News How is anyone not talking about the UFC Antitrust lawsuit?

[tucan89]

Just wait til Andrew Yang gets involved

 

[bref]

can anyone put what this means in simpler terms for the not so sharp sherbros as myself?

It means ol' Jon Fitch doesn't have to start doing adult films to make ends meet.

 

[RicardinhoPT]

It's a matter of time but I think this will still take years. I think it will happen though but I'm not sure if the result will be what we all think. Probably the big names will get paid even more and the less known fighters will get paid even less, just like in boxing

 

[Mesos]

View attachment 819271 UFC Antitrust Lawsuit: Judge Grants Class Action Status In Critical Win For Plaintiffs




https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulgi...-plaintiff-fighters-mma-news/?sh=8eda8be277cf

Big news indeed, UFC can appeal I think though. Also there is ways for them to drag there feet and delay delay delay this thing. This may take even more years to resolve

 

[Dreyga Hates You Sherbums]

A monopoly (from Greek μόνος, mónos, 'single, alone' and πωλεῖν, pōleîn, 'to sell') exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity.

That can arise from 4 things:

1) Geographically -- like in a small town
2) Government -- the laws say you're the only legal supplier
3) Tech -- intellectual property creates barriers to entry
4) Natural -- costs are lowered by having a single supplier (eg, it doesn't make sense to build 5 railroads)

So, monopolies occur to due to barriers to entry.

It's 2020. There's no barrier to entry for anyone. Anyone that wants to can literally just set up a ring in their backyard, and stream their fights. They don't have to sign those contracts; no one's forcing them. IMO, the value really does come from the UFC brand -- not the fighters. People mistake the fighters' low value and assume it must be because of monopoly or something. It's just their value is actually that low.

This is a MONOSONY lawsuit not a monopoly lawsuit.

 

[Jitter]

Yeah i don't see this going anywhere. The UFC is far from a monopoly. As for contacts fighters don't have to sign them so not sure how they can argue that. I would say the NFL is more of a monopoly, but they do have a players union. To me this like saying the CEO of a company makes 20mil / yr while the janitor gets paid $10 / hr. I do think fighters should be paid more but they know what they are getting into.

 

[kflo]

Yeah i don't see this going anywhere. The UFC is far from a monopoly. As for contacts fighters don't have to sign them so not sure how they can argue that. I would say the NFL is more of a monopoly, but they do have a players union. To me this like saying the CEO of a company makes 20mil / yr while the janitor gets paid $10 / hr. I do think fighters should be paid more but they know what they are getting into.

I think ultimately the main merits of the case and the exposure of the ufc is the tactics they used to exert their power. Not being a monopsony.

but we’ll see.

 

[the big marmot]

Nah, the fighters already lost in the image rights issue. They had no case so the judge tossed that out

And this case has nothing to do with the Ali Act at all. You are confused

they are all together in the same lawsuit

 

[GueseGuy]

Viacom would never dedicate that much of their resources to MMA. Bellator is nothing but a small side project to them. It’s was never meant to truly compete with the UFC only provide cheap content to their network

You don’t even know who Rumble Johnson is. Stop acting like you know anything at all. You’re a newbie. Your opinion means nothing on this matter. You have no idea Viacom’s history in mma.

 

[kflo]

Yeah i don't see this going anywhere. The UFC is far from a monopoly. As for contacts fighters don't have to sign them so not sure how they can argue that. I would say the NFL is more of a monopoly, but they do have a players union. To me this like saying the CEO of a company makes 20mil / yr while the janitor gets paid $10 / hr. I do think fighters should be paid more but they know what they are getting into.

The nfl has 32 franchises competing for the same talent though. That competition does lead to a market price for talent.

 

[kflo]

You don’t even know who Rumble Johnson is. Stop acting like you know anything at all. You’re a newbie. Your opinion means nothing on this matter. You have no idea Viacom’s history in mma.

And does bellator currently pay way above market for talent? And do you think they would if they became #1?

 

[Dreyga Hates You Sherbums]

I just don't see it. A monopsony arises when an entity is the sole purchaser of a good or service. In this case, that's the fighters' labor. If a fighter is really worth what they're claiming, who's stopping them from promoting and streaming their own fights literally in their backyard, and selling their labor directly to the consumer?

I was just clarifying.


From my understanding the fighter’s case leans on the UFC using illegal or a least excessive tactics to fix prices. Basically, the fighter claim the UFC limited their mobility to move between companies thus making the UFC the only seller of Elite fighters.


I’ve done a lot reading on the subject and honestly I tend to lean towards the UFC so far but there hasn’t been any hard evidence because we haven’t gotten that far. Though the actions of past employee Joe Silva maybe the smoking gun. We’ll need further investigation to substantiate rumors.

 

[JayE]

Yeah i don't see this going anywhere. The UFC is far from a monopoly. As for contacts fighters don't have to sign them so not sure how they can argue that. I would say the NFL is more of a monopoly, but they do have a players union. To me this like saying the CEO of a company makes 20mil / yr while the janitor gets paid $10 / hr. I do think fighters should be paid more but they know what they are getting into.

They absolutely do have a monopoly on elite MMA. For context, in the 1950s it was ruled that the International Boxing Club of New York constituted a monopoly of elite professional boxing when they promoted about 90% of championship bouts in boxing over less than 10 years, and the IBC of New York was subsequently broken up (the entire Ali Act is written with full knowledge that promotional monopolies on elite boxing are prohibited). The UFC titles in every division save men's 115 pound division are universally considered the championship titles for each weight class. Going off this precedent, there is no question the UFC has a monopoly on elite MMA. The pertinent questions would be if they took part in anti-competitive practices or if this monopoly had adverse effects (the fighters claim damages that because of this monopoly on elite MMA, there exists a monopsony - essentially the UFC are the only viable buyer for the services of elite MMA fighters). Dana has actually bragged about their anti-competitive practices in the past, but that's another matter.

I do agree that this probably doesn't go anywhere, though, especially with the way anti-trust legislation is treated these days, and the ideological makeup of the courts.

Also, the NFL is a monopoly and this has been legally established. They have an exemption, though.

 

[Dreyga Hates You Sherbums]

You don’t even know who Rumble Johnson is. Stop acting like you know anything at all. You’re a newbie. Your opinion means nothing on this matter. You have no idea Viacom’s history in mma.

Please enlighten me then

 

[Sweater of AV]

And does bellator currently pay way above market for talent? And do you think they would if they became #1?

19% revenue sharing by the biggest MMA organization in the world.

Keep waiting for threads to defend Uncle Goof and degrade fighters. You're a gem.

 

[Dreyga Hates You Sherbums]

They absolutely do have a monopoly on elite MMA. For context, in the 1950s it was ruled that the International Boxing Club of New York constituted a monopoly of elite professional boxing when they promoted about 90% of championship bouts in boxing over less than 10 years, and the IBC of New York was subsequently broken up (the entire Ali Act is written with full knowledge that promotional monopolies on elite boxing are prohibited). The UFC titles in every division save men's 115 pound division are universally considered the championship titles for each weight class. Going off this precedent, there is no question the UFC has a monopoly on elite MMA. The pertinent questions would be if they took part in anti-competitive practices or if this monopoly had adverse effects (the fighters claim damages that because of this monopoly on elite MMA, there exists a monopsony - essentially the UFC are the only viable buyer for the services of elite MMA fighters). Dana has actually bragged about their anti-competitive practices in the past, but that's another matter.

I do agree that this probably doesn't go anywhere, though, especially with the way anti-trust legislation is treated these days, and the ideological makeup of the courts.

Except this isn’t a monopoly trail it’s a MONOSONY trial

Big difference

 

[FedorGOAT]

Shills are coming out of woodwork.

 

[HAWTRIDDUM]

Explains why they are currently hemorrhaging fighters

 

[JayE]

Except this isn’t a monopoly trail it’s a MONOSONY trial

Big difference

Which is mentioned in the post.

 

[kflo]

19% revenue sharing by the biggest MMA organization in the world.

Keep waiting for threads to defend Uncle Goof and degrade fighters. You're a gem.

you following me around little fella?

Anyway. This thread is about information and discussion. If you want to discuss feel free.

you didn’t actually address the post. As usual. But you can.

and quote me degrading fighters.