UFC hit with another class-action antitrust lawsuit

The UFC is being sued yet again by a former fighter who claims the Las Vegas-based mixed martial arts promoter violated antitrust laws and has a monopoly on the sport.

Mikhail Cirkunovs, who fought for the UFC under the name Misha Cirkunov, filed a class action lawsuit last week in District Court on behalf of himself and any other fighter who has fought in a live UFC event since July 1, 2017.

The suit seeks over $75,000 in damages. The defendants named in the lawsuit are UFC parent companies Zuffa LLC, Zuffa Parent LLC and Endeavor Group Holdings.

Cirkunovs, a Las Vegas resident, fought 13 times in the UFC, according to the suit, with his last figh in October 2022. A contract he signed with the UFC in September 2020 included an arbitration clause/class-action waiver, where the fighters agreed they would not enter into class action suits and instead enter arbitration with the UFC for any proposed grievances.

The 58-page complaint cites multiple instances where it claims the UFC created a monopoly in professional MMA fighting by signing fighters to exclusive deals, not allowing them to fight for other promotions and by buying out or making other competing leagues go out of business.

The claims are similar to those of two previous antitrust lawsuits filed in 2014 (Le v. Zuffa) and 2021 (Johnson v, Zuffa). But the new case includes the challenging of the arbitration clause/antitrust waiver. A federal judge last year awarded fighters a $375 million settlement for the 2014 suit, with the final approval in the case coming down earlier this year.

The UFC doesn’t believe the Cirkunovs lawsuit carries much merit because the fighters signed class-action waivers in their contracts.

“In previous hearings, Plaintiffs’ own counsel expressed strong concerns to the Court about the weaknesses of the Johnson claims,” a UFC spokesman said in a statement about the latest lawsuit. “This new complaint [Cirkunovs] confirms that the plaintiffs in the Johnson case lack the standing to represent the proposed class. In addition, it confirms that the majority of fighters signed class-action waivers and agreed to arbitrate their claims instead of resorting to court procedures. We are confident that the facts and the law are on our side in opposing approval of both of these proposed classes.”

The UFC controls around 90 percent of revenue generated by MMA fights worldwide, the suit alleges. With a strong hold on the sport, the UFC uses their monopoly to suppress fighters’ pay, the suit alleges.

Cirkunovs suit claims that the UFC doesn’t pay its fighters at the same rate as other professional sports leagues such as the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB and boxing does. The suit alleges the UFC pays its fighters less than 20 percent of revenue generated by fighting events, compared to at least 50 percent—and many times much higher than that— of revenue paid to the big four league and pro boxers for their games and matches.

The suit claims that although the UFC has a similar hold on MMA as the NFL does on professional football, the UFC doesn’t have opposing teams vying to sign rival players based on their estimated value in a competitive market as the NFL does with free agency.

Cirkunovs attorneys, Eric Cramer Michael Gayan, weren’t immediately available Friday for comment on the case.

Contact Mick Akers at makers@reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2920. Follow @mickakers on X.