A class of fighters just notched an important W in their antitrust case against UFC. The Times has a great writeup featuring experts @Econ_Marshall, @hibahafiz, @HalSinger, et al., linked below.

But let's zero in on this misleading argument, from defense counsel... (1/n)

This implies fighters are asking a judge to force UFC to pay out some specific % of revenues. That's not what the fighters are asking at all! (2/n)

Instead, the fighters are asking a judge to prohibit specific instances of conduct by UFC. They focus heavily on exclusive-dealing requirements ("You work for me and no one else!"). (3/n)

These are often anticompetitive, even when done by firms with less-than-monopoly-level market shares. As the Microsoft court recognized, they're even more concerning in a monopoly case like this one. (4/n)

So why are we even talking about wage shares in the UFC case? Because it's one part of measuring *past* harm to the fighters. The fighters' expert ( @HalSinger) showed that UFC's conduct reduces fighters' slice of the pie--their "wage share." (5/n)

But again, nobody's asking the court to "tell[] market participants what percentage of revenue they must assign to compensation."

These fighters, as far as I can tell, are just asking a judge to open up the competitive playing field. (6/6, end)

Link to the story: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/sports/ufc-lawsuit.html