Jan 20, 2016 - UFC lawsuit developments

[JosephDredd]

I hadn't heard anything about the UFC lawsuit for awhile so I went asearching and found these two articles. Neither turned up when I did a search on the forum, so I thought I'd post them. Now to go see if War Machine is still alive and complaining about how the world done him wrong.



UFC files official Answer denying anti-trust claims. These are hilarious because the UFC has to admit such juvenile things as that they stood in front of a WORLD FUCKING DOMINATION sign and Dana uploaded himself holding a tombstone with rival organizations as he called himself the Grim Reaper. The judge made a point of noting that these smacked of monopolistic and monopsonistic conduct.

Lots of other things discussed, really interesting. UFC seems to be planting the seeds for a few specific anti-trust arguments in the future.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/1/2...-files-answer-denying-fighter-claims-mma-news





Six issues the plaintiffs/defendants need to sort out before moving forward:

1. Custodians: Whether Plaintiffs should be permitted to add 3 custodians to replace Bryan Johnston, Sonja McKinney and Michael Pine.

2. Search Terms: Whether and to what extent search terms should be used.

3. Relevant Time Frame: What Relevant Time Period should apply to four of Zuffa's Requests for Production.

4. Non-MMA Related Income/Compensation: Whether Plaintiffs should be required to produce documents regarding income and compensation from activities unrelated to Mixed Martial Arts.

5. Medical and Drug-Test Records: Whether Plaintiffs should be required to produce documents relating to the reasons for any tolling or extension of their contracts, including suspensions for the use of performance-enhancing drugs or extensions for injuries.

6. Protective Order: Whether the Revised Protective Order should allow a designation of "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" for documents of a medical or highly personal nature from the files of athletes.

More details in the article. Some of these disagreements are really interesting.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/1/2...status-update-six-issues-strikefarce-mma-news

 

[trident]

I am not in favor of large corporations holding majority shares of a market, and i think UFC fighters should be paid considerably more than they are, but there is a big difference between a sports league and something like a, lets just say a cable company.

Is the NFL a monopoly? Is MLB? I have a much bigger problem with Comcast being the only show in town than the UFC.

Also, you have to consider that the UFC has been built from the ground up, its not a public utility or necssasity.

Statements like WORLD FUCKING DOMINATION, while immature ar best, is really little more than a company in the sports and entertainment industry promoting itself.

To take this seriously would mean you'd have to take prefight trash talk as assault.

 

[WOATwindmiller]

Thanks for the research and update TS.

 

[USAUSA1]

Not too mention Bellator and WSOF spending money on talent and being on major cable networks defeats any realistic argument.

Plus, UFC is actually working with other MMA organizations and showcasing them on Fight Pass. This lawsuit really has no merit at all anymore.

 

[Humbaba the Terrible]

Statements like WORLD FUCKING DOMINATION, while immature ar best, is really little more than a company in the sports and entertainment industry promoting itself.

To take this seriously would mean you'd have to take prefight trash talk as assault.

Yes, it's silly to consider such a statement as monopolistic conduct. However, forcing fighters to give up their rights to their likenesses for video games does seem like monopolistic conduct.

And while you point out that there are many sporting leagues that are exempt monopolies, it is important to note that those leagues have balances in place. For example, the competing teams within the league drive up the price for talent because they all want to hire the best guys. And it becomes less important if your relationship with one team sours, because many others will be willing to give you a chance, even if you are troublesome, provided you can help their team win. The NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB also feature powerful player's associations that balance the interests of the owners, which is something MMA in general and the UFC in particular is lacking.

 

[trident]

Yes, it's silly to consider such a statement as monopolistic conduct. However, forcing fighters to give up their rights to their likenesses for video games does seem like monopolistic conduct.

And while you point out that there are many sporting leagues that are exempt monopolies, it is important to note that those leagues have balances in place. For example, the competing teams within the league drive up the price for talent because they all want to hire the best guys. And it becomes less important if your relationship with one team sours, because many others will be willing to give you a chance, even if you are troublesome, provided you can help their team win. The NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB also feature powerful player's associations that balance the interests of the owners, which is something MMA in general and the UFC in particular is lacking.

I agree with all of this

 

[method115]

Not too mention Bellator and WSOF spending money on talent and being on major cable networks defeats any realistic argument.

Plus, UFC is actually working with other MMA organizations and showcasing them on Fight Pass. This lawsuit really has no merit at all anymore.

Apparently it's only for a certain time from up to like 2012 or something like that I don't know the exact time frame.