Judge rejects $335 million UFC antitrust lawsuit settlement, sets trial date for October

The $335 million settlement in a pair of class action lawsuits against the UFC is dead. Judge Richard Boulware did not approve the settlement on Tuesday and set a tentative trial date for the Le vs. Zuffa case of Oct. 28 and a status conference for both cases for Aug. 19.

The settlement for the two class action antitrust suits (Le vs. Zuffa and Johnson vs. Zuffa) was reached in March. The judge was immediately skeptical of accepting the settlement, suggesting he felt the UFC was getting off too light on payout to the fighters in the Le case and without significant changes to UFC’s restrictive contracts in the Johnson case.

The antitrust suits, which claimed the UFC used practices that stifled fighter ability to negotiate with other promotions and locked fighters into restrictive contracts, which combined to suppress fighter pay, were seeking up to $1.6 billion in damages.

“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,” UFC said in a statement.

“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.”

That $335 million settlement would have been split among the fighters who participated in UFC fights during periods covering both suits — Le vs. Zuffa covering 2010 to 2017 and Johnson vs. Zuffa covering the period after 2017 — after any fees are paid to the plaintiffs’ lawyers. Initially filed as five separate lawsuits between December 2014 and March 2015, the cases were merged into the Le vs. Zuffa case, with the Johnson vs. Zuffa case being filed in 2021. The payout would have also been proportionate to the amount each fighter earned during their fights and amount of fights in the promotion.

The denial of the settlement was opposed by both sides, with the plaintiffs arguing that the settlement would have provided an immediate financial boost to fighters who needed the money.

Both sides are now in a bind, with a loss being devastating to either side. The UFC could be forced to pay out billions and change their contract structures with a loss in a jury trial while the fighters could be left with nothing if the ruling — which must be a unanimous jury ruling — does not go their way. Also, the UFC would be able to file appeals should they lose, meaning it could be years before the fighters see a dime, even if they win the case and subsequent appeals.

In this way, Judge Boulware’s refusal to accept the agreed-upon deal is a lose-lose for both sides.

Both sides could revisit negotiations for a settlement in hopes of finding a deal Judge Boulware would accept, but that settlement would need to not only significantly increase the monetary payout, but also see structural changes to UFC contracts, which would include making free agency much easier for fighters who wish to raise their market value after competing in the Octagon. The contract changes alone may make UFC hesitant to engage in further talks and instead take their chances that the fighters’ case won’t be strong enough to hold up in a jury trial.