The Battle for MMA in Madison Square Garden Continues: Legislation at a Glance

As MMA fans, we kind of take the sport's growth for granted. We're on FOX, and with the latest news that the UFC on FOX peaked at 8.8 million viewers, and therefore was a success, what more could we ask for? Well, if you're a fighter living in Alaska, or Wyoming: a lot. In fact, it would be nice just to have an athletic commission, as both states lack such governing bodies.

For the past several years, the UFC has been lobbying for legalization in New York, at least in part, for these reasons. If you legalize it, you can avoid underground spectacles like 'Club Boxing': a name for Alaska's unregulated boxing scene. However, even with athletic commissions, nothing is guaranteed. At least without formal MMA regulations. With such ambiguity present, cases like that of Kyle Maynard (with no arms and legs), became possible in Alabama (it's also probably where they filmed this unholy mess).

Along with regulation, much has been made of the economic benefits the UFC would bring into the state of New York. But if there's a reason even good looking numbers aren't a concern for New York it's because the state has more pressing matters, like dealing with its deficit.

However, the call for legalization is not simply bound by economic benefits. There are constitutional reasons New York has no obligation to legalize New York. Thanks, of course, goes to the Amendment that allows Joe Rogan and Eddie Bravo to smoke large amounts of weed before every podcast. But can a case be made for the federal regulation of MMA without violating the 10th Amendment?

It turns out there is: Michael Daum presents a very interesting case for the federal regulation of MMA, which is that MMA is considered Interstate Commerce. "Congress could presumably derive authority to regulate MMA within the states from its Interstate Commerce Clause power, granted by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Under United States vs. Lopez, Congress has the authority to regulate intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. If MMA is determined to constitute interstate commerce, the procedures under which MMA bouts are conducted consequently substantially affect interstate commerce and any regulation of those procedures is permissible."

In other words, so long as MMA can validate its use of interstate commerce, through leasing arenas, selling tickets, and creating revenue through radio, television, and motion picture rights (although Warrior was good enough, I'm not sure Never Back Down part 7 will bring home the interstate bacon), then there's certainly nothing unconstitutional about the push for federal legislation.

In fact, you might surmise that the current ban on MMA, on the principle of interstate commerce, creates a unique conflict of commerce. Jim Genia over at MMA Convert explains (citing one of the causes of action in Zuffa's current lawsuit):

First, by banning live professional MMA but allowing amateur MMA, the law fosters local participation at the expense of national businesses stuck on the outside looking in. Second, "the Ban's broad language prevents the numerous interstate products and services required for a live professional MMA event from entering New York's borders." Third, while MMA is legal and sanctioned in neighboring states, New York's ban could be affecting advertiser's exposure to New York markets - which in turn could be affecting their exposure in those neighboring states.

Moreover, Daum outlines the benefit of a fighter license and registry that could give commissions access to a fighter's medical history: as was seen with West Virgina, it's very easy to stand before a panel and lie about, well, everything. Daum continues, "By itself, this system would not conflict with the Tenth Amendment because it regulates the conduct of private individuals and not that of the states."

In short, MMA doesn't just deserve to be legal. It needs to be legal.

Perhaps that's why Zuffa has brought the Federal Judicial System in on New York's head with an incredibly curious argument: that MMA constitutes free speech, and is therefore protected by the first Amendment.

While that might sound like a stretch, the argument has weight precisely because of the language invoked for its ban in the first place: namely of MMA as a "message of violence". It's a relatively clever way to attack the ban, and one that seems valid on the surface. 

In addition, an irrationality claim has joined in on the litigation fun. As Barry Friedman points out in Jonathan Snowden's piece at MMA Nation, there's considerable weight to this claim: if safety is one reason why the sport was banned in the first place, why are amateur bouts legal? And what evidence is there to suggest that MMA is actually safer than big league sports, like hockey, boxing, and football (contrary to the language invoked in the current ban)?

A lot. I believe I've worked as hard as anyone to illuminate the concussion crisis in sports, but the fact of the matter is, no matter how much Dana White simplifies the issue, he's right. MMA can turn into a glorified wrestling match, and unlike equestrian activities, and drunken golf cart driving, there's no shockingly high concussion rate for wrestling, in high school or anywhere else (and certainly not in jiu jitsu).

Mixed martial arts is one of the few true and thorough contact sports that walks just around the edges of the concussion crisis. However, when we do hear tragic cases, it's restricted to the non sanctioned local circuits. I don't know what to expect from here on out, but it's an interesting bit of history that looks to be our best shot at watching our favorite fighters like Jose Aldo, Anderson Silva, or Jon Jones compete in the Garden sooner rather than later.