Judge sets new trial date for UFC antitrust lawsuit in 2025, settlement still possible

A new trial date is set for the UFC antitrust lawsuit initially filed against the promotion by fighters such as Cung Le, Nate Quarry, and others back in 2014.

On Monday, Judge Richard Boulware in Nevada set a new trial date on Feb. 3, 2025, and also informed both the plaintiffs and defendants that the date won’t be changed unless he approves a new preliminary settlement agreement between the two parties.

The trial is set to start in 2025 after Boulware denied a settlement agreement between the UFC and fighters involved in two separate antitrust lawsuits — one covering athletes from 2010 to 2017 and a second representing fighters from 2017 to the present — that would have paid out $335 million.

The judge previously stated in court that he objected to the settlement because the agreed upon payout seemed low and the fighters represented in the second lawsuit — covering athletes from 2017 to the present — could object to arbitration and class-action waiver clauses in existing contracts.

The initial antitrust lawsuit filed in 2014 argued that UFC engaged “in a scheme to acquire and maintain monopsony power in the market for elite professional MMA fighter services.” The fighters claimed UFC achieved that goal through three key elements: Exclusive contracts, coercion, and acquisitions that eliminated potential competitors.

Despite both UFC and the fighters agreeing to the settlement, the judge issued his denial and ordered the trial to start next year unless the two parties can come to a new agreement for him to approve.

In court prior to the judge denying the settlement agreement, attorneys for the fighters noted that the athletes involved in the lawsuit could use the money sooner rather than later with TKO Group Holdings — the company that owns UFC — already earmarking funds to pay out the $335 million with disbursement expected to start as early as September.

“They’d be better off both taking the money, getting the injunctive relief,” Eric Cramer, lead attorney for the fighters told the judge prior to his ruling. “The world where that doesn’t happen is not in that fighter’s interests because I would tell that fighter if they were in my office, ‘You’re likely to lose. You’re likely to get nothing.’”

To win at trial, the fighters have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and secure a unanimous decision from the jury. Even if a jury finds in favor of the fighters, UFC would almost certainly file an appeal, and that could play out in court over several more years.

Of course, UFC and the fighters can continue talks in hopes of reaching a new settlement agreement that would prevent the trial from actually starting but the judge still needs to sign off with his approval.

For now, UFC and the fighters are preparing to make arguments in court starting on Feb. 3, 2025.