• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

MMA Payout

The Business of Combat Sports

  • Home
  • MMA
    • UFC
    • Bellator
    • One
    • PFL
  • Boxing
  • Legal
  • Ratings
  • Payouts
  • Attendance
  • Gate

Court sides with challenge to FTC non-compete ruling

August 21, 2024 by Jason Cruz Leave a Comment

On Tuesday, a federal court judge sided with a challenge to the Federal Trade Commission’s edict this past spring which set a ban on most non-compete agreements for employees. Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas ruled in favor of the challengers in Ryan v. FTC.

The rule was the set to be place in effect on September 4, 2024. With Judge Brown’s ruling, that will not happen pending an appeal from the agency.

As it relates to the sport of mixed martial arts, the ruling would have prevented the use of non-competes in MMA contracts. The clause, which have been used in WWE and MMA contracts, prevents the contracted individual from moving on to another position for a certain amount of days.

Judge Brown, an appointee of Donald Trump, sided with a Dallas Tax Firm, Ryan, LLC which filed the challenge of the FTC ruling and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business entities which intervened in the lawsuit taking the side of Ryan, LLC.

Judge Brown wrote that the FTC lacked “substantive rule-making authority.” In a NY Times article, an FTC spokesperson stated the FTC, “stands by our clear authority, supported by statute and precedent, to issue this rule.”

Last month, I was quoted in and article about the impact the ruling may have on MMA contracts. With the current Le-Zuffa case heading into trial in February 2025 and injunctive relief not on the table at the moment, one would suspect no huge changes to contracts at the moment. But, the Johnson-Zuffa case outlined issues with UFC contracts which may hear more about if and when the second UFC case comes to light. Barring a settlement in the UFC lawsuit addressing contracts (like it proposed in the failed $335 million settlement), amendments preventing non-competes in the MMA space will not be touched.

The reason why non-competes are of importance in contracts is the ability for employees (or in the case of MMA independent contractors) to be able to move to another employer without having to wait or sit out a period of time due to a non-compete. The FTC argues that workers lose money each year due to non-compete agreements.

MPO will continue to follow.

Filed Under: legal, UFC

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Featured

Ortiz files motion to confirm injunction over

Congressional Report on Ali Revival Act released

Court moves Ortiz case to arbitration

Dominance responds to Motion to Compel

Pac-May II set for September

Judge hears arguments in Golden Boy TRO request

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout
Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Let this be a message to fucking sellouts and those of you who sell morality for social currency. When it’s finally time to show whether you actually have “IT” within you you’ll be exposed

Please god not this guy again

WWE @WWE

.@JellyRoll615 just clocked @mikethemiz 👊

They charging a tax?

Wrestling News @WrestlingNewsCo

Las Vegas Watch Parties Back On For WWE WrestleMania 42, Blackout Has Been Lifted https://wrestlingnews.co/wwe-news/las-vegas-watch-parties-back-wwe-wrestlemania-blackout-been-lifted/

Maybe one of these matches will be fight to the death and the body will be fed to lions

Dr. Lavie Margolin @Laviemarg

A sanctioned UFC match requires a permit, unless it's at the White House - https://goo.gl/alerts/tc3QYe

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Cal Raleigh did not have a single passed ball all last season for the Mariners, and now this one in the 7th inning.

Load More

Copyright © 2026 · MMA Payout: The Business of Combat Sports