Mixed Martial Arts Law Blog : Mixed Martial Arts Lawyer & Attorney : David Nelmark : Belin Lamson McCormick Zumbach Flynn Law Firm : Intellectual Property, Media Law : Des Moines, Iowa

Earlier this month I blogged that a promoter should "never EVER ignore the Athletic Commission." The folks at the Midwest Fighting Championship apparently do not read this blog.

The Midwest Fighting Championship (not to be confused with the Midwest Cage Championship, also based in Iowa) was scheduled to host an event in Bloomfield, Iowa, on August 20.  Unfortunately, as of August 19, they had not yet submitted the necessary paperwork to the Iowa Athletic Commission.  The required paperwork includes blood test results for the fighters and proof of medical insurance purchased by the promotion.  As a result, the head of the Iowa Athletic Commission enlisted the local sheriff to serve a cease and desist letter and call off the event. 

After getting the news, Midwest Fighting Championship's Facebook page said (in all caps and without any punctuation):

Yes, fights are off.  If anyone thinks they can run a better show go ahead.  Can't do anything when the state shuts you down.

The latter sentence is certainly true.  You CAN'T do anything when the state shuts you down.  You can, however, follow the rules and PREVENT the state from shutting you down.  The regulations at issue here are quite clear.  Indeed, in a June 27 post on that same Facebook page, MFC announced the release of the proposed regulations governing amateur mixed martial arts saying: "Basically the main changes for amateur fighters are they will need blood work for hiv, hep b, and hep c and will have to provide proof that they are 18 or older." 

Iowa Administrative Code Section 875-177.5(11) requires that the blood work for each fighter be submitted to the state at least one week in advance of the event.  Here, it appears that the Athletic Commission gave the promoters extra time to comply, but eventually had to pull the plug.

While the comments on the MFC Facebook page predictably call Iowa's officials nasty names for canceling the show, I find it awfully hard to fault them for doing their jobs and protecting the fighters. But, at the end of the day, whether a promoter ignores my view is not the point.  The point is: never EVER ignore the Athletic Commission.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Whenever a new state passes legislation to regulate mixed martial arts, fans in that state (and around the country) rejoice, and Dana White heads to his Twitter account.  Unfortunately, the excitement (while warranted) is often premature. Consider Alabama for example.

On May 21, 2009, Alabama Governor Bob Riley signed into law Senate Bill 98 which created the Alabama Boxing Commission.   Less than a year later on March 22, 2010, the Governor signed Senate Bill 327 which renamed the Commission the "Alabama Athletic Commission" and provided for the regulation of mixed martial arts. 

What many people may not realize, however, is that passing a law to regulate MMA isn't the same thing as actually regulating MMA.   A "mixed martial arts law" typically provides that the Athletic Commission shall create the rules and regulations governing the sport. That can take a while.

In March, a member of the Alabama Athletic Commission opined that creating the regulations in that state could take up to eight months. Thus far, that process has not been completed. In fact, the regulations aren't yet even in place to govern boxing in Alabama. 

Although things sometimes move significantly faster (like in Iowa) it is important to remember that even when a bill switches from being "just a bill" to being a law, it's still not the end of the road in MMA.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel published this article about the Wisconsin MMA regulations about to go into effect on September 1.  Most of the rules seem pretty typical.  One that caught my eye, however, is a requirement that matches take place in "enclosed cages" in order to "prevent falls." 

Such a regulation would certainly have the approval of Zuffa, which is the parent organization for the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and World Extreme Cagefighting (WEC).  Other organizations including Canada's biggest MMA Promotion, Maximum Fighting Championships, would disagree.   MFC issued a press release in June stating: "When not inside the unforgiving walls of a cage, fighters are forced to move and press the action. There’s none of the wedged-into-the-cage ground-and-pound or wall wrestling, there’s more stand-up fighting, more movement, and more overall excitement."

My personal preference is for a cage.  I enjoy the additional techniques it brings into play, and I quickly grow frustrated with the re-positioning that is required when fighters get tangled up in the ropes of a ring. 

What do you think readers?  Is a cage or a ring better for spectators?  Which is safer for participants?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It's been a roller coaster summer for MMA in Canada.  In July, the B.C. Medical Association (the organization that represents doctors in British Columbia) called for a complete ban on the sport.  The position made national news throughout Canada last week, but apparently had no impact on the Ontario Ministry of Consumer Services which issued a statement yesterday announcing its plans to approve MMA.

MMAJunkie has been all over this story and has already interviewed Marc Ratner about the UFC's impending arrival in Toronto.  The impact on MMA fans in the United States could also be significant.  As New York legislators see the economic impact of UFC 118 in Boston later this month and a major show in Toronto as early as March 2011, one has to wonder when they will decide that it would be best for New York residents to start spending some of that MMA ticket money in their home state.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to the Chicago Tribune, Wisconsin officials will hold a series of meetings about the recently passed regulations governing mixed martial arts in that state.  The first meeting is scheduled to take place in Wausau August 4, 2010.  The new regulations themselves take effect September 1, 2010.

The Chicago Tribune article is good news for a couple of reasons.  First, although Wisconsin is the most recent state to pass mixed martial arts regulations, the legislation passed with far fewer obstacles than in most of the previous 42 states to sanction the sport. Regulation of MMA continues to gain momentum, and Wisconsin's efforts to follow up and educate people in the industry provide a good model for other states that wish to pass (or revise) regulations.  Second, it's just nice to see a major newspaper provide coverage about MMA that is unrelated to an injury in the cage or a fighter's arrest.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 9, 2010, Iowa Governor Chet Culver signed into law a bill regulating amatuer mixed martial arts in Iowa.  As previously discussed, the bill also makes some changes to professional MMA regulations, including the creation of an age restriction requiring all participants to be at least 18 years old.  

The bill takes effect on July 1, 2010. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier today, New York Governor David Paterson proposed a budget for fiscal 2011 of $136 billion.  Buried 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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Massachusetts blog that keeps a close eye on government happenings has reported that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed into law a bill making the Bay State the 42nd state to regulate mixed martial arts.

MMALB has not been able to confirm the signing, but even if it has not yet occurred, it seems to be only a matter of time.  According to the official history of the bill, the Massachusetts Senate passed a draft 35-1, and the House of Representatives approved a modified version 144-10.   The Senate concurred in an amendment made by the House, and the bill went before the Governor on November 23, 2009.  

Dana White is excited that the UFC will get to promote an event in his former hometown, and he should be equally excited about the manner in which the bill has sailed through the Massachusetts Legislature.  With the oft-discussed New York bill still in limbo, having 94% of legislators supporting the bill in a nearby state can only help the cause.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported in an excellent piece by MMAJunkie.com, the Association of Boxing Commissions has adopted revisions to the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts.  The change that has gotten the most press is an amendment to the "no strikes to the back of the head" rule taking some aspects of the "mohawk" rule (no strikes along the center line of the head running towards the spine) and the "headphones" rule (no strikes at any location that would be behind a pair of headphones worn on the head).  The new rule uses the mohawk interpretation towards the top of the head but then widens the prohibited striking area towards the base of the neck. 

Another rule change is the prohibition of "12 to 6" elbow strikes (striking downward with the point of the elbow).  This is a reversal from changes the ABC made to the Uniform Rules of MMA in 2008 when it acted to eliminate the restriction against such a move.

Although ABC's MMA committee hopes that the revisions to the Uniform Rules will be adopted, well, uniformly, state athletic commissions are free to reject any or all of them.  For example, although the ABC changed the breakdown of weight classes in 2008, most commissions (and the UFC) kept the MMA light heavyweight class at the traditional 186 to 205 pounds.  

One thing that makes universal adoption more likely than in the past is that the rules changes were created by  the ABC committee on MMA rather than the ABC itself.   The MMA committee, which was adopted in 2008, largely in response to complaints about the proposed new weight classes, counts as its members the directors of many of the most influential state athletic commissions.

It would greatly benefit the sport of MMA for all states to adopt the modified rules.  Even if a particular commission disagrees with a particular rule change, having a common rule set makes it easier for fans to understand what is happening, it makes it easier for officials to oversee matches, and it makes it safer for the fighters.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Since this blog launched, a lot of people have asked: "What is Mixed Martial Arts Law?"  The real answer is that any law can affect a mixed martial artist or MMA promoter (as loyal readers to this blog can attest).  That said, a more precise definition is: "the collection of statutes, administrative rules, and regulations that govern mixed martial arts competitions." 

Many people don't realize that, on the flipside, some mixed martial arts contests do not have to comply with any MMA-specific laws.  In Iowa, for example, professional MMA is explicitly allowed and is regulated by the Iowa Athletic Commissioner, but amateur MMA (unlike amateur boxing) is not under the purview of the Commissioner.  Nonetheless, that aspect of mixed martial arts continues to thrive in Iowa.  

After explaining the above, I sometimes get this follow-up question: "If a state athletic commission does not oversee mixed martial arts, why aren't the fighters arrested for assault?" The answer is, typically, that the activity is consensual.  In Iowa, assault is defined by section 708.1.  After listing the activities that constitute assault, the code section provides an exception for cases where the persons engaged in the activities are:

voluntary participants in a sport, social or other activity, not in itself criminal, and such act is a reasonably foreseeable incident of such sport or activity, and does not create an unreasonable risk of serious injury or breach of the peace . . .

Without such an exception, mixed martial artists would face assault charges, but so would participants in any contact sport.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link