A brand-new trial date is set for the UFC antitrust claim at first submitted versus the promo by fighters such as Cung Le, Nate Quarry, and others back in 2014.
On Monday, Judge Richard Boulware in Nevada set a brand-new trial date on Feb. 3, 2025, and likewise notified both the complainants and offenders that the date will not be altered unless he authorizes a brand-new initial settlement contract in between the 2 celebrations.
The trial is set to begin in 2025 after Boulware rejected a settlement arrangement in between the UFC and fighters associated with 2 different antitrust suits– one covering professional athletes from 2010 to 2017 and a 2nd representing fighters from 2017 to today– that would have paid $335 million.
The judge formerly specified in court that he challenged the settlement due to the fact that the concurred upon payment appeared low and the fighters represented in the 2nd claim– covering professional athletes from 2017 to today– might challenge arbitration and class-action waiver provisions in existing agreements.
The preliminary antitrust suit submitted in 2014 argued that UFC engaged “in a plan to get and preserve monopsony power in the market for elite expert MMA fighter services.” The fighters declared UFC accomplished that objective through 3 crucial elements: Exclusive agreements, browbeating, and acquisitions that removed possible rivals.
In spite of both UFC and the fighters consenting to the settlement, the judge released his rejection and purchased the trial to begin next year unless the 2 celebrations can pertain to a brand-new contract for him to authorize.
In court prior to the judge rejecting the settlement arrangement, lawyers for the fighters kept in mind that the professional athletes associated with the suit might utilize the cash quicker instead of later on with TKO Group Holdings– the business that owns UFC– currently allocating funds to pay the $335 million with dispensation anticipated to begin as early as September.
“They ‘d be much better off both taking the cash, getting the injunctive relief,” Eric Cramer, lead lawyer for the fighters informed the judge prior to his judgment. “The world where that does not take place is not because fighter’s interests since I would inform that fighter if they remained in my workplace, ‘You’re most likely to lose. You’re most likely to get absolutely nothing.'”
To win at trial, the fighters need to show their case beyond a sensible doubt and protect a consentaneous choice from the jury. Even if a jury discovers in favor of the fighters, UFC would probably submit an appeal, which might play out in court over numerous more years.
Obviously, UFC and the fighters can continue talks in hopes of reaching a brand-new settlement arrangement that would avoid the trial from in fact beginning however the judge still requires to sign off with his approval.
In the meantime, UFC and the fighters are preparing to make arguments in court beginning on Feb. 3, 2025.
