Zuffa files official Answer to anti-trust lawsuit

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up
Wild

Wild

Zi Nazi
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
85,197
123,574


Yesterday, the UFC defense team added one more taste to the mix by filing its Answer to the plaintiff fighters' Amended Complaint. The legal and economic substance of the new complaint is identical to the version Bloody Elbow painstakingly dissected in December 2014. The only thing that's substantively different is the number of plaintiff fighters has declined from 11 to six.

Pablo Garza, Gabe Ruediger, Darren Uyenoyama, Dennis Hallman, and Mac Danzig all dropped out of the lawsuit while the original three plaintiffs, Cung Le, Nate Quarry, and Jon Fitch remain along with Brandon Vera, Javier Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury.

Zuffa already tried to have the lawsuit thrown out once and it didn't work. Now the discovery process has begun and the UFC had to officially respond to the fighters' allegations, paragraph-by-paragraph. Here are some of the key parts of the UFC's filing.

Paragraph 1

The UFC objects to the term "Elite Professional MMA Fighter" as "vague, confusing, misleading, and without any objective or quantifiable basis or any standard usage in any industry." This relates to the relevant market, which is a critical element of this case.

During the motion to dismiss hearing last September, the UFC argued that the phrase was made up, used circular logic, and that relevant markets aren't composed of just one company. Plaintiffs responded that the relevant markets are about reasonable interchangeability, and they won at the motion to dismiss stage. But this wasn't a full-fledged victory just yet. The UFC is continuing to set up its relevant market position for the future when standards toughen up.

Paragraph 12

Regarding the famous RIP tombstone picture of Dana White and the quote, "I'm the grim reaper, motherf***ers," the UFC answers:

Zuffa admits that a video clip containing the image of Mr. White holding the mock tombstone was uploaded to YouTube and avers that the image pictured in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint speaks for itself. Zuffa otherwise denies that the averments of Paragraph 12.



Expect the UFC to try to flip these statements on their head down the line. During the motion to dismiss hearing, Judge Boulware stated that White's "colorful, brash statements...smack of monopolistic, monopsonistic conduct." The UFC attorney's response was that these are pro-competitive statements "that competitors can and should say."

There's a key premise in U.S. antitrust law and economics; that aggressive, competitive conduct should not be punished, even if it's severe. What should be punished is conduct that destroys competition itself. In the future, the UFC will try to place White and Fertitta's statements in the former category while the fighters will vehemently push for the latter.

Paragraph 29

The UFC objects to the allegation that it is currently valued in excess of $2 billion, "for lack of knowledge."

Full article (which is REALLY good) here: UFC Lawsuit: Zuffa files official Answer denying fighters’ antitrust claims
 
P

Punch

Guest
Wild said:


Yesterday, the UFC defense team added one more taste to the mix by filing its Answer to the plaintiff fighters' Amended Complaint. The legal and economic substance of the new complaint is identical to the version Bloody Elbow painstakingly dissected in December 2014. The only thing that's substantively different is the number of plaintiff fighters has declined from 11 to six.

Pablo Garza, Gabe Ruediger, Darren Uyenoyama, Dennis Hallman, and Mac Danzig all dropped out of the lawsuit while the original three plaintiffs, Cung Le, Nate Quarry, and Jon Fitch remain along with Brandon Vera, Javier Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury.

Zuffa already tried to have the lawsuit thrown out once and it didn't work. Now the discovery process has begun and the UFC had to officially respond to the fighters' allegations, paragraph-by-paragraph. Here are some of the key parts of the UFC's filing.

Paragraph 1

The UFC objects to the term "Elite Professional MMA Fighter" as "vague, confusing, misleading, and without any objective or quantifiable basis or any standard usage in any industry." This relates to the relevant market, which is a critical element of this case.

During the motion to dismiss hearing last September, the UFC argued that the phrase was made up, used circular logic, and that relevant markets aren't composed of just one company. Plaintiffs responded that the relevant markets are about reasonable interchangeability, and they won at the motion to dismiss stage. But this wasn't a full-fledged victory just yet. The UFC is continuing to set up its relevant market position for the future when standards toughen up.

Paragraph 12

Regarding the famous RIP tombstone picture of Dana White and the quote, "I'm the grim reaper, motherf***ers," the UFC answers:

Zuffa admits that a video clip containing the image of Mr. White holding the mock tombstone was uploaded to YouTube and avers that the image pictured in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint speaks for itself. Zuffa otherwise denies that the averments of Paragraph 12.



Expect the UFC to try to flip these statements on their head down the line. During the motion to dismiss hearing, Judge Boulware stated that White's "colorful, brash statements...smack of monopolistic, monopsonistic conduct." The UFC attorney's response was that these are pro-competitive statements "that competitors can and should say."

There's a key premise in U.S. antitrust law and economics; that aggressive, competitive conduct should not be punished, even if it's severe. What should be punished is conduct that destroys competition itself. In the future, the UFC will try to place White and Fertitta's statements in the former category while the fighters will vehemently push for the latter.

Paragraph 29

The UFC objects to the allegation that it is currently valued in excess of $2 billion, "for lack of knowledge."

Full article (which is REALLY good) here: UFC Lawsuit: Zuffa files official Answer denying fighters’ antitrust claims
Click to expand...
Why have some fighters dropped out of the suit? Anyone know?
 
pattitude

pattitude

Posting Machine
Pro Fighter
Oct 25, 2015
909
1,037
I love how Zuffa objects to the fighters calling themselves 'Elite", yet when any fighter is in the UFC that's exactly how they're marketed in the so-called Super Bowl of MMA.

Are your fighters not the elite of the MMA world, Lorenzo? If not, tell me which MMA organization does have the most elite fighters. Where should the fans turn to see the elite of MMA? - Fighter's Lawyer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom