Ali Abdelaziz Accused of Stonewalling Discovery in UFC Antitrust Court Case
Ali Abdelaziz’s Dominance MMA is facing a contempt motion after refusing to comply with court-ordered document production in the Johnson v. Zuffa antitrust lawsuit against the UFC. Plaintiffs allege that Abdelaziz and his management firm staged a “revolt” in early January 2026 and will not turn over a single document without a second court order.
Ali Abdelaziz and Dominance MMA
Ali Abdelaziz runs Dominance MMA, a management firm that represents multiple UFC fighters including Kamaru Usman, Justin Gaethje, Khabib Nurmagomedov, Kayla Harrison, Henry Cejudo, Gilbert Burns, Dan Ige, Islam Makhachev, among others.
The company, founded by Abdelaziz in 2008, handles contracts, sponsorships, and career support for clients across promotions like UFC and PFL, and elsewhere. Abdelaziz often trains with his fighters at American Kickboxing Academy and maintains close ties to Dagestani athletes.
The UFC Lawsuit
Kajan Johnson, Clarence Dollaway, and Tristan Connelly filed Johnson v. Zuffa in 2021 in U.S. District Court for Nevada. The suit targets UFC parent companies Zuffa LLC, TKO Operating Company, and Endeavor Group Holdings for antitrust violations after June 30, 2017, extending claims from the settled Le v. Zuffa case. Plaintiffs allege UFC suppressed fighter pay through exclusive long-term contracts and eliminated rival promoters.
Johnson v. Zuffa centers on claims that the UFC maintained an illegal monopsony over mixed martial arts fighters after June 30, 2017, artificially suppressing compensation through anticompetitive practices. The plaintiffs argue that UFC parent companies Zuffa LLC, TKO Operating Company, and Endeavor Group Holdings used exclusive long-term contracts to lock fighters into below-market pay while simultaneously acquiring or eliminating rival promoters who could have offered competitive alternatives.
This case extends the legal challenges from the earlier Le v. Zuffa lawsuit, which settled in 2024 for $375 million and covered a different time period. The plaintiffs seek damages for fighters who competed during the post-2017 period, alleging the UFC’s market dominance prevented them from earning fair wages in a competitive marketplace.
“Revolt”
Dominance MMA acts as a third-party subpoena recipient in discovery. The firm manages fighters relevant to the case, prompting requests for documents on contracts and dealings.
Ali Abdelaziz’s Dominance MMA received a court order to hand over documents related to fighter contracts and business dealings as part of the Johnson v. Zuffa discovery process. The firm was supposed to work with a third-party vendor called Holo Discovery to collect and produce these records, but after initially appearing to agree in late November 2025, Dominance MMA reversed course and refused to sign the vendor contract or provide any documents.
During a January 5, 2026 phone call, Dominance’s legal counsel told the plaintiffs that Abdelaziz and his team had staged what they called a “revolt” and would not produce a single document without a second court order, citing concerns about confidentiality and alleged disparaging social media posts.
The plaintiffs argue this refusal violates the court’s existing order and represents obstruction of the legal discovery process, which is why they’re asking the judge to hold Dominance in contempt and force compliance. In simple terms, Abdelaziz’s company is refusing to turn over legally requested documents that could be relevant to proving whether the UFC suppressed fighter pay, and the fighters suing the UFC want the court to punish that refusal and make Dominance cooperate.
Ali Abdelaziz’s refusal to comply with discovery in Johnson v. Zuffa suggests a strategic alignment with the UFC’s defense, mirroring his role as a defense witness in the previous Le v. Zuffa antitrust case. By withholding documents, Dominance MMA may be attempting to shield the UFC from evidence that could corroborate plaintiffs’ claims of coercive contract negotiations and wage suppression.
The withheld documents are communications that could reveal Collusion and Monopsony Tactics. They could reveal evidence of Dominance MMA working with the UFC to pressure fighters into below-market deals, contradicting a manager’s fiduciary duty. And it could provide evidence of the “iron-fisted control” that plaintiffs allege, such as threats to freeze out fighters who test free agency.
On November 20, 2025, after document exchanges, plaintiffs noted Dominance MMA’s vendor contract unsigned since October 17, 2025. Hollo, the vendor, pursued collections internally before legal action. Discussions followed, with UFC stating it could not search terms at that point. Plaintiffs issued a prior court order for production. Dominance MMA has not complied, citing unclear reasons. Social media reports describe this as a “revolt” by Abdelaziz against requests.
Plaintiffs filed to hold Dominance MMA in contempt. They seek an order to show cause why Dominance should not produce documents. The motion also requests reimbursement of fees and costs.
Separate requests cover a production schedule, no reimbursement if Dominance shows cause, and no full cost recovery. No response from Dominance MMA or Abdelaziz appears in public records. This development tests third-party cooperation in the ongoing antitrust litigation, filed post-settlement of the earlier UFC fighter class action. Court rulings on the motion remain pending.
