UFC is still raking in the cash from the White House card | Ep. 262

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit heynottheface.substack.com SUPPORT EXPANDING THE ALI ACTIn today’s episode, we’re looking at the latest UFC antitrust case(s) updates. We also discuss what fighters think managers actually do for them, Sean O’Malley’s purse dip, and Ian Machado Garry’s new representation. We weigh in on the UFC’s auctions from the White House card, and whether Paramount paid too much for their broadcast rights. There’s a lot more, so make sure to follow along with our outline as you listen:*We urge you to pick up a paid subscription, as it helps us keep the show going* Episode 262 Outline* Are there any updates in the UFC antitrust cases?* During an interview on One Night With Steiny, Sean O’Malley confirmed he was getting paid around $600,000, which Eddie Hearn picked up on and called out fighters like O’Malley for accepting it. What do you make of this drama?* Georgio Poullas had a video were he asked Aljamain Sterling and Joshua Van what a manager does. What did you think of their answers?* Eddie Hearn is apparently now representing Ian Machado Garry. What can he do for him?* Des Barry gave us an update on the collectible auction prices from UFC Freedom 250. No questions, just want to point out how insane those prices are.* There was some discussion on X between Rob Joyner and Dave Meltzer regarding whether or not Paramount overpaid for the broadcast rights for the UFC. What’s your take on the argument?* Johnny Fisher said Zuffa Boxing offered him 6 or 7 times as much as what Matchroom was offering him. Hearn’s response was to tell him to run to this offer. What do you make of Zuffa Boxing offering so much more?* October Red Media had an interview with DAZN VP Alfie Sharman discussing boxing on their platform. What do you think of what he had to say?* What’s going on with Floyd Mayweather? Can you give us an update on what’s going on with his finances and lawsuits?*PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING SUBPOENA COMPLIANCE*