By Employees First Labor Law
In one of the most closely watched antitrust lawsuits in sports history, hundreds of former UFC fighters recently secured a $375 million settlement against the world’s largest mixed martial arts promotion. But while most fighters are collecting their share of the historic payout, one man made headlines for doing the opposite.
Renato “Money” Moicano—ranked lightweight contender and rising media personality—publicly declined his $200,000 payout. His reason? It wasn’t about the money. It was about the principle.
🥊 The Allegations Behind the UFC Antitrust Lawsuits
The class action lawsuits—Le v. Zuffa and Johnson v. Zuffa—centered on allegations that the UFC engaged in anticompetitive practices that limited fighter compensation and mobility. According to the plaintiffs, the UFC:
- Exercised significant market power in the MMA industry, allegedly limiting opportunities for fighters to compete elsewhere
- Entered into long-term, exclusive contracts that included renewal clauses and championship extensions, which plaintiffs claimed restricted career freedom
- Paid fighters a relatively low percentage of overall revenue, reportedly less than 20%, compared to athlete revenue shares of 48–50% in other major sports leagues
- Restricted outside sponsorships and negotiations with rival promotions, which plaintiffs argued reduced fighters’ ability to maximize their earnings
The UFC denied these allegations and maintained that its fighter contracts were lawful, competitive, and necessary to grow the sport and maintain high-quality events. While the court approved a settlement in Le v. Zuffa, the Johnson case continues, focusing on more recent UFC practices and potential injunctive relief.
After years of litigation, the court approved a $375 million settlement covering fighters who competed between 2010 and 2017. Most received payouts ranging from $25,000 to over $1 million, depending on how many UFC fights they had during the covered period.
Renato Moicano’s Unlikely Refusal
Moicano, who was eligible to receive around $200,000, declined the settlement altogether. Speaking on his Show Me the Money podcast, he confirmed:
“I did not sign it. I don’t want it… It’s not about the money, brother. It’s about what I believe.”
When UFC executive Hunter Campbell reportedly called him directly to ask why he wouldn’t accept the funds, Moicano held firm.
His position? He willingly entered into a contract with the UFC and doesn’t believe in retroactively suing over the terms—because he voluntarily entered into the agreement.
Principle Over Payday: Fair or Misguided?
Renato Moicano’s decision not to accept the settlement drew both admiration and critique.
Some praised him for honoring a contract he willingly signed and standing by his belief that fighters should not retroactively challenge terms they agreed to. In his words, it wasn’t about money—it was about doing what he felt was right.
Others, including retired UFC fighter Brendan Schaub, criticized the move, suggesting that the lawsuit wasn’t about any one fighter’s contract—it was about addressing industry-wide concerns and creating better conditions for future athletes.
Moicano’s stance has sparked debate: Should individual principle override broader collective progress? And what responsibility, if any, does a dominant organization like the UFC bear when offering exclusive, performance-based contracts in a highly competitive global sport?
At Employees First Labor Law, we recognize that these questions aren’t unique to sports. Across industries, businesses and workers often clash over fairness, loyalty, and long-term opportunity. The UFC has built a powerful platform that creates global stars and life-changing career opportunities—but that success also brings scrutiny over how talent is compensated and contracted.
Moicano may have turned down a substantial payout, but his choice highlights a deeper conversation: How do we balance contractual integrity, personal values, and systemic accountability in modern labor relationships?
Lessons for Workers in Any Industry
While the UFC settlement focused on professional athletes, the issues it raised echo challenges faced by independent contractors and employees across many industries. These include:
- Working under exclusive or restrictive agreements
- Disputes over how compensation is calculated or distributed
- Facing pushback when they question contractual terms or working conditions
- Balancing personal values with collective efforts to improve conditions
In California, laws like AB5 have drawn attention to similar concerns—especially around how companies classify workers and what rights those workers are entitled to. While the UFC operates in a unique global industry, the broader legal themes—worker classification, mobility, and fairness—resonate far beyond the octagon.
The UFC case demonstrates that questions of fairness, competition, and worker rights can arise even in high-profile industries. It also highlights how legal action—whether through class actions or regulatory review—can be a tool for resolving complex labor and antitrust disputes.
Know Your Rights. Don’t Be Intimidated.
If you’re being mistreated under a contract, denied fair pay, or forced to work under exploitative conditions, you don’t have to stay silent. Whether you’re an athlete, gig worker, tech contractor, or hourly employee, California law protects you—and so do we.
Contact Us for a Free, Confidential Consultation
If you’re experiencing issues at work, call Employees First Labor Law today. We’ll evaluate your case and help you understand your legal options.
