a class action”

The Cirkunov lawsuit seeks damages as well as an order invalidating the arbitration or class action waiver clause in existing UFC contracts as well as eliminating those clauses in future deals.

Judge Richard Boulware, who has overseen the two previous antitrust lawsuits, has a hearing set for June 3 to rule on several motions related to the Johnson antitrust lawsuit including that motion to deny class certification directly addressed by the new lawsuit filed by Cirkunov and other fighters.

UFC hit with 2 new antitrust lawsuits filed by former fighters

MMA Fighting – All Posts