The UFC is in the middle of several major legal fights at once. A decade-long antitrust class action ended in February 2025 with a $375 million settlement for more than 1,100 former fighters, and most of that money has now been paid out. Three newer antitrust lawsuits, all pending before the same federal judge in Nevada, aim to extend the same theory to fighters who competed from July 2017 onward. And in June 2026, a federal judge in Washington rejected an emergency lawsuit that tried to stop the UFC from staging a pay-per-view event on the South Lawn of the White House.
The $375 Million Antitrust Settlement
The case that shaped everything else is Cung Le, et al. v. Zuffa, LLC (2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW), filed in December 2014 by former fighters Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, and Jon Fitch. They alleged that Zuffa, the UFC’s parent company, violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by using exclusive contracts, acquisitions of rival promoters, and control over media and venues to suppress fighter pay.1Cohen Milstein. Mixed Martial Arts Antitrust Litigation
Expert testimony estimated the UFC’s share of the labor-input market for elite MMA fighters at 70% to 90%.2The Antitrust Attorney. MMA Monopsony: MMA Fighters Win Class Certification Bout The plaintiffs said the UFC kept more than 80% of the revenue its events generated in the United States, while fighters received about 17%.3UFC Class Action. Competition or Collective Bargaining
In August 2023, U.S. District Judge Richard F. Boulware II certified a “Bout Class” of more than 1,200 fighters who competed in UFC bouts in the United States between December 16, 2010, and June 30, 2017. In his order, he wrote that “fighters were trapped by Zuffa’s exclusionary contracts and their restrictive terms,” and concluded that the UFC “evinced a clear intent to acquire and maintain monopsony power.”1Cohen Milstein. Mixed Martial Arts Antitrust Litigation The Ninth Circuit declined to hear the UFC’s appeal of that ruling. A $335 million settlement was reached in March 2024, later increased to $375 million, and Judge Boulware granted final approval in February 2025.4Joseph Saveri Law Firm. UFC Antitrust Litigation
How the Money Is Being Paid Out
The $375 million fund, plus about $6.6 million in accrued interest, covers more than 1,100 fighters. After fees, costs, and service awards, the net distribution fund is roughly $251 million. Allocation is split: 70% (about $175.8 million) based on each fighter’s total UFC event compensation during the class period, and 30% (about $75.3 million) based on the number of bouts. That works out to about 32.7% of a fighter’s UFC pay during the class period, plus roughly $14,179 per fight.5Yahoo Sports. UFC Fighters Are Finally Getting Their Money
Individual payouts vary widely. About 35 fighters were expected to receive more than $1 million. The largest estimated payout, roughly $10.3 million, was attributed to Anderson Silva, followed by about $9 million for Conor McGregor and $6 million for Ronda Rousey. About 100 fighters were expected to receive more than $500,000, most class members fell into the $50,000 to $250,000 range, and the minimum recovery was $15,000.5Yahoo Sports. UFC Fighters Are Finally Getting Their Money6Courthouse News Service. Judge Grants Final Approval of $375 Million UFC Antitrust Settlement
As of March 31, 2026, more than $237 million had gone to 984 of 1,088 claimants, over 90% of the available funds. The remaining payments are stalled by banking errors, missing payment instructions, probate and divorce disputes, and restrictions involving claimants in countries under U.S. sanctions.7UFC Fighter Class Action. UFC Fighter Class Action Settlement The claims administrator, the Angeion Group, can be reached at 1-866-955-5564 or Info@UFCFighterClassAction.com.8UFC Fighter Class Action. FAQs
The Three Pending Antitrust Cases
The Le settlement only covers fighters from December 2010 through June 2017. Three lawsuits now target the UFC’s conduct from July 2017 onward, all pending before Judge Boulware.
Johnson v. Zuffa
Filed in June 2021 by former UFC fighter Kajan Johnson and Clarence Dollaway, this case (2:21-cv-01189) seeks to represent fighters who competed for the UFC from July 1, 2017, forward. The UFC has moved to deny class certification, and Judge Boulware deferred ruling on that motion at a June 2025 hearing.9CourtListener. Johnson v. Zuffa, LLC Docket
Discovery has been contentious. In February 2025, the court warned Endeavor Group Holdings, the UFC’s corporate parent, that further discovery violations would draw sanctions “up to and including dispositive sanctions.” On February 25, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a default judgment against Zuffa, Endeavor, and TKO Operating Company, alleging the defendants “destroyed years of critical evidence” relevant to the wage-fixing claims and then spent months attempting to conceal the destruction.4Joseph Saveri Law Firm. UFC Antitrust Litigation No ruling on that sanctions motion has been reported.
Cirkunovs v. Zuffa
Filed on May 23, 2025, by retired UFC fighter Misha Cirkunov, this case (2:25-cv-00914) targets fighters who signed contracts containing arbitration clauses and class-action waivers. In the Johnson case, the UFC argued that some fighters were excluded from that class because of those provisions. Cirkunovs mirrors the Johnson anticompetitive-conduct allegations and asks the court to declare those waivers unenforceable under Nevada and federal law.10Yahoo Sports. UFC Antitrust Threat Returns
Davis v. Zuffa
Filed on May 29, 2025, by veteran MMA fighter Phil Davis, this case (2:25-cv-00946) is the broadest of the three. Davis seeks to represent fighters who competed for other MMA promotions since July 2017, arguing that the UFC’s monopolistic practices suppressed wages across the entire professional MMA industry, not just among UFC-contracted athletes.11ESPN. Veteran MMA Fighter Phil Davis Leading Antitrust Suit vs. UFC Discovery in Cirkunovs and Davis has been consolidated with Johnson to the extent the issues overlap.9CourtListener. Johnson v. Zuffa, LLC Docket
The Lawsuit To Stop the White House Event
On June 6, 2026, the Public Integrity Project sued the National Park Service in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Case No. 26-cv-02016), asking for an emergency order to stop “Freedom 250,” a UFC pay-per-view scheduled for the White House South Lawn on June 14. The plaintiffs were two Virginia residents, a political activist and a Vietnam War veteran.12CBS News. UFC White House Judge13WTOP. Last-Minute Lawsuit Looks To Halt UFC White House Event
The complaint argued that erecting the UFC’s 92-foot, 600-ton venue structure on federal parkland violated 40 U.S.C. ยง 8106, which bars construction on federal land in the District of Columbia without express congressional authorization.14Public Integrity Project. Public Integrity Project Sues To Stop Corrupt White House UFC Fight The suit also alleged the event required an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act that was never done, and that NPS regulations prohibit sporting events on federal parkland.15Bloomberg Law. White House UFC Fight Violates Environmental Rules, Lawsuit Says The Trump administration relied on a 2025 temporary rule allowing streamlined approvals for America250 anniversary celebrations, but the plaintiffs said that rule did not cover a private, for-profit sporting event.16Los Angeles Times. Lawsuit UFC Freedom 250
On June 12, 2026, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta denied the injunction. He ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not shown they would suffer irreparable harm. He also pointed to the “late nature” of the suit, filed on June 7 despite construction beginning in late May, and said stopping the event would cause “substantial harm” to the UFC, which had already spent more than $60 million.17ESPN. Judge OKs Weekend UFC Event at White House18CNN. White House Freedom 250 UFC Fight Lawsuit Because the case was dismissed on standing, the judge made no ruling on whether the event actually violated federal law. Freedom 250 went ahead on June 14, with Justin Gaethje defeating Ilia Topuria in the main event.19CNN. White House Freedom 250 UFC Fight
What Isn’t a Lawsuit: The Ali Revival Act
One other UFC-related fight in Washington gets folded into news coverage of these lawsuits, but it is not litigation. The Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act (H.R. 4624), introduced by Rep. Brian Jack in July 2025, passed the House by voice vote on March 24, 2026, and was referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.20Congress.gov. H.R. 4624, Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act It would create a “Unified Boxing Organizations” category that lets a single company sign fighters, promote bouts, award titles, and control rankings, replicating the UFC’s model in boxing.21ESPN. Boxing Reforms Congress Dana White Pat English, a lead drafter of the original 2000 Ali Act, told Congress in written testimony that the Revival Act was “substantially drafted by lobbyists” for Zuffa.22Yahoo Sports. The Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act It is legislation, not a court case, but its outcome will shape whatever antitrust exposure the UFC and its boxing venture face next.