arbiter
JournalsAccount

Monopsony and Mixed Martial Arts: An Antitrust Analysis

R. Clifford Blair & Olivia Liu

Antitrust Bulletin2025https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603x251401220article
ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

In Cung Le v. Zuffa , a class of mixed martial arts fighters accused the major promoter of unlawful monopsonization of the MMA fighter labor market. Since the case settled before trial, we have not heard from the jury whether Zuffa was, in fact, a monopsonist. Similarly, Zuffa’s business conduct has not been found to be competitively unreasonable. The plaintiff’s damage methodology went unchallenged, and the settlement terms have gone unexamined. In this article, we explore some of these issues.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603x251401220

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{r.2025,
  title        = {{Monopsony and Mixed Martial Arts: An Antitrust Analysis}},
  author       = {R. Clifford Blair & Olivia Liu},
  journal      = {Antitrust Bulletin},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603x251401220},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Monopsony and Mixed Martial Arts: An Antitrust Analysis

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.