As we prepare for another filing in the UFC Antitrust lawsuit this week, MMA Payout takes a look at the briefing in supporting the motion to exclude plaintiffs’ experts.
Earlier this month, Zuffa filed briefs in support of its Motion to Exclude the testimony of Dr. Andrew Zimbalist. They seek to exclude the testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert case which allows the Court to determine whether certain expert testimony may be used at trial prior to trial. The standard for admissibility is based on 5 factors which look to the scientific means of the method and whether they are generally accepted within the industry. Zuffa argues that Dr. Zimbalist’s expert testimony as indicated in his submitted report conducted “no analysis and used no standards in his yardstick method.”
Zuffa Reply ISO Motion to Exclude Zimbalist by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd
Zuffa argues that there are standards for the ‘yardstick method’ which Dr. Zimbalist uses, but he chose not to do so. Specifically, Zuffa argues that Dr. Zimbalist did not conduct an empirical analysis of product markets, business models, revenue sources, or inputs. According to Zuffa, Dr. Zimbalist did not consider any of the other factors that must be assessed using the yardstick method including “demand conditions or whether the comparators stand in the same relative position in their markets.”
In its analysis, the Dr. Zimbalist is measuring damages by wage share. However, Zuffa argues that this measure is not accurate since it neglects to use individual salaries. Zuffa argues, “[i]t is highly speculative for Dr. Zimbalist to assume without foundation that these hundreds of negotiations would add up to a similar wage share as the contractually define wage shares collectively bargained by the unions in the comparator sports.”
Zuffa goes on in its brief to argue that Dr. Zimbalist’s comparison to boxing is premised on faulty data as he uses Golden Boy to measure the entire boxing industry. Zuffa argues that Dr. Zimbalist utilized data from another’s expert report in Golden Boy’s lawsuit against Al Haymon without independently verifying the data.
Finally, it argues that Dr. Zimbalist’s expert reports do not support Dr. Hal Singer’s expert reports and analysis and vice versa.
In supporting its motion to exclude Dr. Singer, Zuffa argues once again that wage share is not an acceptable practice for measuring damages. Specifically, Zuffa takes issue with a regression analysis performed by Dr. Singer in his model. Zuffa argues that the expert report finds anticompetitive effect which “directly contradicts” the fact that actual compensation has increased. Second, the regression analysis performed by Dr. Singer shows that there is no anticompetitive effect and there is no relationship between the conduct and actual wages.
Zuffa Reply ISO Motion to Exclude Dr. Singer by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd
The reply briefing to plaintiffs’ opposition to exclude their retained experts’ reports are based on the difference regarding wage share and actual wages. The assertion by Zuffa is that “an analysis of wage share does not provide a reliable means of inferring anticompetitive effect, antitrust injury or damages because it cannot distinguish between a decrease in wage share as a result of the challenged conduct and a decrease as a result of legal and procompetitive business developments that increase overall revenues.” Zuffa argues that there is no case law or economic literature supporting a regression analysis with wage share as a dependent variable inferring anticompetitive conduct. Defendant also points out that the method would assume that a mandatory share of revenue is allocated for compensation. Yet, Zuffa compensates athletes based on “its perception of the athlete’s value and market forces, leading to a wide range of athlete compensation.”
Zuffa also argues that Dr. Singer’s reports do not show causality between his findings an the alleged anticompetitive conduct. Zuffa claims that Dr. Singer’s regression analysis does not answer the key question of what proportion of increased revenues are attributable to athletes. Rather, Dr. Singer relies upon economic theory which cannot replace Daubert standards according to Zuffa.
Leave a Reply