Not a punch was thrown in Las Vegas this week in the anti-trust case against the UFC. But there was still a big fight with potentially huge ramifications for the industry-leading promotion.

The long-running suit broke new ground this week as experts for the plaintiffs and defendants got face-to-face with a Nevada federal judge in Las Vegas.

The evidence heard is expected to inform a decision on whether former UFC fighters Jon Fitch, Nate Quarry, Cung Le and others can band together in a class-action suit against the promotion. A judge has denied the UFC’s previous motions to dismiss the case.

Citing internal UFC documents and experts, the plaintiffs’ attorneys argue the promotion engaged in anti-competitive conduct that created a monopsony – a market structure where a single buyer substantially controls the market as the major purchaser of goods and services – and wound up shorting fighters hundreds of millions over a seven-year period (2010-17). The promotion’s defense attorneys deny such a scheme and cite rising payouts over the same time frame.

Money – and how the UFC has divided it up over the past decade – was the main topic of this week’s testimony.

There’s currently no timeline on when Nevada federal judge Richard Boulware will rule on whether to certify the fighters as a class. But the decision carries huge implications for the UFC. A yes draws the promotion closer to a trial that carries the risk of an adverse ruling, which because of anti-trust statutes could carry “treble” damages – or triple the potential payout to the plaintiffs. To avert a huge financial blow, the promotion could be forced to seek a settlement with the fighters.

Here are some key takeaways from this week’s developments from BloodyElbow.com reporter John Nash, Forbes.com’s Paul Gift and MMAPayout.com’s Jason Cruz, who were in the Las Vegas courtroom.