'UFC should have to pay us': What we know about second antitrust lawsuit against UFC

The UFC is facing a second lawsuit led by former fighters unhappy with its business practices – and this time the promotion’s primary owner is a target.

It was announced Thursday that ex-fighters C.B. Dollaway and Kajan Johnson filed the proposed class-action antitrust lawsuit against the UFC and parent company Endeavor in federal district court in Nevada.

This new lawsuit was filed at a time when the UFC already is up against another ongoing class-action antitrust lawsuit led by fighters Cung Le, Nate Quarry, Jon Fitch, and others, also in Nevada federal court. As indicated last December by Judge Richard F. Boulware in that case, which was first filed in December 2014, the court is expected to grant class certification. That’s a huge victory for the plaintiffs as it would expand the number from the original handful to anyone who competed in the UFC in the U.S. between Dec. 16, 2010 and June 30, 2017, which could cost the UFC up to $1.6 billion in damages.

Here’s what we know so far about the new lawsuit filed by Dollaway and Johnson.

What’s being alleged in this new lawsuit?

The short answer: It’s almost identical to what’s been alleged in Cung Le, et al v. Zuffa LLC.

A statement by Berger-Montague, one of five law firms representing the fighters, said “the lawsuit filed by Johnson and Dollaway alleges that Zuffa violated antitrust laws by paying UFC fighters far less than they were entitled to receive and eliminating or hurting other MMA promoters.”

On its way to becoming the biggest MMA promotion in the world, the UFC purchased WEC (2006), PRIDE (2007) and Strikeforce (2011) and took over contracts from fighters competing in those promotions.

Berger-Montague went on to say, “The fighters claim that Zuffa and Endeavor engaged in the following anticompetitive practices:

• “locking fighters into long-term, exclusive contracts which, the fighters say, prevents them from competing elsewhere;
• “using its market dominance to coerce fighters to re-sign contracts, allegedly making the contracts effectively perpetual and preventing fighters from reaching free agency; and
• “acquiring and then closing down other MMA promoters that threatened the UFC’s dominance.”

In a statement, “the fighters contend that by locking up the vast majority of top fighters in each weight class and buying out its biggest rivals, Zuffa’s scheme prevented potential competitors from obtaining the critical mass of top fighters necessary to compete with the UFC, rendering other promotions to the ‘minor leagues.'” Because of this, aspiring top fighters were left “with nowhere else to go to compete at the top level of the sport.”

All of this, according to Dollaway and Johnson, leads the UFC to paying its athletes a “significantly lower share of revenues than they otherwise would if the fighters had more options.”

According to unsealed documents in the Cung Le, et al v. Zuffa LLC case, the fighters’ share in revenue generated by the UFC doesn’t exceed 20 percent, which is far less than other sports leagues like the NFL, NBA and MLB, which has a revenue split around 50-50.

What time period is covered?

“By filing this action, we are bringing the proposed class period forward to also cover all fighters who competed in bouts between June 30, 2017 and the present,” Eric L. Cramer, one of the lead attorneys, said in a statement.

The significance here is that the date picks up right where Cung Le, et al v. Zuffa LLC left off, as that case covers all fighters who competed from Dec. 16, 2010 to June 30, 2017.

Why are Dollaway and Johnson doing this?

Dollaway, 37, had 20 UFC fights from June 2008 to September 2018, going 11-9 during his tenure. Johnson, also 37, fought for the UFC seven times between June 2014 and September 2018, and posted a 4-3 record.

Here’s what both fighters had to say in their initial statements.

“We train hard and risk our bodies to succeed in this sport,” Dollaway said. “Every time we step into that octagon, we leave a piece of ourselves behind. The UFC should have to pay us competitive compensation for our services, just like professional athletes in other sports get paid based on competitive markets.”

Said Johnson: “Like Carlos Newton, Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, and Jon Fitch before me, I am honored to bring this lawsuit not only on behalf of myself but all those fighters in the proposed bout class who are afraid to speak out against the injustice we have endured. I feel obligated to do my part to leave the sport better off for my students and all future mixed martial artists to come.”