The UFC fighters ‘ class-action antitrust lawsuit against the MMA offers business has a working prototype. The publicly traded company stated in a registration to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday that it had reached an agreement to sit all claims brought against it by Cung Le, et al., a family of UFC. v. Zuffa and Kajon Johnson, et cetera. v. Zuffa.
Both class actions have been settled for a total of$ 335 million, which will be paid in installments over an undetermined amount of time. The proposed arrangement, if approved, may mark the end of prosecution that began in 2014. UFC has been threatened with paying damage worth billions of dollars as a result of the complaints.

TKO Group shares closed Wednesday at$ 87.37, up nearly 8 % on the day. The increases increased the company’s market cap by nearly$ 1.1 billion.
Le, whose defendants are former UFC soldiers, was half certified as a group activity last month. The course includes over 1, 200 soldiers who were in one or more UFC episodes that took position, or were broadcast, in the U. S. from Dec. 16, 2010, to June 30, 2017. Johnson is a more lengthy filed event, representing those fought in UFC rounds from July 1, 2017, to the present. If Johnson were certified, it may possibly represent a comparable number of soldiers.
The lawsuit, as proposed, may be approved by U. S. District Judge Richard Boulware. He will need to evaluate whether it is honest, reasonable, and sufficient for the class members, and he will take any objections into account, even from fighters who are not members of the classes. Boulware may inquire about information, including schedule of payments. Typically, settlements are approved and that is the most probable results here.
A UFC spokesman told Sportico on Wednesday that” we are pleased to have reached an agreement to settle all says asserted in both the Le and Johnson group activity lawsuits.” This brings the dispute to a close and benefits all parties.
The soldiers ‘ claim that UFC is an illegal monopsony, meaning it has too much control over the sale of top soldiers ‘ services, is the center of the case’s main argument. The fighters claim that the UFC imposes several competition restraints, including those relating to competing in competition with other MMA leagues, on fighter contracts. In a more competitive marketplace, the combatants claim, those reported measures have resulted in lower earnings than they would have expected.
UFC vigorously refutes those claims, arguing that there are numerous well-funded foe MMA teams, some of which have signed apart UFC fighters with more lucrative deals. UFC also points out that MMA leagues frequently have contract limitations and that there have also been significant raises in UFC fighter pay over the past 15 years.
If a court approves a settlement, there wo n’t be a final decision as to which side has the facts and the law in order. UFC ( and other MMA leagues ) may change fighter contracts to give more competition opportunities in order to prevent more lawsuits.

The 8- K processing indicates that the colony amounts to$ 335 million but will be paid “in episodes over an agreed-on period of time,” as noted above.
The guide to “installments” and an unclarified “period of time” are essential components of the speech in that they could significantly affect the value of the$ 335 million. Many articles focused on the word “billion” when the NFL and retired people announced a$ 1 billion settlement in the injury lawsuit, but less on the fact that the agreement covers payment for 65 years. Similar to the NFL and its owners ‘ staggered settlement of the$ 1 billion over 65 years is obviously preferable to having to pay it upfront.
Given the margins of the case, the arrangement is not surprising. In Le, the fighters sought damages of$ 1.6 billion, a number that under antitrust law would have been trebled to$ 4.8 billion. Johnson’s problems are still unknown, but they are good in the same ballpark. This means the UFC may have, in a worst- case situation, lost both scenarios and then be ordered to pay in the town of$ 10 billion. Installment payments over a however- to- be- clarified phase of time—perhaps decades —of$ 335 million is a quantitative contract for UFC.
UFC even steers clear of a test in which prominent individuals, including creator Dana White, could have been asked to testify and clarify numerous claims made about fighter spend and MMA competition over the years. For example, he once mocked the “death” of three teams the UFC purchased in 2008, saying in 2010″ there is no competition. We’re the NFL”. A trial might have also had required UFC executives to explain its business model and objectives in ways that might be seen as compromising trade secrets and attacking confidentiality.
From the vantage point of the fighters, the lawsuit is n’t surprising either. They then know with certainty that they will be paid, but when and how much will it cost. Otherwise, the fighters may have lost and received nothing if they had gone to test.
UFC may have surely filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court even if the soldiers had prevailed in court. The dispute timeline may have been used for the appeal process in the late 2020s.
The possibility that antitrust laws requires a business to pay its employees a percentage of revenue is one of the main legal arguments for attractiveness, and one that would have likely received assistance in the form of amicus brief from companies. The soldiers complain they receive, as some quotes indicate, about 20 % of revenue, whereas people in the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL receive around 50 % of their teams ‘ income.
However, that assessment is probably flawed in ways that have caused businesses across the country to be interested in the UFC dispute.
While people in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL share a portion of their respective leagues ‘ revenues, collective bargaining agreements that allow unionized players and teams to voice their opinions on pressing issues of collective bargaining. Soldiers for the UFC are independent contractors who have not been unionized. The possibility for those workers to demand a share of their employer’s income may represent a significant change in how the interpretation of antitrust law is interpreted given that roughly 90 % of American workers are not unionized. Some companies with no connection to sports or leisure would suffer significant repercussions.
The settlement amount is anticipated to be income threshold by TKO Group Holdings. Tax treatment of lawsuit payments may be difficult, nevertheless, and will be dictated by the particular language contained in the but- to- be- finalized settlement agreement. According to public accounting guidelines published on complaint payments by The Tax Advisor website, corporate payments made as a result of a violation of the law are frequently not deductible, even if they were made through a settlement.
The settlement’s firm effects will also take time to realize. In a research note on the arrangement on Wednesday, Jeffersonies scientist Randal Konik points out that the agreement was beneficial because it eliminated uncertainty surrounding the litigation that had been weighing on TKO stocks.
Although we recognize that the company will need to contribute a sizable amount of money to this deal over a concomitant time frame, we consider this settlement to be beneficial because it removes investor uncertainty regarding the amount of money TKO may need to invest in these lawsuits,” Konik wrote.
( The third paragraph of this article has the latest information about TKO’s closing stock price. )