The Fight Outside the Octagon - The Legal Battle for Fighter Pay in the UFC
By Tyler Sushinsky | Oct. 14, 2024
The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) is no stranger to controversy. With issues ranging from doping scandals to concerns about athlete safety and problematic matchmaking practices, Dana White’s mixed martial arts organization has faced repeated criticism over its business decisions and its treatment of athletes. Perhaps the most consequential of these controversies centers around compensation.
UFC President Dana White. Getty Images
Fighter Pay
In the UFC, fighters sign contracts that outline their base salary and potential bonuses. These contracts typically consist of two payments.
The first, called a “show” payment, is a fixed amount that is received simply for showing up and competing. The second, called a “win” bonus, can double a fighter’s earnings if they are victorious. For instance, a newer fighter might earn $5,000 as a show payment and another $5,000 if they win.
Contracts usually cover multiple fights, and with each new contract negotiation, fighters can increase their pay depending on their recent performances and status within the organization. However, these contracts are known to be restrictive, stating that fighters can only compete under the UFC title, limiting their career mobility. When coupling the restrictive outlines of these contracts with the UFC's relatively low pay, the future financial outlook for many fighters seems grim. In other major sports leagues, such as the NFL or NBA, the exclusivity of contracts is counteracted by significant compensation, ensuring athletes can live without financial worries. Fighters in the UFC can expect an average annual salary of $51,370, whereas players in the NBA earn, on average, $11.9 million a year.
Earlier this month, the UFC submitted a second settlement offer in its historic antitrust lawsuit with former and current fighters. This appears to bring one of the most unique and controversial antitrust lawsuits in sports history to a close.
The Le v. Zuffa Lawsuit
In 2014, a group of former UFC fighters (Cung Le, Nate Quarry, and Jon Fitch) filed a complaint in California federal court against Zuffa, the parent company of the UFC, claiming the organization violated the federal antitrust law when it comes to paying fighters and sharing revenue. The fighters argued that compared to other professional sports, athletes in the UFC were being paid disproportionately lower. The UFC tends to pay its fighters around 15- 20% of the company’s total revenue, compared to other professional leagues such as the NFL or NBA, who pay their athletes around 50%. In addition, the UFC had acquired various rival MMA organizations (Pride, Strikeforce), which only further increased their overwhelming dominance in the industry. Without a strong competitor to rival the UFC, there is no pressure for the company to increase fighter compensation. 879
By February 2018, the case had been moved to Las Vegas, Nevada where the fighters filed a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action. Almost three years later, the court granted their request, a major win for the plaintiffs. The class action status allowed the fighters to pool their resources and share legal costs. In addition, this meant that any potential ruling in the case could benefit all the UFC fighters who competed from December 16, 2010, through June 30, 2017. This expanded the financial scale and risk for the UFC, as a sizable group of fighters would now be eligible for damages if the case succeeded.
Since then, multiple hearings and trials have taken place, with some of UFC’s biggest names being questioned under oath, including UFC President Dana White and former CEO Lorenzo Fertitta. Earlier this year, Zuffa proposed a $335 million settlement that was accepted by the plaintiffs. However, in a surprising turn of events, the judge rejected the offer, instead asking for Zuffa to increase the settlement offer, so much so as referring to it as “life-changing” money for the fighters.
Despite the initial veto, another settlement agreement was reached earlier this month for $375 million. Now with both sides just waiting for the judge to approve the offer, many seem to believe this marks the end of this historic legal battle. However, a cloud of uncertainty still exists.
Copy of the complaint filed against Zuffa and the UFC. United States District Court
The Implications
The potential settlement agreement comes with a wave of criticism from fans and fighters alike. Many argue that the settlement provides a short-term benefit with negative, long-term consequences. Even if the result of the lawsuit brings compensation to fighters, it doesn't change the current UFC’s business model. The UFC can continue to use restrictive contracts like exclusive long-term deals, limiting fighters’ negotiating power in the future. Fighters would still face pay discrepancies, with a small, elite percentage taking home most of the cash. The payouts from the settlement, while significant, are more of a one-time resolution without true long-term improvements in fighter compensation structures.
Many of the newer UFC contracts include class action waivers, which protects the organization and prevents fighters from participating in future, similar lawsuits. Even though the settlement provides immediate compensation, it severely limits the legal options of many fighters—especially those who signed contracts after 2017—from suing the UFC again. With most rookie fighters having a guarantee of just $7,000 per fight, many struggle to stay afloat financially.
The UFC's antitrust settlement includes structural changes to fighter contracts, but these are only required to be in place for five years. The changes include a four to five-month limit on the waiting period after a contract ends (previously 15 months), allowing fighters to move between MMA organizations easier. While these adjustments provide some short-term benefits to the fighters, the UFC can simply reintroduce the restrictive clauses after the five-year period ends in 2029. Critics argue the changes fail to address other, deeper issues in the MMA industry, such as the lack of a fighters' union or collective bargaining rights that could provide a more reasonable long-term solution. The fighters' lack of influence in the policies and decisions that shape their career is nothing new. In an interview with GQ in 2022, Dana White proclaimed that as long as he remains in command, an increase in fighter compensation “would never happen”.
Due to limited financial mobility, fighters have been forced to look elsewhere, with some adapting unique online personalities to generate additional income and grow their brand. Fighters such as Sean Strickland and Colby Covington have proven how provoking and vulgar acts can generate attention and overall revenue before and after fights, resulting in various controversial moments outside the octagon. On the other hand, some take a more entrepreneurial route to supplement their income, such as Max Holloway and Sean O'Malley, who each have their own YouTube channel and clothing line.
UFC fighter Cung Le, one of the original plaintiffs of the case. Getty Images
Fighters’ Perspectives
Multiple former and current fighters have publicly stated their opinion on the matter. Francis Ngannou’s dispute with the UFC over fighter pay and contract terms became one of the most significant examples in recent years. Despite being the UFC heavyweight champion, Ngannou declined to re-sign with the company in 2023, citing unfair treatment, particularly in terms of financial compensation and fighter freedom. Ngannou also wanted to pursue boxing, but his contract restricted him from doing so. After Ngannou did eventually leave the UFC, he earned a total of $30 million in his following two boxing matches, compared to the $600,000 he received from his last UFC fight (UFC 270). The viral situation highlighted the lack of negotiating power for even the most successful fighters.
On the other hand, some fighters are content with the current business model. Kevin Holland, a distinguished fighter in the welterweight division, has publicly supported the system, claiming that most fighters are just not active enough. In a 2021 interview with UFC reporter Ariel Helwani, Holland explained, “So many people [are] talking about [how] they don't get paid that much money in the UFC. Hey, they need to fight more or they need to get a better manager… I make good money, I'm very happy.” Holland has competed in eighteen UFC fights since 2020, making him the most active fighter in that timespan.
Francis Ngannou, former UFC Heavyweight Champion left the organization in 2023 over contract disputes. Getty Images
What Lies Ahead?
The $375 million settlement offer marks a crucial moment in the ongoing battle for fair fighter compensation, but it should not be viewed as a permanent solution. While the settlement may provide a financial boost to some fighters in the short term, the deep-rooted issues within the UFC’s contract model remain unaddressed. Without any significant changes to contract structures and the establishment of a union, fighters will continue to struggle with limited negotiating power and pay disparities.
While other major sports leagues are breaking all-time contract records, the UFC remains stagnant. This polarization reflects not only different business priorities within the UFC but also the fighters' lack of influence, leaving them with fewer outlets to advocate for fairer compensation and forcing some to adopt controversial personas to stay relevant. Still, the UFC’s market monopoly ensures that fighters will face restricted career options and financial constraints.
As the UFC and mixed martial arts world evolves, the push for fairer compensation carries on, leaving the question of whether this settlement will be a significant turning point or just a temporary resolution.
