Former UFC heavyweight Brendan Schaub recently gave some commentary on the ongoing antitrust litigation involving the promotion, appearing to misunderstand the nature of legal discovery proceedings as an attempt to “cancel” UFC CEO Dana White.
During a podcast episode, Schaub expressed confusion about why plaintiffs are seeking White’s private communications through court-ordered discovery. This seems ironic, considering Schaub himself received compensation from the initial Zuffa antitrust settlement and may qualify for additional payouts from current litigation.
“So what’s the goal with all this? Like you guys want to do this discovery and get his cell phone records and the emails and, so what’s the point of all this?” Schaub questioned. “Is the end goal to take Dana out of the, like, you want to cancel Dana out of the UFC?”
The former heavyweight continued by suggesting the legal process was primarily aimed at uncovering petty grievances rather than substantive business practices.
“So let’s say they discovered some horrible stuff, like Dana being mean to a competitor, saying you ain’t s**t… and he talked s**t to your favorite star. I’m just curious, you guys just want to know and then what are you gonna do with it?”
Schaub went further, suggesting that critics should appreciate the promotion’s current status rather than scrutinize its business practices: “Y’all should be grateful that the UFC is thriving and gives you the best combat promotion on the planet.”
His co-host offered a different perspective, suggesting the legal scrutiny might be a natural consequence of the UFC’s growth and recent business dealings. “Since they’re working with some big boys now, I wonder because once you’re dealing with the big boys like Paramount and stuff like that, you’re getting billion dollar deals, if this is kind of just like part of the process.”
Schaub acknowledged this possibility, stating “you might be right, that’s a good point,” before returning to his concern about the promotion’s future.
Schaub’s characterization of the legal proceedings misses the mark entirely. Discovery in antitrust litigation is a standard legal process designed to uncover evidence relevant to allegations of monopolistic behavior and anti-competitive practices. The plaintiffs aren’t searching for rude text messages or personal insults.
Brendan Schaub got paid in the first antitrust lawsuit against Zuffa 💵
He could potentially get paid again from the two ongoing antitrust lawsuits against Zuffa ⚖️
But somehow…he’s confused as to why fellow fighters (the plaintiffs) are seeking
Dana White’s cell phone, texts,… pic.twitter.com/acE6Sz0xVK— AFeldmanMMA (@afeldMMA) February 11, 2026
Instead, discovery aims to reveal documentation related to how the organization structured contracts, negotiated with athletes, potentially limited their market options, and maintained dominance in the mixed martial arts industry. This includes examining business strategies, negotiation tactics, and whether matchmaking decisions were used as leverage in contract discussions.
The legal team representing former UFC athletes is seeking evidence that could demonstrate whether the promotion engaged in practices that artificially suppressed compensation or restricted athletes’ ability to negotiate freely in the marketplace. Such evidence might include internal communications about compensation strategies, discussions about competitor organizations, or directives regarding how to handle athletes considering outside opportunities.
Schaub’s suggestion that the lawsuit’s ultimate goal is White’s removal from the organization also reflects a misunderstanding of antitrust litigation. These cases typically seek financial damages for affected parties and potential changes to business practices, not the termination of specific executives.
