Ali Abdelaziz’s Dominance MMA is dealing with a contempt movement after refusing to adjust to court-ordered doc manufacturing within the Johnson v. Zuffa antitrust lawsuit in opposition to the UFC. Plaintiffs allege that Abdelaziz and his administration agency staged a “revolt” in early January 2026 and won’t flip over a single doc with no second court docket order.
Ali Abdelaziz and Dominance MMA
Ali Abdelaziz runs Dominance MMA, a administration agency that represents a number of UFC fighters together with Kamaru Usman, Justin Gaethje, Khabib Nurmagomedov, Kayla Harrison, Henry Cejudo, Gilbert Burns, Dan Ige, Islam Makhachev, amongst others.
The corporate, based by Abdelaziz in 2008, handles contracts, sponsorships, and profession assist for purchasers throughout promotions like UFC and PFL, and elsewhere. Abdelaziz typically trains together with his fighters at American Kickboxing Academy and maintains shut 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 mother or father corporations Zuffa LLC, TKO Working Firm, 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 by means of unique long-term contracts and eradicated 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 docket’s current order and represents obstruction of the authorized discovery course of, which is why they’re asking the decide to carry Dominance in contempt and pressure compliance. In easy phrases, Abdelaziz’s firm is refusing to show over legally requested paperwork that could possibly be related to proving whether or not the UFC suppressed fighter pay, and the fighters suing the UFC need the court docket 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 doc exchanges, plaintiffs famous Dominance MMA’s vendor contract unsigned since October 17, 2025. Hollo, the seller, pursued collections internally earlier than authorized motion. Discussions adopted, with UFC stating it couldn’t search phrases at that time. Plaintiffs issued a previous court docket order for manufacturing. Dominance MMA has not complied, citing unclear causes. Social media studies describe this as a “revolt” by Abdelaziz in opposition to requests.
Plaintiffs filed to carry Dominance MMA in contempt. They search an order to indicate trigger why Dominance shouldn’t produce paperwork. The movement additionally requests reimbursement of charges and prices.
Separate requests cowl a manufacturing schedule, no reimbursement if Dominance reveals trigger, and no full price restoration. No response from Dominance MMA or Abdelaziz seems in public data. This growth checks third-party cooperation within the ongoing antitrust litigation, filed post-settlement of the sooner UFC fighter class motion. Courtroom rulings on the movement stay pending.
