UFC’s $335 million deal with fighters has Nevada judge concerned

A Nevada federal judge raised concerns about some aspects of the Ultimate Fighting Championship’s $335 million settlement with fighters pursuing suppressed pay claims, according to a person familiar with the matter.

U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware for the District of Nevada, during a status hearing on Friday on the proposed deal, expressed concerns about the size of the settlement and whether a class of fighters could be paid significantly less than an individual class pursuing similar claims, the court said. person.

Boulware asked for more information about payments to the fighters and ordered another status hearing on June 28.

A UFC spokesperson declined to comment on the details of Friday’s hearing, calling the judge’s questions and feedback “part of the settlement review process.”

“As we previously indicated, a settlement has been reached to the satisfaction of both parties,” the spokesperson said. “The parties will continue to advocate for the court’s final approval of the settlement.”

TKO Group Holdings Inc., parent company of the UFC mixed-martial arts league, said in March it has reached an agreement to end two class-action lawsuits involving more than 1,000 UFC mixed-martial arts fighters. The deal came a month before the fighters, who were seeking $1.6 billion in damages, were set to take the Las Vegas-based professional fighting competition to court.

Judges typically look at several factors when approving settlements, including the likelihood that plaintiffs and defendants will win a lawsuit, the total amount awarded to consumers, attorneys’ fees and how the money is distributed.

The deal reached in March came nearly a decade after a group of MMA fighters first sued the UFC, alleging the company had abused its market power over their labor and depressed their wages.

The plaintiffs are represented by law firms including Berger Montague PC. UFC is represented by law firms including Paul Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

The cases are Le v. Zuffa, D. Nev., No. 2:15-cv-01045, 3/20/24 and Johnson v. Zuffa, D. Nev., No. 2:21-cv-01189, 6 /14/2024.