Iowa House Passes MMA Bill 89-6

On March 9, 2010, the Iowa House passed Senate File 2286 (regulating amateur mixed martial arts) with one key amendment.   Amendment H-8277 added language that puts under the auspices of the regulations any MMA event where "merchandise or refreshments are available for purchase."

The original language of SF 2286 governed any MMA event "open to the public."  This was amended by the Senate to be limited to events where admission is charged or donations are requested.  This was an important change because, in the absence of such language, exhibition matches at local gyms could have, unintentionally, fallen within the scope of the statute. 

The new amendment by the House closes a loophole that would have allowed promoters to stage unregulated, public amateur fights by hosting them at venues where the money would be made by selling food and beer rather than tickets.   

Because the House amended the bill, it now returns to the Senate.  I anticipate quick passage, which would put the bill on the Governor's desk to sign.   One possible snag is that some people are lobbying for an additional amendment that would remove the requirement for promoters to provide health/life insurance for fighters.   If the Senate removed that requirement, the bill would then have to come back to the House as both chambers of the legislature must pass identical versions for it to ultimately become law.

Iowa Senate Passes MMA Bill 48-0

On February 16, 2010, the Iowa Senate unanimously passed (with two Senators absent) Senate File 2286--a bill to regulate amateur and professional mixed martial arts matches.  There were two notable amendments to the bill between its previous approval by the Committee on Business and Labor Relations and its approval by the full Senate. 

First, the definition of "mixed martial arts match" was changed from one that is just "open to the public" to also requiring "payment of an admission fee" or donations requested from those in attendance.   This prevents, for example, a training match at a jiu-jitsu school from falling under the auspices of the bill.   The second change was that the minimum age for competing in a mixed martial arts event was changed from 21 to 18. 

Senator William A. Dotzler, Jr. should be commended for listening to concerns that promoters and fighters had about the earlier version of the bill, and for submitting the above amendments prior to the full Senate vote.  Iowa Athletic Commissioner David Neil also deserves kudos for listening to concerns and helping craft language to address them.

The bill still has to be passed by the House, but the 48-0 Senate vote certainly gives it a lot of momentum.  Although MMA has long been "legal" in Iowa, if the bill ultimately becomes law, Iowa will finally recognize and be able to regulate MMA as independent sport rather that shoehorning it into existing regulations governing "shootfighting."

Iowa Takes Steps Towards Regulating Amateur MMA

Amateur mixed martial arts matches are currently legal in Iowa, but they are not regulated.  A bill that has just been forwarded to the floor of the Iowa Senate would change that, putting amateur MMA under the auspices of the Athletic Commissioner (just like professional events).

On February 9, Senate Study Bill 3192 was unanimously approved by the Senate's Labor and Business Relations Committee.  The bill, which revises the existing Iowa Code Chapter governing boxing and professional wrestling events will now go to a vote by the full Iowa Senate, likely within the next 12 weeks.

As reported by Tony Leys of the Des Moines Register, proponents of the bill are concerned with several injuries that have occurred in amateur MMA events in Iowa.  Although the article's discussion of the terrible injury to Nebraska fighter Zach Kirk is not entirely accurate, there is no question that allowing fighters to compete without pre-fight medical examinations and without appropriate medical staff on site is a dangerous combination.

The bill does more than just impose safety regulations on fighters and promoters, however.  

The bill's other provisions include a new minimum age limit of 21 for participation in an amateur or professional MMA event.   

This is a departure from amateur boxing, where Iowa defers to the rules of USA Boxing, which has a junior olympic program for contestants as young as 8 years old.

In addition to opposing the new age limit, some critics of the bill say the medical testing regulations are too stringent.  As as example, some promoters believe that amateur MMA will cease to exist if unpaid fighters are forced to foot the bill for pre-fight blood tests, which typically cost at least $99.

As professional MMA is well on its way to becoming legal in nearly every state, I believe regulation of amateur MMA is the next big legal issue for the industry.   What do you think, MMALB readers?  Should amateur MMA be regulated?  If so, should it face all the same restrictions as professional events?

More on MMA in New York

When I recently wrote that Assemblyman Kenneth Zebrowski was the first New York legislator to come out in support of the bill to regulate mixed martial arts, I did not give proper credit to Rob Walker and Johnathan Bing, the two Assemblymen who co-sponsored the bill.  To learn more about  Walker and Bing click the links to their interviews with CagePotato.com from March 2009. 

Interview with MMA Proponent Assemblyman Kenneth Zebrowski

Kenneth Zebrowski is the youngest member of the New York State Assembly, and the first to come out publicly in support of regulating mixed martial arts. Assemblyman Zebrowski was kind enough to share some of his thoughts on the issue with MMALB readers in the following interview.

MMALB: Why did you inject yourself into the MMA controversy in New York?

Zebrowski: It seemed that this year with this budget cycle and the budget problems around the country that it could be the perfect time to get this ban lifted. Sometimes you get certain things passed not necessarily because of the absolute merits, but because it was the right timing. I think in this budget cycle we may be able to take advantage of the economic downturn to do some things in the state that we have been trying to do over the years and this is one of them.

 

MMALB: Have you ever been to an MMA event or participated in MMA yourself?

Zebrowski: No.

 

MMALB: So your only experience with it is as a casual fan, then?

Zebrowski: As a casual fan, and I have a lot of constituents and frankly friends and relatives that enjoy the sport. So, I’ve been able to watch events and also do some research on the rules and read some studies and certainly read articles that talked about injuries and what has been done over the years to regulate the sport more.

 

MMALB: Why has it taken so long to lift the ban on mixed martial arts?

Zebrowski: To be honest with you, I think there is a lack of understanding of MMA among the state legislators, and I think there may be a generational gap because it is a newer sport. I am 29 years old, and I am the youngest member of the New York state legislature. Many older members just don’t watch, have never followed it, and sort of see it as a no-holds bar injury ridden sport. They don’t necessarily understand that it a tough sport with a certain amount of violence, but it has rules and if it is regulated you have real, legitimate athletes that train hard and a large fan base. 

 

MMALB: Have you gotten any feedback since your column went out?

Zebrowski: Sure. I think there is growing support for the bill. When you look at an individual legislator and he is thinking to himself, do I have to cut funding to my schools when there is a possible other revenue source out there that I am not taking advantage of, because of possible misinformation. . . 

 

MMALB: Speaking of the opposition, Bob Riley is basically the face of anti-MMA in New York. What is your relationship with him or what do you think of him as an assemblyman?

Zebrowski: I have a good relationship with Bob. He’s a very decent guy, well respected in the assembly, someone that thinks out his position on the issues, so I have nothing negative to say about Bob. I just think he’s wrong on this issue.

 

MMALB: Looking at the other side of the issue. Have you ever talked with anyone from UFC or their lobbying group about this?

Zebrowski: I have not. We’ve received e-mails from supporters and constituents, but no one from the UFC has reached out to me.

 

MMALB: What still has to happen for mixed martial arts to be regulated in New York?

Zebrowski: Last year the bill cleared the Arts and Tourism Committee. If it passes that same hurdle this year, it will go to the Codes Committee, which I am on. Then it would go to the floor to be voted on by the full assembly.

 

MMALB: I am not familiar with the Codes Committee, what is that?

Zebrowski: Codes Committee essentially is the committee that takes up anything that is a change of a code in New York. It’s really a far reaching committee that has jurisdiction over anything that’s really regulated through a major code of conduct in New York state law.   But, if the new MMA regulations get passed as part of the Governor’s proposed budget, the bill wouldn’t even have to go through the committee process.

 

MMALB:  How does that work?

Zebrowski: It is in kind of counter-intuitive, but within the budget there’s often times substantive law changes that have something to do with the revenue of the state. So, you can make substantive changes through the budget, and sometimes frankly that’s how a lot of things get passed because you vote up or down on a budget. We don’t take individual votes on every aspect of the budget. 

 

MMALB: When is the earliest that the proposed budget would get voted on?

Zebrowski: The earliest it would probably be voted on would be the week of starting with the 22nd of March. There’s nothing procedurally that says we can’t adopt it earlier, but there’s no realistic chance of it taking place before then.

 

MMALB: So, how confident are you that one way or the other the bill to legalize MMA will end up passing in 2010?

Zebrowski: I’m increasingly confident this year. We have heard stats that maybe 80 or 90 percent of legislators have come around to support this. Now I don’t have that in writing anywhere, but that’s what my staff is telling me.

 

MMALB: Is there anything else you’d like to share with the readers of MixedMartialArtsLawBlog.com?

Zebrowski: People that read your blog and people that watch MMA as a whole, need to understand that writing me and writing other legislators is important. The more people that contact their legislators and explain to them that they are fans of this sport and make rational arguments for it, the more legislators will understand it really is a sport. 

MMA Is in New York's Proposed 2010-11 Budget

Earlier today, New York Governor David Paterson proposed a budget for fiscal 2011 of $136 billionBuried within those billions is a $2.1 million revenue line for taxes from regulated mixed martial arts events.   This is a significant development because, if this item remains within the budget as passed, it will effectively legalize MMA in New York without the proposed legislation having to start back over through the committee process.  The budget is likely to be voted on in late March or early April. 

Stay tuned for an interview with New York Assemblyman Kenneth P. Zebrowski about this development and his decision to openly support the regulation of MMA in New York.

New York Assemblyman Champions Legalization of MMA

New York Assemblyman Kenneth P. Zebrowski has put out a press release urging his colleagues in the New York Legislature to legalize Mixed Martial Arts.  His main points are that the sport has evolved since it was banned in the state in 1997 and that New York needs the tax revenue that hosting MMA events would provide.  There is not a lot of new information in the column, but it makes a persuasive, concise case for legalization.   Fans who want to see the UFC in the Empire State should be greatly encouraged by the fact that a seated politician is attaching his name to the legalization effort.   The release can be downloaded here: Zebrowski:  "Lift Ban on Mixed Martial Arts" Article 01_14_10.DOC

I've posted a link to this previously, but if you missed my own thoughts on the future of MMA in New York, see this interview I did with Mid-Atlantic MMA.

MixedMartialArtsLawBlog Year-End Updates

As 2009 comes to a close, I wanted to provide updates on a few of the year's MMALB columns.

Rapper DMX  Pulls Out of MMA Fight.   According to this statement released by the promoter, the entire event had to be canceled because "[w]hen [DMX] decided to back out of the event due to our refusal to fix his fight, it left Thunder Promotions LLC with little time to promote an event with a replacement headliner."   According to other sources only a few hundred tickets had been sold.

While there is a tremendous amount of comedic value in writing about an MMA event where DMX is deemed a "headliner," the cancellation does have sad consequences for the other fighters on the card, especially Iowa's own Travis Fulton (who has 192 MMA wins on his record). Fulton was looking to reinvent himself and make it to the big show.  Instead, according to his manager, Chad Bergmeier, all Fulton got after arriving in Alabama was a redeye flight back home.  To date, the promoters still have not come through with Fulton's paycheck.

MMA Organizations Battle Piracy -  The Square Ring v. UStream lawsuit has gotten bogged down, but UFC co-owner Lorenzo Fertitta recently testified before the House Judiciary Committee (along with executives from Major League Baseball) about the importance of cracking down on online piracy.  I think it's a watershed event when an MMA bigwig gets to go to Washington to speak alongside a Big Three (NFL, NBA, and MLB) representative.     

This related Cagewriter article is interesting.  It covers the testimony and also provides an example of why if you are planning to tell people how to steal a pay per view broadcast you should not first send an email to event promoters. 

Jon "Bones" Jones's Appeal to the NSAC is Denied.  MMAJunkie provides a full recap.  While I am not surprised at the denial, I am still waiting for someone to comment and resolve the discrepancy between the referee only deducting a single point, but then calling Jones's downward elbows an intentional foul.

And, most importantly, Kimo is still alive!

I leave you with one of my favorite MMA quotes of the year.  It's not law-related, but it is nonetheless worth sharing, and it comes from MMA Journalist Jim Genia:

BJ Penn is without a doubt some kind of fighting deity, but I definitely think Gray Maynard, Frankie Edgar and Jim Miller can beat him. However, they have to coordinate it so they all attacking him at once, i.e., Maynard comes in low, Edgar comes in high and Miller blasts him with a shotgun. Otherwise, they're doomed.

Happy New Year, MMALB readers!

MMA Regulation Continues to Expand

On December 17, the City of Vancouver gave the UFC an early Christmas present when it passed a resolution to regulate mixed martial arts for a two-year trial period.   CagePotato.com has a good recap of the events surrounding passage and links to related quotes here.  Also interesting is this report prepared by Vancouver's General Manager of Community Services, which provides an overview of MMA regulation in Canada and responds to some of the arguments made against regulation.

As states (and provinces) continue to jump on the MMA bandwagon, it seems only a matter of time before Mixed Martial Arts wins over New York.  I was recently interviewed on that subject by Mid-Atlantic MMA (MAMMA-online.com).  The interview can be found here, and the MAMMA site as a whole is an entertaining read. 

Jon Jones Files Appeal Over DQ Loss to Hamill

At the finale for the 10th season of The Ultimate Fighter, Jon "Bones" Jones, took on Matt "The Hammer" Hamill.  Jones dominated the fight and was nearing a stoppage victory when referee Steve Mazzagatti halted the contest as a result of illegal "12 to 6" elbows a/k/a "striking downward with the point of the elbow" which is prohibited by the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts.  Mazzagatti took away a point, but when he returned to Hamill, he concluded that Hamill could not continue and stopped the fight.  Jones did a celebratory cartwheel and viewers headed into the commercial break thinking Jones' perfect record was intact.  However, when Bruce Buffer announced the results, Hamill was given the victory by virtue of a disqualification.

MMAJunkie.com has a great recap of what happened during the break.  In short, Mazzagatti took advantage of a new Nevada State Athletic Commission rule that allowed him to consult instant replay.  When he looked at the tape, he decided the illegal elbows were what prevented Hamill from continuing, and he thus ruled the fight a DQ.  NSAC Athletic Director Keith Kizer backed up Mazzagatti saying that if the fight was stopped as a result of an illegal blow, there was no choice but to render a disqualification.

Now, Jones's managers have filed an appeal with the NSAC seeking to overturn the result.  Their arguments include the fact that Mazzagatti tried to ascertain whether Hamill (who is deaf) could continue by verbally asking him the question.  Hamill can read lips, but had blood in his eyes and might not have seen Mazzagatti let alone understood the question.  Based on the timing of the halt in the action, Hamill likely thought he had lost by TKO.  The complaint also asserts that prior, legal elbows and/or a shoulder injury sustained during a throw by Jones caused the damage that prevented Hamill from continuing.  Both of these arguments are persuasive, but they are factual questions.   

NAC 467.770 states that, absent collusion, a disciplinary violation such as a failed drug test, or a scoring error:

The Commission will not change a decision rendered at the end of any contest or exhibition unless . . . [a]s the result of an error in interpreting a provision of this chapter, the referee has rendered an incorrect decision.

Accordingly, as I read this provision, the NSAC cannot overturn Mazzagatti's decision just because it thinks a different blow ended the fight.  It has to decide that he misinterpreted a rule.  This is where the plot thickens.

If Mazzagatti had believed the foul was accidental, the fight would have been ruled a no contest pursuant to NAC 467.7966.   So, to disqualify Jones, Mazzagatti had to determine the foul was intentional.  I have no beef with such a determination because, while Jones might not have known he was committing a foul, he certainly intended to drop the 12 to 6 elbow and, like all laws, ignorance of an MMA rule is no excuse.  But, Mazzagatti's earlier actions implied that the foul was not intentional.  

Before stopping the fight after Hamill failed to respond to his question, Mazzagatti deducted a single point from Jones during the break in the action.   (Fight is available here on YouTube, until it gets pulled for infringing Zuffa's copyrights.)  He pulls Jones off of Hamill at 1:07 and then very clearly says "1 point" at the :57 mark. 

NSAC 467.698 states:

If the referee determines that a contest or exhibition may continue despite an injury caused by an intentional foul, the referee shall immediately inform the Commission’s representative and the judges and shall deduct two points from the score of the unarmed combatant who committed the intentional foul.

Although a mandatory two point deduction for an intentional foul does not appear in the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts, it seems to be clearly the rule in Nevada.  (Some Nevada rules for unarmed combat state that they don't apply to MMA, but 467.498 contains no such caveat.) Thus, a one-point deduction implies that the foul was accidental (which leaves the amount of the deduction in the discretion of the referee pursuant to NAC 467.7964).

I don't know that Mazzagatti's mistake rendered the result an "incorrect decision" but it appears that he did make at least one misinterpretation of the Nevada rules.  Dana White is likely not surprised.