• 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

Appeals Court sets date for oral argument in Zuffa appeal

Don King sends Zuffa Boxing cease and desist

Zuffa files Reply Brief in Cirkunov Antitrust Lawsuit

UFC 330 Payout Perspective

Update on CSI Entertainment – Mayweather lawsuit, Injunction request withdrawn

The Legal Submission 109 takes a look at TKO Earnings

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

Why put Bazardo in? #goms

LAZ

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

On September 15, 2001, Balbir Singh Sodhi was planting flowers outside his Arizona gas station when Frank Roque pulled up and fatally shot him. Roque wanted revenge for 9/11 and mistook Sodhi, a Sikh man, for a Muslim because of his turban.

Sodhi became the first person killed

Josh Naylor just sucks #Mariners

Load More

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