The UFC antitrust lawsuit didn’t start with a settlement. It started with three fighters, a federal complaint, and a decade of litigation that ended with a $375 million payout — and a second case that may go even further. Here’s the complete story, from the first filing in 2014 to the evidence destruction allegations of 2026.
Why the Lawsuit Existed: The Core Allegation
The UFC antitrust lawsuit alleged that Zuffa — the UFC’s parent company at the time — had acquired and maintained an illegal monopoly in the market for elite professional MMA fighter services. In plain terms: the UFC used its dominant position to make itself the only serious employer for top fighters, and then used that position to pay them far less than they would have earned in a competitive market.
The specific tactics alleged included a pattern of acquiring rival promotions (Pride, WEC, Strikeforce, Affliction) to eliminate competing buyers for fighter talent, combined with exclusive long-term contracts, matching rights, and champion’s clauses that made it nearly impossible for fighters to leave even when their deals expired. The result, plaintiffs alleged, was that fighters received roughly 15-20% of UFC revenue — well below the 48-50% standard in other major professional sports with players’ unions.
Le v. Zuffa: How It Started
In December 2014, three former UFC fighters — Cung Le, Nate Quarry, and Jon Fitch — filed a class action complaint in federal court in California. The case was soon transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, where UFC headquarters is located.
In February 2015, Zuffa filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the fighters’ allegations didn’t support an antitrust claim even if taken as true. Judge Richard F. Boulware II denied the motion in October 2016, ruling all matters required further litigation. The case survived.
Over the next several years, the case moved through discovery — a process where both sides exchange evidence and depose witnesses. Fighters’ attorneys gained access to internal UFC financial records, communications, and contract data that had never been made public. What they found formed the factual basis for everything that followed.
The Class Certification: August 2023
After years of litigation and a seven-witness evidentiary hearing, Judge Boulware certified the class on August 9, 2023. This meant the case could proceed on behalf of all fighters who competed in the UFC between December 16, 2010 and June 30, 2017 — approximately 1,200 fighters.
In his certification ruling, Boulware made a finding that would become central to everything that followed: the UFC had “willfully engaged in anticompetitive conduct to maintain or increase their market power.” That language — “willfully” — wasn’t an allegation anymore. It was a judicial finding.
Summary Judgment Denied: January 2024
On January 18, 2024, Boulware denied the UFC’s motion for summary judgment — its attempt to have the case thrown out before trial. With the case headed for a jury, the UFC faced the prospect of treble damages under the Sherman Act. The lawsuit had originally sought up to $1.6 billion in damages. Triple that, and the exposure was significant enough to make settlement look attractive.
The First Settlement: $335 Million — Rejected
On March 13, 2024, with trial weeks away, the UFC and plaintiffs reached a settlement: $335 million, covering both Le v. Zuffa and the separately-filed Johnson v. Zuffa case in a single payment.
Judge Boulware rejected it.
His concerns were specific. First, he felt the amount was too low given the strength of the plaintiffs’ case and his own finding of willful anticompetitive conduct. Second, he was troubled by the attempt to resolve Johnson v. Zuffa — covering fighters from 2017 to the present — in the same settlement as Le, effectively asking a completely different group of fighters to give up their separate claims without their own litigation.
Boulware reportedly said he wanted to see “life-changing” money go to fighters before he’d approve anything. He set a new trial date and told both sides to renegotiate.
The Final Settlement: $375 Million — Approved
On October 23, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval to a revised $375 million settlement — this time covering only Le v. Zuffa, leaving Johnson v. Zuffa entirely intact for separate litigation.
More than 150 fighters submitted personal statements urging quick approval, citing financial hardship and long-term physical damage from their careers. Former interim heavyweight champion Shane Carwin, who has said he suffers from CTE, told the court he faced serious challenges covering basic living expenses.
On February 6, 2025, Boulware granted final approval. The written order followed on March 3, 2025. After nearly eleven years, Le v. Zuffa was over.
Who Got Paid and How Much
Total settlement: $375 million
Directly to fighters: $335 million (remainder to legal fees and administration)
Eligible fighters: Approximately 1,100 to 1,200 who competed between December 2010 and June 2017
Claim rate: Over 97% — an unusually high participation rate for a class action of this size
Average payout: Approximately $250,000 per fighter
Range: From roughly $50,000 to more than $1 million, depending on career length and pay level during the class period
One Fighter Who Said No
Renato “Money” Moicano — ranked lightweight contender and rising media personality — publicly declined his $200,000 settlement payout. His reason wasn’t financial. He said it was about principle, disagreeing with the lawsuit’s premise and the idea of accepting money from a legal process he didn’t support. He’s the only publicly known fighter to turn down a share of the $375 million fund.
What Le v. Zuffa Did NOT Change
The settlement included some non-monetary terms — including a requirement that the UFC provide written notification when a fighter’s contract is set to expire.
What it did not do: eliminate the champion’s clause, end the matching period, change the independent contractor classification, raise the revenue share, or require any structural changes to how the UFC does business going forward. Entry-level pay remained $12,000 to show, $12,000 to win. The contract terms that created the lawsuit in the first place are still standard in every UFC contract signed today.
Johnson v. Zuffa: The Case That’s Still Going
While Le v. Zuffa is resolved, a second class action — Johnson v. Zuffa, filed in June 2021 by fighters Kajan Johnson and C.B. Dollaway — covers fighters who competed in the UFC from July 1, 2017 to the present. This case remains active.
Unlike Le, which focused primarily on compensating fighters for past harm, the Johnson plaintiffs have explicitly stated their goal is to force structural changes to how the UFC does business going forward — the kind of change the $375 million settlement did not require. The class was certified in August 2023 alongside Le, survived the UFC’s summary judgment motion in January 2024, and is currently in discovery.
Two additional related lawsuits have also been filed: Cirkunovs v. Zuffa (May 2025) and Davis v. Zuffa (May 2025), covering fighters who competed after July 1, 2017 and who had arbitration clauses or class action waivers in their contracts — provisions not present in the contracts covered by the original Johnson class.
The Evidence Destruction Allegations: February 2026
On February 25, 2026, plaintiffs in the Johnson case filed a motion for severe sanctions against TKO Operating Co. (which operates the UFC), majority owner Endeavor Group Holdings, and Zuffa LLC. The motion alleged that the three entities “destroyed years of critical evidence” relevant to the case and then “spent months scheming to cover up their spoliation.”
Spoliation is the legal term for the destruction or withholding of evidence that a party knew — or should have known — was relevant to ongoing litigation. When a court finds intentional spoliation, potential sanctions range from adverse inference instructions (telling the jury to assume the destroyed evidence would have helped the other side) to terminating sanctions — which is exactly what plaintiffs asked for: a default judgment in their favor.
As of July 2026, the sanctions motion remains pending. Judge Boulware has not yet ruled. If the court grants terminating sanctions, the UFC would effectively lose the Johnson case without trial. If it denies the motion, the case proceeds to trial on its merits — and the fighters still have the underlying antitrust claims, which survived summary judgment.
The Legislative Track: The Muhammad Ali Act
Parallel to the litigation, the MMA Fighters Association has been pushing a legislative solution: extending the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act to cover MMA fighters. The Ali Act, which governs professional boxing, requires promoters to provide fighters with copies of their contracts, prohibits promoters from also managing fighters (a conflict of interest), and creates other transparency protections.
The bill has been introduced in Congress multiple times and has stalled each time. The UFC has spent heavily lobbying against it. Because fighters are classified as independent contractors rather than employees, they cannot unionize under the National Labor Relations Act — making legislation the only remaining structural path to reform that doesn’t require winning every lawsuit.
The Bottom Line
Le v. Zuffa ran for eleven years, produced a $375 million settlement, won a national antitrust award, and resulted in a federal judge’s finding that the UFC engaged in willful anticompetitive conduct. It paid fighters for a decade of suppressed earnings. It changed nothing about the contract structure going forward.
Johnson v. Zuffa wants more. It covers every fighter since 2017, includes allegations of evidence destruction, and has explicitly stated its goal is structural change. Whether it delivers depends on what Judge Boulware does with a sanctions motion that — if granted — could end the case in the fighters’ favor before a single witness takes the stand.
What was the UFC antitrust lawsuit about?
Fighters alleged the UFC used its dominant market position to suppress their pay, acquire rival promotions to eliminate competition, and lock them into restrictive long-term contracts. The core claim was that the UFC operated an illegal monopoly in the market for elite MMA fighter services.
How much did the UFC pay in the antitrust settlement?
$375 million, finalized February 6, 2025. Of that total, $335 million went directly to approximately 1,200 fighters who competed in the UFC between December 2010 and June 2017.
Is there still an active UFC antitrust lawsuit?
Yes. Johnson v. Zuffa covers fighters from July 2017 to the present and remains in active litigation. As of 2026, a sanctions motion alleging evidence destruction is pending before Judge Boulware.
What is spoliation in the UFC case?
Spoliation is the destruction or withholding of evidence relevant to litigation. In February 2026, Johnson plaintiffs alleged the UFC, TKO, and Endeavor destroyed years of critical evidence and covered it up. If the court grants terminating sanctions, the UFC could lose the case without trial.
Did the UFC settlement change how fighters get paid?
No. The $375 million settlement compensated fighters for past harm but did not require any changes to UFC contract structure, pay minimums, revenue share, or the champion’s clause. Entry-level pay remains $12,000 to show, $12,000 to win.