Imagine a courtroom drama where the future of fighter wages and the integrity of a major sports organization hang in the balance. That’s exactly what’s unfolding in the ongoing legal battles between former UFC fighters and the UFC itself. In 2025, ex-UFC athletes secured a landmark $325 million settlement (https://www.mmamania.com/2024/3/20/24106848/ufc-antitrust-lawsuit-settles-335-million-tko-stock-jumps-more-than-five-points-response-mma) after accusing the promotion of using anti-competitive tactics to suppress their earnings. This case, Le v. Zuffa, covered fighters from 2010 to 2017, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg. And this is where it gets even more intriguing: additional lawsuits are looming, targeting practices from 2017 to the present (Johnson / Dollaway v. Zuffa) and challenging unfair arbitration clauses and class action waivers in UFC contracts (Cirkunov v. Zuffa).
These cases are deep into the discovery phase, where the UFC is required to hand over all data related to fighter pay and contract negotiations. But here’s where it gets controversial: for years, the UFC has been locked in a tug-of-war with the courts over what information to disclose. One glaring issue? UFC President Dana White’s cell phone data. It turns out his records were scattered across multiple devices, some of which he initially failed to disclose. Now, history seems to be repeating itself. Plaintiffs in Cirkunov v. Zuffa claim they’re facing similar obstacles in obtaining White’s phone data, as well as that of UFC legal official Tracy Long. They allege significant ‘gaps in production,’ suggesting both parties may have withheld information from undisclosed devices.
This is no small matter. If the judge determines White and Long intentionally concealed or destroyed evidence, it could be deemed ‘spoliation’—a serious legal offense. As a result, both are set to testify in court in early 2026. A court document states: “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Spoilation Hearing is set for February 4th and February 5th of 2026 at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Dana White will testify first and then Ms. Tracy Long.”
The UFC isn’t backing down, though. They argue that the Johnson / Dollaway v. Zuffa lawsuit lacks merit because many fighters signed anti-trust waivers, supposedly barring them from such legal action. In response, Cirkunov v. Zuffa plaintiffs claim these waivers are ‘invalid and unenforceable’ (https://www.mmafighting.com/2025/5/30/24440175/ufc-hit-with-2-new-antitrust-lawsuits-filed-by-former-fighters). The fate of these arguments rests with Judge Richard F. Boulware, who also presided over the Le v. Zuffa case.
But here’s the kicker: if the UFC is found to have destroyed evidence, it could severely undermine their defense. As The MMA Draw’s Zach Arnold points out (https://www.themmadraw.com/p/ufc-antitrust-judge-orders-dana-white), such actions would strike at the heart of the UFC’s intent and legality. If the court determines evidence tampering or destruction occurred, Judge Boulware could rule that the UFC’s arbitration clauses and class-action waivers are unenforceable under Nevada law.
If these waivers are invalidated, the UFC could face another massive class-action lawsuit akin to Le v. Zuffa, with fighters armed with strong evidence of monopolistic practices suppressing their wages. But here’s the question that lingers: Is the UFC’s legal strategy a legitimate defense of their business model, or a calculated attempt to evade accountability? What do you think? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments below.
