UFC Antitrust Cases: Athlete Rights and Global Sports Governance
By Dr Estelle Ivanova, Valloni Attorneys at Law, Zurich, Switzerland
The recent Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), a mixed martial arts promotion company, based in Las Vegas, Nevada, US, US$375 million (around €319.9 million) antitrust out-of-court settlement underscores a growing legal scrutiny of labour market practices in professional sports.
The class action lawsuit, Le v. Zuffa, the Parent Company of UFC, claimed that the UFC suppressed athletes' ability to negotiate with other promotions, limiting competition and keeping athlete compensation lower between 2010 and 2017.
Approximately 1,100 fighters were affected by the lawsuit, and 97% have applied to receive funds from the settlement, according to the premier US antitrust Law Firm Berger Montague. It is anticipated that 35 fighters would net over US$1 million (around €853,133); nearly 100 would receive over US$500,000 (around €426,566), more than 200 would recover over US$250,000 (around €213,283), and over 500 would net in excess of US$100,000 (around €85,313).
Meanwhile, another lawsuit, Johnson v. Zuffa, is ongoing, covering fighters from 2017 onwards who are seeking damages of up to US$1.6 billion (around €1.36 billion) and structural reforms to UFC business practices, particularly its contractual terms.
Additionally, two new lawsuits, Cirkunovs v. Zuffa and Davis v. Zuffa, have been filed, targeting arbitration clauses and seeking to increase competition in the Mixed Martial Arts market. In 2023, the UFC merged with WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) to form TKO Group Holdings, Inc., further consolidating its position and adding new dimensions to ongoing legal scrutiny.
Beyond the immediate figures and legal outcomes, the UFC lawsuits raise critical questions about the future of sports governance and athletes’ rights.
These cases are important not only because of the size of the settlements, but also because they challenge the power structure underpinning the UFC business model and, potentially, the governance of other sports relying on exclusive contracts and individual contractor arrangements.
If successful, these lawsuits could force greater transparency and fairness in fighter contracts, limit the use of restrictive clauses such as mandatory arbitration and class action waivers, and increase fighters’ bargaining power. More broadly, this scrutiny reflects a shift in sports governance towards a focus on athletes' rights and fair remuneration.
The 2023 merger of UFC and WWE under the TKO Group further consolidates commercial and contractual power in the combat sports industry. Whilst this development does not, per se, prove anticompetitive conduct, it raises questions about how such concentration may impact athletes’ mobility and bargaining power.
Questions remain open as to whether, in a market where exclusive contracts already limit fighters’ ability to negotiate with rival promotions, the formation of a larger corporate entity could amplify structural imbalances or, conversely, whether synergies and broader promotion may ultimately benefit athletes by expanding revenue streams and global exposure.
More broadly, these legal battles are particularly interesting because they highlight issues that extend beyond the US, especially in individual sports and privately organised tournaments, as sport is a global phenomenon. In an increasingly interconnected world, where rival promoters, investors, and stakeholders from different countries compete and interact, they raise broader questions about market dynamics, athlete rights, and the future governance of sport globally.
Legal footnote:
US antitrust law is a collection of mostly Federal laws governing the conduct and organisation of businesses in order to promote economic competition and prevent unjustified monopolies. The three main U.S. antitrust statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolisation. Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organisations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. The Robinson–Patman Act of 1936, which is an amendment to the Clayton Act, and prohibits price discrimination.
Dr Estelle Ivanova may be contacted by e-mail at ‘
