Gone under the radar in the world of combat sports litigation, last fall Gegard Mousasi sued Bellator alleging that he was frozen out of activity as a way to avoid paying his hefty fight guarantee.
Mousasi had escalators in his 8-fight contract which would have him earning $850K per fight regardless of outcome. The 39-year-old fighter claims that it was difficult to work with promoters to get him fights to fulfill his contract.
In addition to his claims that Bellator (and now PFL since it purchased Bellator) breached his contract, he filed a claim that Bellator violated antitrust laws. Specifically, he claims that Bellator is a monopsony that controls the buyer’s market for fighters’ services.
In February 2025, Bellator filed a motion to dismiss the antitrust claims stating bluntly. Mousasi amended his complaint as a way to adhere to the standards of a motion to dismiss. Regardless, Bellator renewed its motion despite the amended complaint. The hearing on the motion is set for mid-June.
The motion to dismiss states bluntly, “Plaintiff fails to allege that Promoter Defendants have market power or that they engaged in anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiff also fails to adequately plead antitrust standing.”
In its motion, Bellator picks apart Mousasi’s antitrust claim alleging that the promotion did not have market power (a prerequisite in these antitrust claims) to assert monopsony power. Bellator points to the recently settled Le v. Zuffa case to compare monopsony power in that lawsuit versus Mousasi’s alleged claims.
In addition, Bellator alleges that there is no exclusionary conduct claimed by Mousasi which would satisfy his monopsony claim. Bellator claims that Mousasi believes that a duopoly between the UFC and Bellator constitutes a duopoly satisfying the requirement of evidence of exclusionary conduct. However, Bellator argues that “exclusive dealing arrangements is common and integral to the sports and entertainment business…”
Finally, Bellator argues that Mousasi lacks standing because he has not demonstrated an injury based on his antitrust claims. While Mousasi may have personal claims, Bellator argues that Mousasi does not demonstrate claims under his antitrust claim.
Plaintiff must allege either: “(1) harm to the competitive market or (2) that its harm ‘flows from’ any supposed anticompetitive effects of [the defendant’s actions].”
Bellator states that Mousasi has not fulfilled the 2 requirements.
The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss the antitrust claims will be heard on June 16th.
Leave a Reply