A Chink in the Armor? The UFC’s $375 Million Antitrust Settlement and the Cracks in Sports Monopolies?

In a landmark decision, U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware finalized a $375 million settlement in the antitrust lawsuit against the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). This resolution concludes a decade-long legal battle initiated by 1100 mixed martial arts (MMA) fighters who alleged that the UFC engaged in monopolistic practices that suppressed their earnings and restricted their professional opportunities. The settlement's approval not only provides financial restitution to the affected fighters but also carries significant implications for antitrust law within the sports industry.

The origins of this legal dispute trace back to 2014 when a group of MMA fighters led by former UFC competitor, Cung Le, filed a class-action lawsuit against Zuffa, LLC, the parent company of the UFC. The plaintiffs contended that the UFC had established a monopoly over the MMA industry through restrictive contracts and the acquisition of rival promotions, thereby limiting fighters' bargaining power and suppressing wages and effectively putting them at the mercy of the organizations leadership, fight promoters and sponsors. They argued that such practices violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by unlawfully restraining competition and maintaining monopoly power over the market for professional MMA fighters.

After extensive litigation and negotiations, a preliminary settlement of $335 million was proposed in early 2024. However, Judge Boulware rejected this initial proposal in July 2024, expressing concerns regarding the adequacy of the settlement amount and the fairness of its distribution among class members. Subsequent negotiations led to an increased settlement of $375 million, which received preliminary approval in October 2024 and final approval on February 6, 2025. Under the terms of this settlement, approximately $240 million to $260 million will be distributed to eligible fighters—those who participated in at least one UFC bout between December 2010 and June 2017. Individual payouts are expected to range from $15,000 to over $1 million, depending on factors such as the number of bouts fought and the fighters' prominence. An additional $40 million will be allocated for administrative and legal expenses. Notably, the settlement does not mandate any changes to the UFC's existing business practices or contractual arrangements with fighters. 

The finalization of this settlement holds profound implications for antitrust jurisprudence within the sports industry. Historically, professional sports organizations have operated under unique legal frameworks, often enjoying certain exemptions from standard antitrust regulations. For instance, Major League Baseball (MLB) has long benefited from an antitrust exemption established by the Supreme Court in Federal Baseball Club v. National League (1922); this is a precedent that has been both criticized and upheld in subsequent rulings, including Flood v. Kuhn (1972). In contrast, other professional sports leagues, such as the National Football League (NFL) and the National Basketball Association (NBA), do not enjoy similar broad exemptions and have faced various antitrust challenges over the years.

The UFC case is particularly significant as it addresses the application of antitrust laws to a rapidly growing sport that lacks the historical context of leagues like the MLB or NFL. The plaintiffs' success in securing a substantial settlement underscores the judiciary's willingness to scrutinize and challenge monopolistic practices within newer sports organizations. This outcome may embolden athletes in other sports to pursue legal action against organizations they perceive as engaging in anti-competitive behavior.

Moreover, the settlement highlights the evolving landscape of athlete compensation and rights. In recent years, there has been a growing movement advocating for fair compensation and improved working conditions for athletes across various sports. Notably, the NCAA faced significant legal challenges regarding its amateurism rules, culminating in the Supreme Court's decision in NCAA v. Alston (2021). More specifically, ruled that the NCAA's restrictions on education-related benefits for student-athletes violated antitrust laws. Similarly, the UFC settlement reflects a broader trend of athletes successfully challenging established norms and seeking equitable treatment through legal avenues.

The UFC settlement may serve as a catalyst for increased antitrust scrutiny across the sports industry. Organizations that have traditionally maintained strict control over athletes' contracts and earnings might now face heightened legal challenges. This could lead to a reevaluation of existing business practices, promoting a more competitive environment that prioritizes athletes' rights and compensation.

Additionally, the settlement may influence how sports organizations structure their contracts and negotiate with athletes. To mitigate the risk of antitrust litigation, organizations might adopt more transparent and equitable practices, ensuring that athletes have greater autonomy and bargaining power. This shift could foster a more balanced dynamic between athletes and organizations, ultimately contributing to the overall growth and integrity of professional sports.

The $375 million settlement in the UFC antitrust lawsuit marks a pivotal moment in the intersection of sports and antitrust law. It signifies a growing recognition of athletes' rights and the necessity for fair competition within the industry. As the sports landscape continues to evolve, this case may serve as a precedent for future legal actions, encouraging a more equitable and competitive environment for athletes across all disciplines.

Aditya Lodha is a fourth-year student at Brown University who is currently pursuing a concentration in History with a focus in law and society. He is a staff writer for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at: aditya_lodha@brown.edu!

Priyanka Nambiar is a freshman at Brown University looking to concentrate in Cognitive Neuroscience. She is an editor for the BULR Blog and can be contacted at priyanka_nambiar@brown.edu.