The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) is the world leader in mixed martial arts (MMA) and one of the premier organizations within all contact sports. While other MMA promotions exist — Bellator and ONE Championship being the most notable — most MMA fans regard UFC champions as the best in their respective weight divisions. The recent settlement in the long-standing UFC antitrust class-action lawsuit highlights the increased scrutiny of labor practices employed by professional combat sports organizations and others.
Understanding the Lawsuit’s Key Claims and Settlement
Early in 2024, a federal judge authorized the proceeding of a $1.6 billion class-action lawsuit, first filed in 2021, against the Las Vegas-based UFC company. The class suit, brought by 1,200 ex-UFC fighters suing for lost wages, accused the UFC of deliberately acting illegally to avoid paying outstanding earnings. A primary issue was whether the company used its significant economic clout and global reputation to restrict the access of opposing MMA promoters to fighters.
The filing of this suit was pivotal in one of the fastest-growing spectator sports in recent times. It emphasized and raised questions about athletes’ conditions and income in several sporting codes, including pay inequality in professional sports such as the WNBA and women’s soccer. Inquiries also extended to college sports, questioning the treatment of athletes.
Some of the more notable claims in the class-action lawsuit against the UFC included the organization’s practice of offering event-based contracts to fighters as independent contractors, who are responsible for covering their own training, medical, and management costs, thereby restricting their earnings. In another sport, like soccer, this is seen as a “play-for-pay” contract, which is hardly the norm. This contract type allows the promoter — in this case, the UFC — to decide whether a fighter will participate in an event. If the fighter doesn’t get the nod for an Octagon appearance, there’s no payment due.
The monopolistic practices of UFC contracts also included clauses that denied fighters the right to independent sponsorships within the Octagon, which limited their ability to earn external revenue. The fighters claimed that the UFC limited title shots and controlled its rankings based on its business interests, rather than on results and athletic ability.
These claims and others prompted a class-action suit filed by fighters employed by the UFC between 2010 and 2017. Although fighter Cung Le and a few others filed the original suit against Zuffa, the UFC’s then-parent company in 2014, the subsequent addition of many more class members meant it carried substantially more weight. Many judges recognize classes of 40 members or more as suitable for taking action against companies.
The Settlement
Ultimately, the UFC’s new parent company, the TKO Group, chose to settle the lawsuit for $375 million, along with a UFC commitment to improve contract transparency and limit restrictions in fighter contracts. A United States district judge granted preliminary approval in October 2024, ending a decade of litigation. Judge Richard Boulware previously denied a smaller offer because he deemed the settlement figure too low.
According to Berger Montague, the premier U.S. antitrust suit law firm, of the 1,100 fighters in the class, 97% have already applied to receive settlement funds. Thirty-five fighters will receive over $1 million, with almost 100 more receiving $500,000 each, and over 200 receiving awards of more than $250,000. The remaining fighters can expect around $100,000 each — a healthy addition to their bank balances.
Another class-action lawsuit involving UFC fighters who have been active since 2017 remains in the litigation process.
The Business of Combat Sports
The formation of the TKO Group in 2023 — a merger between the UFC and WWE, two major players in the combat sports industry — demonstrates the industry’s contractual and commercial power. Although consolidating these two massive sports entertainment companies doesn’t necessarily mean anticompetitive behavior exists on its face, it highlights how a fighter’s bargaining power and contractual status could diminish under pressure from major combat sports businesses.
This practice is not limited to organizations like the UFC and WWE. The boxing world’s promoters traditionally compensate their fighters through fight-based earnings. In combat sport markets, exclusive contracts that limit fighters’ rights to negotiate with rival promotions are more the rule than the exception. Mergers like the TKO group could expand exposure and increase revenue to a degree that benefits globally contracted fighters. They could also prompt greater contractual monopolies in favor of the big players. How things develop remains to be seen.
One thing is clearly evident. The exposure to the UFC’s exploitative processes and policies, as revealed by the antitrust class action lawsuit, means that combat athletes are more aware of their rights than ever before. The issues spread beyond U.S. boundaries and into an increasingly connected sports world. They will affect the actions of international combat sport stakeholders and raise further questions about sports governance everywhere and athletes’ rights globally.
Other Prominent Sports-Related Lawsuits
While the UFC antitrust settlement made international headlines, it is not the largest antitrust settlement in sports history. In June 2025, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the Power Five conferences settled three class-action antitrust suits brought by former college athletes for a massive $2.8 billion. The courts found that the NCAA and conferences limited the athletes’ ability to profit from their names, images and likenesses.
A legal challenge awaits review by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the use of public funds to build the new Buffalo Bills stadium in New York. Bob Schulz and other class members claim that the state and Erie County violated the New York State Constitution by using taxpayer money for the stadium’s construction. They argue that the stadium project is a private undertaking, which the Bills should fund entirely. The U.S. Supreme Court will review the matter following the case’s rejection by lower courts.
In a similar case, resident Mike Cozza and others brought a class-action suit against the Charlotte City Council, challenging the decision to invest public funds in renovating Charlotte’s Bank of America stadium. The group maintains that the council ignored North Carolina Open Meeting Law protocols and cited the council’s code of ethics. The suit, which is more than a decade old, has yet to be concluded.
Although not directly related to combat sports, both stadium projects illustrate how legal and financial changes in sports, such as the UFC lawsuit, can ripple out to impact infrastructure, public-private partnerships, and long-term investment strategies. Despite legal uncertainties, making forward-thinking investments in facilities can position teams and cities for future growth — as long as stakeholders adapt to the new realities of athlete compensation and uphold legal requirements.
What Could Follow in the Wake of the UFC Settlement
With the UFC already out of pocket by $375 million and further litigation still underway, the TKO Group is sure to implement policy changes. With a precedent now set, it’s likely that other promoters and companies within the combat sport industry will follow suit. There are no guarantees, but the attention brought to the industry through the lawsuit means that participating organizations, as well as those in other sports, need to tread more carefully than they previously did.
Reach high-intent sports + business readers?
Sponsor a link or post — Email us here for curated placements, contextual exposure, and brand visibility.
—
About the Author of “What the UFC Antitrust Lawsuit Could Mean for Combat Sports”:
Jack Shaw is the fitness editor of Modded Magazine. His writing covers both professional sports and personal fitness, as well as his own coaching experience. Jack’s expertise can also be found in publications including BarBend, SimpliFaster, and Sports Business Journal. Learn more at jackhenryshaw.com or connect with him on LinkedIn.
Related content to “What the UFC Antitrust Lawsuit Could Mean for Combat Sports”:
Sources for “What the UFC Antitrust Lawsuit Could Mean for Combat Sports”:
- Kellogg Insight: “What’s at Stake in the UFC Antitrust Case?”
- Weisberg Cummings: “Who Can File a Class Action Lawsuit?”
- Sportcal: “Judge approves $375m UFC settlement to end case with former fighters”
- Sports Law & Taxation: “UFC Antitrust Cases: Athlete Rights and Global Sports Governance”
- ESPN: “Judge OK’s $2.8B settlement, paving way for colleges to pay athletes”
- AP News: “Bills’ new stadium deal carries $850M taxpayer tab, gov says”
What the UFC Antitrust Lawsuit Could Mean for Combat Sports
The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) is the world leader in mixed martial arts (MMA) and one of the premier organizations within all contact sports. While other MMA promotions exist — Bellator and ONE Championship being the most notable — most MMA fans regard UFC champions as the best in their respective weight divisions. The recent settlement in the long-standing UFC antitrust class-action lawsuit highlights the increased scrutiny of labor practices employed by professional combat sports organizations and others.
Understanding the Lawsuit’s Key Claims and Settlement
Early in 2024, a federal judge authorized the proceeding of a $1.6 billion class-action lawsuit, first filed in 2021, against the Las Vegas-based UFC company. The class suit, brought by 1,200 ex-UFC fighters suing for lost wages, accused the UFC of deliberately acting illegally to avoid paying outstanding earnings. A primary issue was whether the company used its significant economic clout and global reputation to restrict the access of opposing MMA promoters to fighters.
The filing of this suit was pivotal in one of the fastest-growing spectator sports in recent times. It emphasized and raised questions about athletes’ conditions and income in several sporting codes, including pay inequality in professional sports such as the WNBA and women’s soccer. Inquiries also extended to college sports, questioning the treatment of athletes.
Some of the more notable claims in the class-action lawsuit against the UFC included the organization’s practice of offering event-based contracts to fighters as independent contractors, who are responsible for covering their own training, medical, and management costs, thereby restricting their earnings. In another sport, like soccer, this is seen as a “play-for-pay” contract, which is hardly the norm. This contract type allows the promoter — in this case, the UFC — to decide whether a fighter will participate in an event. If the fighter doesn’t get the nod for an Octagon appearance, there’s no payment due.
The monopolistic practices of UFC contracts also included clauses that denied fighters the right to independent sponsorships within the Octagon, which limited their ability to earn external revenue. The fighters claimed that the UFC limited title shots and controlled its rankings based on its business interests, rather than on results and athletic ability.
These claims and others prompted a class-action suit filed by fighters employed by the UFC between 2010 and 2017. Although fighter Cung Le and a few others filed the original suit against Zuffa, the UFC’s then-parent company in 2014, the subsequent addition of many more class members meant it carried substantially more weight. Many judges recognize classes of 40 members or more as suitable for taking action against companies.
The Settlement
Ultimately, the UFC’s new parent company, the TKO Group, chose to settle the lawsuit for $375 million, along with a UFC commitment to improve contract transparency and limit restrictions in fighter contracts. A United States district judge granted preliminary approval in October 2024, ending a decade of litigation. Judge Richard Boulware previously denied a smaller offer because he deemed the settlement figure too low.
According to Berger Montague, the premier U.S. antitrust suit law firm, of the 1,100 fighters in the class, 97% have already applied to receive settlement funds. Thirty-five fighters will receive over $1 million, with almost 100 more receiving $500,000 each, and over 200 receiving awards of more than $250,000. The remaining fighters can expect around $100,000 each — a healthy addition to their bank balances.
Another class-action lawsuit involving UFC fighters who have been active since 2017 remains in the litigation process.
The Business of Combat Sports
The formation of the TKO Group in 2023 — a merger between the UFC and WWE, two major players in the combat sports industry — demonstrates the industry’s contractual and commercial power. Although consolidating these two massive sports entertainment companies doesn’t necessarily mean anticompetitive behavior exists on its face, it highlights how a fighter’s bargaining power and contractual status could diminish under pressure from major combat sports businesses.
This practice is not limited to organizations like the UFC and WWE. The boxing world’s promoters traditionally compensate their fighters through fight-based earnings. In combat sport markets, exclusive contracts that limit fighters’ rights to negotiate with rival promotions are more the rule than the exception. Mergers like the TKO group could expand exposure and increase revenue to a degree that benefits globally contracted fighters. They could also prompt greater contractual monopolies in favor of the big players. How things develop remains to be seen.
One thing is clearly evident. The exposure to the UFC’s exploitative processes and policies, as revealed by the antitrust class action lawsuit, means that combat athletes are more aware of their rights than ever before. The issues spread beyond U.S. boundaries and into an increasingly connected sports world. They will affect the actions of international combat sport stakeholders and raise further questions about sports governance everywhere and athletes’ rights globally.
Other Prominent Sports-Related Lawsuits
While the UFC antitrust settlement made international headlines, it is not the largest antitrust settlement in sports history. In June 2025, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the Power Five conferences settled three class-action antitrust suits brought by former college athletes for a massive $2.8 billion. The courts found that the NCAA and conferences limited the athletes’ ability to profit from their names, images and likenesses.
A legal challenge awaits review by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the use of public funds to build the new Buffalo Bills stadium in New York. Bob Schulz and other class members claim that the state and Erie County violated the New York State Constitution by using taxpayer money for the stadium’s construction. They argue that the stadium project is a private undertaking, which the Bills should fund entirely. The U.S. Supreme Court will review the matter following the case’s rejection by lower courts.
In a similar case, resident Mike Cozza and others brought a class-action suit against the Charlotte City Council, challenging the decision to invest public funds in renovating Charlotte’s Bank of America stadium. The group maintains that the council ignored North Carolina Open Meeting Law protocols and cited the council’s code of ethics. The suit, which is more than a decade old, has yet to be concluded.
Although not directly related to combat sports, both stadium projects illustrate how legal and financial changes in sports, such as the UFC lawsuit, can ripple out to impact infrastructure, public-private partnerships, and long-term investment strategies. Despite legal uncertainties, making forward-thinking investments in facilities can position teams and cities for future growth — as long as stakeholders adapt to the new realities of athlete compensation and uphold legal requirements.
What Could Follow in the Wake of the UFC Settlement
With the UFC already out of pocket by $375 million and further litigation still underway, the TKO Group is sure to implement policy changes. With a precedent now set, it’s likely that other promoters and companies within the combat sport industry will follow suit. There are no guarantees, but the attention brought to the industry through the lawsuit means that participating organizations, as well as those in other sports, need to tread more carefully than they previously did.
Reach high-intent sports + business readers?
Sponsor a link or post — Email us here for curated placements, contextual exposure, and brand visibility.
—
About the Author of “What the UFC Antitrust Lawsuit Could Mean for Combat Sports”:
Jack Shaw is the fitness editor of Modded Magazine. His writing covers both professional sports and personal fitness, as well as his own coaching experience. Jack’s expertise can also be found in publications including BarBend, SimpliFaster, and Sports Business Journal. Learn more at jackhenryshaw.com or connect with him on LinkedIn.
Related content to “What the UFC Antitrust Lawsuit Could Mean for Combat Sports”:
Sources for “What the UFC Antitrust Lawsuit Could Mean for Combat Sports”: