My guess is they would go by the last amount each fighter got payed to fight. At least the disclosed amount.If Zuffa loses this lawsuit, are damages paid to just the plaintiffs, or all the fighters who suffered damages? If it's the latter, how would a judge determine how much each fighter deserves?
Trump doesnt have any power. His own advisors ignore him like some crazy old uncle.Bet Dana is blowing Donald Trump as we speak
We don't need an expert to figure out that the workers were underpaid.
All you need to know is basic math.
NO ONE would have paid $4.2 Billion for something that wasn't worth that....Without ALL the fighters that performed time and time again, Lorenzo and Frank would still be walking around the casino and Dana would still be a Bell Hop.
THIS lawsuit is exactly what is wrong with capitalism. The people up top believe it is possible to work 300X harder than another human.
Regular people have no problem with higher ups getting paid more money. It is when it gets into Dana,Frank and Lorenzo territory, does it become totally lopsided and unfair.
Both sides need each other.
Utter nonsense. Who are these contenders that the UFC is signing and shelving? The only guy I'm aware of who's been complaining (and has a legit gripe) is Leo Santos.More than anything, this is what most logical backers of this lawsuit are focused on. The UFC did have a very bloated roster for many years. They were aggressive in signing anyone and everyone that was deemed competitive and talented. As soon as the lawsuit was filed, they suddenly started to let some of these fighters slip away.
It is one thing to be savvy in business, quite another to be signing as much talent as they can, but shelving them for long periods without fights in order to maintain control over the top tier of the sport. Actions like this are not deemed fair practice in business. I support the plaintiffs on this aspect of the claim.
Math, you say?
The mathematical law that shows why wealth flows to the 1%
It isn't unfair. They gambled, and won.
Taking it away would be unfair.
If you can prove that they artificially limited your earning potential through market manipulation and other practices, yes.
Great link
Very interesting
Apparently the UFC only paid the athletes 17% of total revenues whithin the 6 year period, compared to other sports which pay at least 50% to the athletes.
UFC are crooks.
The fighters still deserve to be paid. The UFC could've afforded to pay much more than they did while still maintaining a healthy profit margin.When those other sports were starting out they paid a hell of a lot less than 50%. They paid next to nothing.
It took heavy investment to make MMA profitable, which the guys fighting now had nothing to do with.
That's what I meant by vetted at the front end. Contracts are all about risk control. But this is not my thing, as I said, so I'm just guessing at standard practice and have zero clue what terms parties might want in this narrower context.This is in no way true. Who bears the financial exposure for litigation (be it current, pending, or future) is generally spelled out in excruciating detail in the purchase agreement.
I own freight brokerage franchises. Over the years, I have both bought and sold 3 or 4. The fine print regarding financial exposure for litigation (both mine and theirs) encompasses 18 pages of a 150 page agreement. And there are several fewer 0's involved with my transactions than this one.
Trust me, this eventuality was well covered in the purchase agreement. How it was covered I have no idea, but it was most assuredly covered. I highly doubt WME will be bearing the full brunt of a big verdict.
Wow I had to take a second look at that number. Looks like things have picked up steam in a serious way. The people saying the fertittas got out at the right time maybe right after all.
That's what I meant by vetted at the front end. Contracts are all about risk control. But this is not my thing, as I said, so I'm just guessing at standard practice and have zero clue what terms parties might want in this narrower context.
But I'd be surprised if UFC-WME is full-stop indemnified by Zuffa (whomever that would be now) for ALL costs arising from litigation. But then again the antitrust suit predates WME's purchase...
Actually, I haven't read any of the public filings in this case. Probably will do so in May. This question should be addressed there.
Nice, thanks Frankie.As an FYI, WME & investors bought Zuffa which is the parent company of UFC