• 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

FBI seeking no-bid contract with the UFC

Court denies Top Rank’s Motion to Dismiss in Keane case

Opetaia fires back at IBF in opposition to MTD

UFC 331 Payout Perspective

UFC 331 attendance, gate and bonuses

Scott Coker is back with Ki MMA

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

Literally turned channel after Philly scored with 8 seconds left . lol

NFL @NFL

UNBELIEVABLE. JAGS WIN.

WHAT JUST HAPPENED?!?!

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

We going 3-9

Jacksonville wyd

Let’s take a look at UW next opponent…wholly sh-t #purplereign

Japanese Americans trek from Seattle to Tacoma ICE center to stand up for immigrants via @seattletimes

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