UFC Antitrust Lawsuit: Damages Set (By Plaintiffs) at $1,600,000,000.00

hqdefault.jpg
 
cooks1 said:
Fascinating.

This was what really stuck out to me:



Sign fighters to an agreement that pays them by the bout, knowing that you won't be able to give them the bouts. Now they are stuck.

It would seem this litigation might be behind some of the UFC's seemingly bizarre decisions to let top shelf talent slip away to Bellator and punch out absurd numbers of watered down cards.

I wonder what language is in the WMG/Zuffa purchase agreement regarding this kind of litigation should it be successful.
Click to expand...

" His hypothetical concluded that they could have paid an additional $706 million from December 16, 2010 until the end of 2016 without additional borrowing or equity raises."

SOURCE: https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2018/2/...mages-ufc-class-action-suit-up-to-1-6-billion

this is questionable. every company could pay more to their employees if they pay no dividends to their investors. but that is not how companies work.


"
Zuffa was consistently able to keep Fighters bound by the exclusionary provisions in its contracts—and thus unavailable to other MMA promoters—while simultaneously promoting an insufficient number of bouts given the number of Fighters on its roster. Record evidence indicates that Zuffa was able to suppress the number of events that Fighters would participate below what Fighters would otherwise prefer,and that Zuffa consistently maintained significantly more Fighters under contract than it could use in bouts. In his deposition, Joe Silva testified that, from at least 2010 to 2015, he had “been complaining to managers and fighters and others” that Zuffa “had more fighters under contract than [Zuffa] had fights to give them.”Silva also testified that he kept Fighters under contract who he otherwise would have cut; his rationale was to keep these Fighters away from Bellator. Kurt Otto, President and founder of a now defunct MMA promotion called the IFL, testified that it was his perception that Fighters at Zuffa were “collecting dust.” Record documents discuss the “shelving” of Fighters by Zuffa. "

this however could easily be construed as antil-competitive. if it is proven that the UFC kept fighters with no intent to have them fight to soley avoid other organziations being able to sign the fighters, that will result in some kind of fine if it can be proved in court.
 
Verace said:
So, they are fucked?

How likely are they to have to actually pay that?
Click to expand...
The putative class of fighters isn't even certified. Then they'll have cross-motions for summary judgment. Before that there will likely be a whole host of filings and some hearings (I'm guessing) about the expert analysis featured here. If this thing makes it to trial, it won't be this year is my guess. And from there it's anybody's guess, lol.
 
They knew this was coming....UFC will lawyer up but I think this class action type lawsuit brings in better lawyers to the plaintiffs side....UFC/WME would look nice on their trophy shelf.
 
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?
 
Flokk said:
Usually the new owner would stand in the old owner's shoes. But it probably depends. I'd imagine there are a range of notice requirements and potential opt-out (etc) clauses triggered by the transfer of ownership, depending on the type of contractual obligation involved and the prevailing jurisdictional requirements. What to do with confidential customer lists, etc.

This would all be vetted at the front end by a law firm doe. Transactional law is a mystery to me so just patchy guesswork here.
Click to expand...

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.
 
acannxr said:
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?
Click to expand...

This part alone would take over a year to sort out.
 
Zuffa was consistently able to keep Fighters bound by the exclusionary provisions in its contracts—and thus unavailable to other MMA promoters—while simultaneously promoting an insufficient number of bouts given the number of Fighters on its roster. Record evidence indicates that Zuffa was able to suppress the number of events that Fighters would participate below what Fighters would otherwise prefer,and that Zuffa consistently maintained significantly more Fighters under contract than it could use in bouts. In his deposition, Joe Silva testified that, from at least 2010 to 2015, he had “been complaining to managers and fighters and others” that Zuffa “had more fighters under contract than [Zuffa] had fights to give them.”Silva also testified that he kept Fighters under contract who he otherwise would have cut; his rationale was to keep these Fighters away from Bellator. Kurt Otto, President and founder of a now defunct MMA promotion called the IFL, testified that it was his perception that Fighters at Zuffa were “collecting dust.” Record documents discuss the “shelving” of Fighters by Zuffa.
Click to expand...
That part is really interesting. As i've been saying in the last years, is not that there's too much cards, it's that we have too many fighters we don't need and that makes fighters we WANNA see becoming inactive because they can't get a fight, this is fucked up and is killing the excitement of a card coming up. It is not only decreasing the level of the UFC product but they keeping fighters that they could've cut is also a terrible thing to the market, to every promotion. UFC is attacking the sport by doing that.
There's, at least, 50-100 fighters that UFC could AND should cut right now. Am i'm sure there's enough promotions to sign'em all when and if UFC does that.
 
Fuck off.

Does this mean i get to go back and sue all of my previous employers for making too much money off of my work when they paid me an agreed upon salary?
 
Shooting for the moon is going to cost them. This is an absurd request.
 
Tiny said:
Fuck off.

Does this mean i get to go back and sue all of my previous employers for making too much money off of my work when they paid me an agreed upon salary?
Click to expand...

If you can prove that they artificially limited your earning potential through market manipulation and other practices, yes.
 
What about the shitty treatment of Amazon to it's employees and contractors?
 
cooks1 said:
Fascinating.

This was what really stuck out to me:



Sign fighters to an agreement that pays them by the bout, knowing that you won't be able to give them the bouts. Now they are stuck.

It would seem this litigation might be behind some of the UFC's seemingly bizarre decisions to let top shelf talent slip away to Bellator and punch out absurd numbers of watered down cards.

I wonder what language is in the WME/Zuffa purchase agreement regarding this kind of litigation should it be successful.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,220
Messages
55,544,865
Members
174,824
Latest member
Rank Wang

Share this page

Back
Top