A question for any lawyers out there who are MMA fans. With the purchase of Strikforce, Pride, and WEC the UFC has effectively eliminated any competition at the highest levels of MMA in the US. Not discounting Bellator but they are not on nearly the same level.
So, what anti-trust or anti-monopoly legal issues might arise form this purchase? As we have all seen in recent years, if this was a computer company, telecom, cable company, etc the Commerce Department would be involved and COngress might hold hearing being allowing it to go through. Is this level of vertical and horizontal integration allowed to happen in MMA because it is not a "vital" industry? For the record, I think this is bad for MMA to have one corporation in such an overwhelmingly dominant position.
I made a thread about this, I think it would be a smart move for Zuffa to encourage unionization. That way they would be exempt from antitrust litigation, effectively locking out any potential competition.
officedrone23 - I hope the man never hears about MLB. Or the NHL. Or the NFL.
I won't tell !
officedrone- I think Alphaslap's response answers you reply, they all have players unions or associations which exempts them form some of the regulation. Also, this is why the MLB gets hauled before Senate subcommittees when there is some major issue, they are subject to governmental oversight.
Alphslap- I did not know that info, thanks. ALso , I agree about unionizing fighters to provide a minimum level of income and healthcare especially as they age and show the signs of combat that come later, such as repeated brain trauma issues.
This exact same question occurred to me. I hope the government steps in and stops the sale :) doubtful though. 
I've been wondering this too. More info please...
Frontrowbrain- I guess I see what you mean but there is a barrier in the ability to sign talent which is the actual resource in MMA, if you want to equate it to traditional industry.
Can we hear a legal opinion (off the record of course) from a trade or business lawyer please?
Interesting thread. Subbed.
officedrone23 - I hope the man never hears about MLB. Or the NHL. Or the NFL. <img src="/images/phone/post_tag.png" alt="Phone Post" border="0" style="vertical-align:middle;"/>
Folks gotta stop using this analogy. Its NOT the same. Each team within those governing bodies are Individual Corporations. Team owners compete with other team owners for "talent." The equivalent would be if the NHL/NFL/MLB/NBA owned every team. In the UFC model, the NFL would own every team and players would have no choice in where to play or to negotiate for more pay. If they got cut from say the Giants it would mean being cut from the NFL. But as you can see this is not the case. When a player gets cut from a team, they can still go play for another team. When someone gets cut from the UFC (Zuffa LLC) ...they are fucked.
this is not even a valid possible reality. anti-trust and monopoly laws only come into play when an entity owns an entire market.
this is nowhere near close to that. there are MANY, probably hundreds, of small orgs just in the US
LOL ... 5 minutes of internet research and you'll realize this is not a monopoly and there is no way anyone will try to prosicute it as such.
You guys are really reaching... calm down.
prosicute......
Just opening a line of discussion, in the past when there have been corporate cartels and monopolies there was not always a clear barrier to entry in a market. Not reaching necessarily but I see this homogenization of industry as a bad trend that reduces fighter and fan options.