I dont think they are arguing that nobody else is able to pay the fighters, I believe the argument they are making is against current restrictive contracts, using leverage to run past rivals out of business, and the situations the UFC has put the fighters when they do not have a legitimate competition. I think what they are mostly against how the UFC's business practices hurts the fighters to line their pockets. But according to Nate Quarry, they are willing to settle out of court if they get monetary compensation and pass legislation against future restrictive fighter contracts. In other words, they want for fighters to have a way out of their contracts and not be locked in for long periods of time. They were particularly shitting on the idea of contracts extending for a couple years every time a fighter doesnt accept a fight and all those shenanigans. I think they will eventually settle out of court because Quarry seemed very open to this thing not going for 4 - 6 more years (like it will end up going if this goes to the end) but I think it would cost the UFC a pretty penny to settle, plus the new less restrictive contracts, plus the PR nightmare they would go through if they unseal the court documents.