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.
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.So, they are fucked?
How likely are they to have to actually pay that?
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.
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?
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.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.
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?
I'll be getting in on that lawsuit.What about the shitty treatment of Amazon to it's employees and contractors?
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.