Top Rank to produce documents in MMA fighter class action v. Zuffa

Attorneys representing the class of fighters who are suing Zuffa, LLC (the UFC's parent company) on monopoly and monopsony grounds, filed a Notice of Resolution of the their Motion to Compel Top Rank, Inc. to produce financial documents in the case.  Unfortunately, the Notice of Resolution is heavily redacted but it's clear that Top Rank will produce at least some financial documents in the case.

In the Motion to Compel, plaintiffs' attorneys had sought "full year, aggregated financial data which includes total revenues generated from the promotion of boxing events, and total compensation paid to boxers."  The Motion quoted Arum as saying that Top Rank paid its boxers approximately 80% of proceeds generated from boxing events compared to the UFC which he stated "doesn't pay out 20% to the fighters . . . They are a monopoly - and we are not."

See Motion to Compel below:

See Notice of Resolution below:

Multi-District Litigation In Re: Mayweather-Pacquiao PPV Dismissed

On August 25, 2017, in the United States District Court, Central District of California, Judge R. Gary Klausner issued an opinion dismissing all of the claims filed in 26 individual actions and 15 consolidated complaints alleging that Defendants Floyd Mayweather, Mayweather Promotions, LLC, Manny Pacquiao, Top Rank, Inc., Michael Koncz, Bob Arum, Todd DuBeouf and HBO all concealed Pacquiao's shoulder injury and mislead the buying public into paying for the fight that they would not have otherwise purchased.

Judge Klausner ruled that letting these claims stand would "disrupt the nature and integrity of competitive sports."   Judge Klausner used the doctrine known as the "license approach" in determining the legal rights of the ticket purchasers.  Under this doctrine, "a ticket to a sporting event gives the purchaser 'nothing more than a revocable license' to view what transpires at the ticketed event, regardless of prior promises or representations about the performance."

Judge Klausner held that "a misrepresentation or omission implicates the core of athletic competitions, and therefore does not constitute a cognizable injury to a legally protected interest under the license approach, if it is related to: (A) competitive strategy, or (B) the quality or outcome of competitive performance." Judge Klausner then reasoned that all of the alleged misrepresentations of the Defendants in regards to Pacquiao's injury fell under either competitive strategy or the quality of the performance.

"The Court is sympathetic to the fact that many boxing fans felt deceived by the statements and omissions made by the fight's participants and promoter.  The proper remedy for such unscrupulous behavior when it implicates the core of athletic competition, however, is not a legal one.  Disappointed fans may demand that fighters be more transparent in the future, lobby their state athletic commissions to impose more stringent pre-fight medical screenings and disclosure requirements, or even stop watching boxing altogether. They may not, however, sustain a class-action lawsuit."

"In this case, Plaintiffs ultimately received what they paid for, namely: the right to view a boxing match between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather, sanctioned and regulated by the Nevada State Athletic Commission. Plaintiffs had no legally protected interest or right to see an exciting fight, a fight between two totally healthy and fully prepared boxers, or a fight that lived up to the significant pre-fight hype."

See Judge Klausner's opinion below: