Fighters to Sue UFC

REDDzone · Post #1 » by **REDDzone** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

http://sbnation.com/e/7151930

We have been able to confirm that the suit will be based on accusations that the UFC has violated antitrust laws by abusing their "market power" to intentionally and systematically cripple the free market. Several of the individuals we spoke to compared it to the recent San Jose hi-tech employee and NCAA antitrust cases. The manager of one high profile fighter who wished to remain anonymous has informed Bloody Elbow that the plaintiffs will be seeking damages for potentially hundreds of millions of dollars due to reduced fight purses, video game rights fees, and other sources of income. The final amount could even be greater, with statutes awarding "treble damages" in antitrust cases.

Another manager referred to the pending suit as "a game changer."

According to our sources the fighters are represented by three or four large firms renowned for antitrust litigation. The firms named to us have won major class action antitrust cases against bigger targets than the UFC, including against those in the banking, credit, technology and pharmaceutical industries.

Jasen777 · Post #2 » by **Jasen777** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:46 pm

Interesting. I'm no lawyer but I did think the Reebok deal was probably a massive contract violation (changing terms when someone's locked into a long term contract). But this is a much bigger case.

REDDzone · Post #3 » by **REDDzone** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:56 pm

We've had false alarms before, but the media on twitter is acting like this one is a nuke.

Susan · Post #4 » by **Susan** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:23 pm

Glad this is happening. Dana & the UFC keep on stomping on fighters rights left and right, the fighters have to finally fight back (for lack of better term).

Post #5 » by **CPT** » Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:32 am

Wow. Looking forward to seeing where this story goes.

cowboyronnie · Post #6 » by **cowboyronnie** » Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:07 am

I'm looking forward to some schadenfreude. I'm not looking forward to every asshat on internet forums weighing in w their legal assessment of a "monopoly" or the usefulness of such legislation.

Jasen777 · Post #7 » by **Jasen777** » Sun Dec 14, 2014 4:24 am

cowboyronnie wrote: or the usefulness of such legislation.

It's going to be somewhere between fighters getting a fair share / making the sport as popular globally as soccer and fighters losing money / the death of the sport.

Post #8 » by **blkout** » Sun Dec 14, 2014 4:24 am

Surely there's got to be a precedent somewhere in sports sponsorship that the UFC can use to win this.

Susan · Post #9 » by **Susan** » Sun Dec 14, 2014 6:15 pm

blkout wrote:Surely there's got to be a precedent somewhere in sports sponsorship that the UFC can use to win this.

The fighters are considered independent contractors. I really doubt that there has ever been anything like this before.

Bernman · Post #10 » by **Bernman** » Sun Dec 14, 2014 6:52 pm

It has to be breach of some contracts to dramatically change the sponsorship landscape after fighters have already signed.

In most cases though, managers are so neutered in this sport by the UFC MONOPOLY (I guess I'm going to be that asshat and not get into the pedantic semantic of what is technically a monopoly, monopsony, etc.) that they have no leverage whatsoever for independent negotiations on matters such as sponsorships. If the plaintiffs have evidence, beyond the current circumstantial type that WSOF was created by Zuffa and co. to sabotage the competition, they have grounds to win a lot of money for an antitrust violation. I really hope they do have harder evidence, because you can connect the dots to figure out that's probably something Zuffa did.

As an aside, for fighters who are losing serious money from short sponsorships, I wonder if they can compensate thru the use of temporary tattoos. We've seen it in boxing. Theoretically you own your body, so how can they prevent you from having something affixed to it unless it's obscene. If you get a permanent tattoo, is it OK then? If they are going to ban fighters with permanent tattoos, there would go most of the fighters in the sport.

REDDzone · Post #11 » by **REDDzone** » Sun Dec 14, 2014 6:55 pm

My take from what I was reading yesterday about this is that the reebok deal is kind of just the cherry on top. The fighters have other complaints.

Bernman · Post #12 » by **Bernman** » Sun Dec 14, 2014 6:58 pm

Of course they do. I hope they they listed them electronically, otherwise they would have destroyed a whole forest.

Cammo101 · Post #13 » by **Cammo101** » Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:32 pm

I'm no lawyer and I'm not saying the UFC doesn't need to change some of how they handle their business, but I have a really hard time seeing the UFC as a monopoly. Two other MMA companies in North America have national television deals as I type this. I think you could make a pretty good argument than MMA as less a monopoly right now than it has ever been.

I look at a company like WWE and they are much closer to being a monopoly than the UFC is. I think a fighter's union may have been the better way to go about this if the goal is for change in the way fighters are compensated.

Post #14 » by **CPT** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:18 am

Cammo101 wrote:I'm no lawyer and I'm not saying the UFC doesn't need to change some of how they handle their business, but I have a really hard time seeing the UFC as a monopoly. Two other MMA companies in North America have national television deals as I type this. I think you could make a pretty good argument than MMA as less a monopoly right now than it has ever been.

I look at a company like WWE and they are much closer to being a monopoly than the UFC is. I think a fighter's union may have been the better way to go about this if the goal is for change in the way fighters are compensated.

Please make the argument that MMA is less of a monopoly right now than 10 years ago, when Pride was still around.

Post #15 » by **CPT** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:22 am

No word yet on the fighters involved?

Could be retired guys too, right? Randy? Tito? GSP? Fitch?

I mean, Nate Diaz goes without saying.

Jasen777 · Post #16 » by **Jasen777** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 1:42 am

CPT wrote:I mean, Nate Diaz goes without saying.

He was gonna to sue the UFC, but then he got high.

Cammo101 · Post #17 » by **Cammo101** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 3:58 pm

Here's your first potential name...

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/12/15/7 ... gainst-ufc

REDDzone · Post #18 » by **REDDzone** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:08 pm

Cammo101 wrote:Here's your first potential name...

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/12/15/7 ... gainst-ufc

Actually, doesn't this make Sherk the one and only name we can completely mark off the list? lol. His tweets, to me, read like he doesn't know anything about this. Whereas the original bloodyelbow article makes it seem like there are several fighters already involved.

Cammo101 · Post #19 » by **Cammo101** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:42 pm

REDDzone wrote:
Cammo101 wrote:Here's your first potential name...

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/12/15/7 ... gainst-ufc

Actually, doesn't this make Sherk the one and only name we can completely mark off the list? lol. His tweets, to me, read like he doesn't know anything about this. Whereas the original bloodyelbow article makes it seem like there are several fighters already involved.

I meant that it looked like he was about to add his name to the list.

REDDzone · Post #20 » by **REDDzone** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:10 pm

For sure. I'm just so curious to find out who else. The articles made it seem like the case will be filed very shortly, as in this week or next.

Merry Xmas Dana!