Fighters to Sue UFC

REDDzone · Post #81 » by **REDDzone** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:38 pm

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ToddMartinMMA/status/544981289938333696[/tweet]

Cammo101 · Post #82 » by **Cammo101** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:49 pm

REDDzone wrote:[tweet]https://twitter.com/ToddMartinMMA/status/544981289938333696[/tweet]

As a not attorney, I agree. My hope though is that even if this is a loser, that it scares the UFC to give a little more on some things, and not always go with the scorched earth approach. That might be the best outcome of all. The UFC being brought down is not a good outcome, despite what some seem to think. Nor is the UFC not budging at all on anything ever.

REDDzone · Post #83 » by **REDDzone** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:59 pm

REDDzone wrote:I just read them make the claim that the ufc has kept 90% of the revenue from their events. How is it even possible to know that?

IF somehow true though, that's pretty nuts since most sports are closer to 50/50.

Wait I think I may have heard this wrong, I think they may have actually said that UFC controls more than 90% of the entire market share for mma revenue. Which would be pretty nuts although again, how would they know that?

REDDzone · Post #84 » by **REDDzone** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:03 pm

[tweet]https://twitter.com/brentbrookhouse/status/544960551600676864[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/brentbrookhouse/status/544966591109009409[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/brentbrookhouse/status/544981638820548608[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/MMASupremacy/status/544990014409822208[/tweet]

REDDzone · Post #85 » by **REDDzone** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:27 pm

The suit alleges that the UFC has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act via an illegal scheme to eliminate competition. The result of these tactics is a marketplace where fighters are only able to earn a fraction of what they would in a competitive marketplace (along with fighters being forced to give up the rights to their name and likeness in perpetuity...etc).

The primary lawfirms involved are Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc (recently in news for successful antitrust case against Apple, Google, Adobe other tech giants) - Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC (involved in $1billion+ victory against Dow Chemical and $500mil victory against Countrywide Financial Corporation) - Berger & Montague, P.C. It will also be taking place in the Bay Area in California. That's the home to Le and also a notoriously plaintiff friendly state in antitrust cases.

The suit singles out statements by UFC officials wherein they compare the promotion to the NFL as "the only game in town," but then draws important distinctions between the NFL and UFC in that multiple teams are bidding for the services of the athletes.

Also singled out are UFC practices such as not allowing sponsors in the cage if they'd sponsored rival fighters or events. Continuing the idea that the UFC has taken action to squash potentially competitive rivals, leading to a non-competitive marketplace which prevents fighters from being able to earn their worth as high level mixed martial artists.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/12/16/7 ... uit-vs-ufc

Also:

Jasen777 · Post #86 » by **Jasen777** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:05 am

REDDzone wrote:I just read them make the claim that the ufc has kept 90% of the revenue from their events. How is it even possible to know that?

There's been estimates that I think were about that. I posted one here, somewhere...

Post #87 » by **Headliner** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:18 am

How does the IRS not know how much the ufc keeps/makes off an event?
I don't get how they don't investigate that, and then we'd have a detailed, precise account of how much they make/keep per event.

REDDzone · Post #88 » by **REDDzone** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:11 am

Headliner wrote:How does the IRS not know how much the ufc keeps/makes off an event?
I don't get how they don't investigate that, and then we'd have a detailed, precise account of how much they make/keep per event.

The IRS may know, but they wouldn't share, right? UFC is a private company, no obligation to share any of that.

REDDzone · Post #89 » by **REDDzone** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 4:57 am

Dana is too busy on a private island vacationing for the next week to address any of this. Unless he gets the private jet to pick him up to come back early or something.

LOL, can't make this stuff up.

SDM · Post #90 » by **SDM** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:41 pm

REDDzone wrote:
SDM wrote:
REDDzone wrote:Greg Savage (the sherdog guy) just tweeted that he is at the presser and so far has seen Cung Le and Carlos Newton there.

BOOM. This guy. (and you too).

You listened to the Bisping/Chael podcast, didn't you?

Lol yes but IDK what that has to do with this bruh.

I might be misremembering it, but they were discussing how pissed Cung was at the UFC.

REDDzone · Post #91 » by **REDDzone** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:42 pm

Cammo101 wrote:As a not attorney, I agree.

Did you read the complaint?

I haven't gotten around to it yet but I will. Just curious if anyone else has.

Post #92 » by **Headliner** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:30 pm

The more I read about this, the more I think it doesn't have any legs.

"Another potential competitor, Bellator, is viewed within the MMA Industry - and by the UFC itself - as a minor league, a training ground for future UFC fighters, or as a place for former UFC fighters to compete after they have been released by the UFC," stated the lawsuit. "Bellator athletes lack significant public notoriety, in part because it is a `minor league,.' and in part because UFC refuses to co-promote with any of Bellator's fighters regardless of talent or merit, leaving Bellator unable to promote MMA events of relative significance. Bellator's bout purses, gate revenues, attendance figures, merchandise sales, television licensing fees and ad rates are minimal compared to those obtained by the UFC."

NZB2323 · Post #93 » by **NZB2323** » Wed Dec 17, 2014 4:26 pm

What I think and hope will come out of this is the fighters banding together and creating a union.

I don't see how this has legs. Yes, Dana runs his mouth, but a Judge is not going to side on behalf of the fighters because Dana said something stupid. There are other MMA organizations, and guys can always compete in 1 martial art. So what is really a monopoly? If there's only 1 theatre in town that plays Indie movies, is that theatre a monopoly when there are 5 other movie theatres in the town? The UFC competes with boxing, football, the Olympics, ect. as well as Bellator.

Furthermore, a company buying other companies isn't illegal. It can be blocked by congress or split up, but simply buying other companies is not an illegal act. Having a tombstone with those company's names is not an illegal act. Saying you killed a competitor is not an illegal act.

A union by far makes the most amount of sense. All legit American sports leagues have unions, and that way the fighters could negotiate about the things they care about on equal ground.

Post #94 » by **CPT** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:38 am

Best article I've seen about the case, for those looking to catch up.

http://www.si.com/mma/2014/12/16/ufc-an ... it-cung-le

REDDzone · Post #95 » by **REDDzone** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 3:24 am

CPT wrote:Best article I've seen about the case, for those looking to catch up.

http://www.si.com/mma/2014/12/16/ufc-an ... it-cung-le

One thing I've thought after every article/tweet/blog I've read on this subject...the ufc does not want this to go to discovery. Could a settlement offer come at any point I'm assuming? I'm guessing they make a motion to dismiss and if that doesn't go through they will want to settle pretty quick. No way they want to open their books. Lorenzo is on record stating that fighter pay makes up a similar ratio as other sports leagues (50/50). I personally don't believe it, and if my skepticism is warranted, they will want to keep their finances private.

I was listening to Chael being interviewed by frontrowbrian today, and he was saying that the UFC ppv buys are CONSTANTLY underestimated by 100s of thousands of buys every event by the most credible source (Meltzer). He said he knows this because he is privy to the numbers because his salary was tied to buys, and also because Dana would tell him the numbers.

Post #96 » by **CPT** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 5:58 am

Yeah, even if the biggest thing to come out of this is the UFC having to open their books, that would be huge.

Though at the same time, I'm not sure how important the size of the pie or the piece they are offering to fighters is if it still tastes better and is more filling than what the competitor can offer (did I stretch the pie analogy too far? not far enough?)

Jasen777 · Post #97 » by **Jasen777** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 6:49 am

CPT wrote:Though at the same time, I'm not sure how important the size of the pie or the piece they are offering to fighters is if it still tastes better and is more filling than what the competitor can offer (did I stretch the pie analogy too far? not far enough?)

But right now the fighters don't really know how much of the pie they are getting. If it's not a large slice that could encourage a hunger strike or at least negotiation for ice cream topping or better quality fruit fillings.

Post #98 » by **Headliner** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 12:51 pm

If they settle, couldn't a different group of fighters then create their own case and the UFC would go through this again?
There is no union, this is a case of individuals, they can't represent 'all' fighters because all fighters are not represented by a union or have signed a piece of paper saying this group represents them.

If the UFC could avoid future lawsuits by settling one lawsuit by random fighters claiming they represent the whole, they would have paid a group of fighters to create a claim and settle it for a million bucks long ago, shutting down the opportunity for fighters to sue in the future.

Maybe i'm wrong, but I don't logically see how it works.

REDDzone · Post #99 » by **REDDzone** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:51 pm

But presumably anyone who has ever fought in the ufc (just on American soil?) would be able to get part of the settlement dollars, right? Would the plaintiffs even get more? Also, its hard for me to believe that this won't lead to the ufc changing their business practices at least somewhat. If only to avoid the bad press alone.

REDDzone · Post #100 » by **REDDzone** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:52 pm

I remember somebody (not sure if it was Dana) once saying that a Tito/Ken ppv saved the ufc at one point. It would be ironic if strong bellator ratings due to Tito ortiz were the reason that this case was dismissed. Tito would have once again saved the ufc. He may not be the hero that they will ever want, but he is certainly the hero that they will always need. Tito.