The long awaited lawsuit that would either sink Randy Couture's aspirations of fighting Fedor Emelianenko or would expose the giant of its faulty ways. Zuffa filed a lawsuit on Monday in the Clark County District Courthouse claiming that Randy Couture made comments about the UFC and its senior management that led to “irreparable damage”. The lawsuit also outlines that Couture breached his contract.

According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the lawsuit will seek damages in excess of $10,000, and that the amount of both compensatory and punitive damages would be proven in trial. Zuffa will also seek an injunction on Couture that would restrain him from participating in any way in any promotion competing against the UFC.

Oddly enough, many fans feel that Couture doesn't stand a chance in this real life David vs. Goliath court battle. Zuffa has more money, more lawyers, and more power in this case. They've proven Randy wrong in the past, and have the leverage to do so again. The fact is that people have beaten the giant in the past, and this case may be no different.

Couture's no-compete clause could be an unenforceable, courts rarely force an individual to fulfill a contract, a court most likely won't be able to stop him from venturing to another country to fight, and Zuffa is probably putting themselves under the microscope rather than Couture. Inconvenience, yes... but a loss, not entirely true.

Champion's clauses

One of the more interesting topics of this case will be the terminating circumstances of his contract. Adam Swift at MMAPayout.com had this to say in his Sherdog posting back in October:

Sherdog.com has confirmed the existence of a so-called champion's clause, which provides that "if, at the expiration of the Term, Fighter is then UFC champion, the Term shall be automatically extended for a period commencing on the Termination Date and ending on the earlier of (i) one (1) year from the Termination Date; or (ii) the date on which Fighter has participated in three (3) bouts promoted by ZUFFA following the Termination Date ("Extension Term"). Any references to the Term herein shall be deemed to include a reference to the Extension Term, where applicable."

The champion's clause is the main factor here. It will extend his contract for another year. It is safe to say that Zuffa wouldn't allow Couture to fight three fights before that year is up. We all know how they deal with fighters who are nearing their contract deadline.

It is highly probable that this clause was the reason behind maintaining Couture as the current champion. By keeping him champion, he will have had his contract extended for another year, squashing hopes of Fedor vs. Couture even more.

No-compete clause

There is also a no-compete clause within Couture's contract. The lawsuit cited that Couture breached a stipulation in the contract that a fighter could not be in “direct or indirect competition” with the UFC for a period of 12 months following his termination.

This is where things will become very tricky. Typically, no-compete clauses can only last a specific amount of time. In this case, one year is the term, but Couture's contract has yet to terminate either. No-compete clauses can generally fall on a line in contract law known as unconscionability. The longer the term of no-compete, the more likely it is that a judge may see the clause as unenforceable because of the length of time that the person would be unable to work for other companies inside his/her own expertise. This falls under the judgment of the court and whether or not the clauses are deemed “shocking to the conscience of the court”. Swift also cited this clause which would most likely be deemed unenforceable:

For all practical purposes, sub clause (i) allows Zuffa to retain the rights to a retired fighter in perpetuity. Sherdog.com has confirmed that this clause does not appear in every Zuffa contract; it is believed to be reserved for top fighters.

The term of the contract may also be extended indefinitely for any period when a fighter is "unable, unwilling or refuses to compete or train for a Bout for any reason whatsoever." 

Although not an example of a No-compete clause, it is an example of the extreme nature of a clause that would most likely be voided. The length of the contract in which the fighter is now put through is infinite, and most courts will deem those contracts unenforceable.

Unreasonable terms and clauses leading to duress

Another defense would be to prove that the contract clause will cause Couture unreasonable duress. Since he would be unable to work with any promotion in any way for a specific term, his capability of living in the same capacity that he has been would be severely diminished. This is usually deemed unacceptable to the courts.

If you want a comparison case, check out Brock Lesnar's lawsuit against the WWE back in '04-'05. WWE and Lesnar eventually settled, but it was disclosed that his no-compete clause was until June 2010, an unbelievable amount of time. The case was settled as of June 12, 2006, after nearly 3 years of back and forth lawsuits and legal hassles.

Couture has other problems as well. Publicly disclosing contract figures and agreements breaks the confidentiality agreement that he signed when he signed the contract. This is deemed as a breach of contract as well.

Courts and contracts

Couture has other things in his favor besides what happened with Brock Lesnar. Courts generally do not force an individual to fulfill a contract because an individual has already refused to do so in the first place. Even in the consumer marketplace, if you bitch and moan enough, you can get out of your cell phone plan or any other consumer contract you may have.

Courts usually penalize the individual that has breached the contract monetarily. It is unlikely that Couture will avoid any fines, but fines are a much smaller problem compared to a lengthy injunction.

Tables turning

There are some other pieces of information from the past that may come to light in this case as well. Since Couture's original claim was that he wasn't being paid correct bonuses from his contract, it could be his prerogative to provide proof of that. If he can provide proof that contradicts Zuffa's claims, the contract could be deemed a misrepresentation and voided. This was mentioned in a previous article here at MMA-Analyst.com.

So, what happens?

Oddly enough, Zuffa could be on their heels in the coming months. Their contracts will become the spotlight in this case, and they could simply try to settle with Couture much like Lesnar did with the WWE. Zuffa may not want to risk exposing their contract to scrutiny from a judge who could deem it unenforceable. If found to be unenforceable, Couture would have dealt a huge blow to the contracts that Zuffa had written for its other fighters.

Time will tell, but one thing is for sure... Couture better have some backing because this case will most likely see an appeal and a year or two. We'll be lucky if we see Couture vs. Fedor at all. Unless the judge deems the contract voided within the first few months of this case, get ready for the long haul.

If Couture manages to prove the contracts to be unenforceable however, this would be a landmark case for MMA fighters. It would open up contracts to better terms and hopefully a bit more freedom.