Rampage and the Class Action Suit against the UFC

[ineverpost]

Is it just me or does anyone else here think that the UFC may have signed Rampage to be able to demonstrate that they are in fact not a monopoly and fighters can and do make serious money outside of the UFC, as evident in his lucrative and current contract with Bellator? We know that Dana White absolutely avoids mentioning his competition at any cost unless he is directly asked about them, in which he usually degrades them with a barrage of curse words. Why then, would he and the UFC sign a Bellator fighter when they run the risk of publicly losing a lawsuit to them?

Anyone with legal experience care to weigh in? Sherdog is filled with professional martial artists, dudes who only date perfect 10s, and medical experts. There must be some lawyers here.

 

[ZuffaExecutive]

Is it just me or does anyone else here think that the UFC may have signed Rampage to be able to demonstrate that they are in fact not a monopoly and fighters can and do make serious money outside of the UFC, as evident in his lucrative and current contract with Bellator? We know that Dana White absolutely avoids mentioning his competition at any cost unless he is directly asked about them, in which he usually degrades them with a barrage of curse words. Why then, would he and the UFC sign a Bellator fighter when they run the risk of publicly losing a lawsuit to them?

Anyone with legal experience care to weigh in? Sherdog is filled with professional martial artists, dudes who only date perfect 10s, and medical experts. There must be some lawyers here.

Did you come up with that idea on your own,or have u been listening to the mmabeat......

Either way they had there lawyers look over his contract,seen what paperwork he sent bellator and they would of felt that he had effectively terminated his contract.

Otherwise they may be open to being sued by bellator.

 

[Demaestro]

It is universally a horrible idea to discuss active lawsuits in the public square. I think even Dana is learning this.

 

[pseudo genki]

The suit is about their monopoly/monopsony powers starting in December 2010 when the UFC took control of Strikeforce. Anything the UFC does in 2015 doesn't demonstrate that they weren't a monopoly during the Class Period. If a rival MMA promotion gets created tomorrow and signs half the UFC roster for twice as much money, it doesn't change whether or not the UFC abused its monopoly while they had it, or whether the fighters who claim to have had their earning power reduced are eligible for compensation. If you want more detail, this is a good read:
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/3/4...awsuit-monopoly-bellator-contracts/in/7162628

As someone who's provided expert witness support for antitrust cases before (including what was at the time the largest antitrust case in U.S. history), one of the things we often see in these situations is the two sides checking if other competitors have undertaken similar actions to the ones that are allegedly anticompetitive.

If competitors consistently use similar strategies, the defense will argue this is evidence the actions in question aren't monopolistic, but competitive. If they don't, plaintiffs will argue this supports the notion the actions were anticompetitive.

Another defense tactic is to look back at what was being done at times when most would agree the market was competitive. If all players were using allegedly anticompetitive tactics when the market was competitive, there must be strong legitimate business reasons for the tactics beyond just monopolization.

In the present UFC antitrust lawsuit, the plaintiff fighters almost as much as admitted the MMA output and input markets were competitive in 2006 in their complaint. The UFC owns the contracts of Pride, Strikeforce, EliteXC and others from around that time and you can be sure its legal team (and eventually the fighters' legal team through discovery) will review them to gather evidence on the contractual terminology used by competing promotions.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

I think the UFC signed Rampage because he did a way better PPV number than anyone expected and they are concerned about Bellator growing.

If anything, Viacom/Bellator is the one that screwed up by releasing Rampage's contract and proving that UFC does not have a monopoly.

 

[PanikAnikPanik]

Belabor told Rampage he'd get fights. They weren't giving him fights, so he left.

 

[MCS]

They're suing Rampage for political reasons. If they can get it to court, they'll buy some time in a losing battle to send a message to other fighters. They know Rampage won't come back to them because of this lawsuit. If they didn't do anything, other fighters could see their control as weak.