Don't hold your breath on MMA in New York

by Zak Woods on Nov 24, 2008 2:02 PM EST Comment 7 comments

From: http://www.watchkalibrun.com/2008/11/dont-hold-your-breath-on-mma-in-new.html

During the summer it looked as though the legalization of MMA in New York may pass out of committee to go to the assembly floor. Unfortunately it collapsed due to a few members changing their vote at the last minute. There was a great deal of hope that it could pass, but as WKR reported the 2008 legislative session was ending making a special session the only possibility to pass MMA legislation in 2008.

Remember the New York Assembly is only in session for half the year and many of its members are part-time politicians while being full time lawyers or business owners. The Assembly won't reconvene till 2009.

The UFC has been a major lobbyist in trying to get MMA legalized in New York. Recently they held aneconomic conference call highlighting the positive effects of legalized MMA. With the increasingly sour economic news some have assumed that now it is all but a matter of time. To that I say, ‘don’t hold your breath’.

The state of New York is facing a fiscal crisis, with a projected 14 billion dollar deficit over the next two years. The governor just called a special session to try and cut 5 billion dollars from the state budget.

New York’s state government has become dependent upon tax revenue derived from the banking and financial sectors, which now are in ruins. Over 100,000 high paying financial sector jobs will be gone soon. With Wall Street in a period of volatility not seen since the 30’s the state government will be forced focus all their attention on getting through the next fiscal year. With all these budgetary problems legalizing MMA will instantly be placed on the back burner. Essentially the current market is creating a need for politicians to show ‘meat and potato’ economic progress. While legalizing MMA may be considered an economic plus, making sure schools and prisons are still running comes first in a politicians minds. Especially with their perceived notion of MMA as a hot button social issue.

States don’t always make decisions that are in their best economic interest. For instance the state of Ohio is hemorrhaging jobs, money, population, businesses and anything else that is important for a well functioning economy. But the voters of Ohio voted down an amendment to legalize gambling, an amendment billed as a job making measure. It shows that as long as people view something as a vice they will vote against their own economic interest.

The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.

5 recs | Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Hmm doesn’t look so good for UFC 100 at Madison Square Garden then does it? Just a quick question: I’m under the impression that the bill needs to pass out of committee and then is voted on by the entire assembly. Is the bill likely to pass once it gets out of committee or is their significant opposition in the assembly as well as in committee?

by Andy R on Nov 24, 2008 2:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I can’t agree with you.

I live in New York and am currently going to law school in Manhattan. I studied economics and politics extensively in undergrad. The conclusions you’re deriving from this situation have some logic but just don’t hold up under closer examination.

The situation is simple. MMA was shot down initially in the New York assembly because the politicians were uneducated on the sport and simply had no incentive to vote for it. The UFC has corrected this problem and, from now until the next assembly, is correcting those past mistakes.

The UFC has gone above and beyond to make sure those with power realize that this is a sport and not human cockfighting. The UFC has been stressing the need for regulation. These efforts will hopefully educate legislators to the extent that they can make an informed decision and not come off looking like Tony Kornheiser.

The incentive has manifested itself through the economic problems we currently face as a nation. You are looking at the economic turmoil seen on Wall Street as a reason for lawmakers to decide that MMA legalization is not a priority. This, of course, has merit but you are missing the bigger picture. For one, legislators do not have to do much work here. All they have to do is vote affirmatively for regulation and for the necessary funding for the athletic commission. At first glance it may seem that the money is simply not there due to the tremendous budget cuts you have cited. That couldn’t be more wrong. The budget cuts are going to be done in places that are losing the state money or are simply unnecessary. The UFC has provided evidence that MMA regulation will garner the state a profit. In a time of economic turmoil for New York, investing time, money, and regulation in ventures that are all but a sure thing is not going to happen. The UFC has made it clear that MMA regulation will guarantee a financial return for the state.

The last thing the state needs is a gamble, as you point out with the situation in Ohio. MMA regulation is not a gamble – it’s a guaranteed investment at a time where New York needs smart financial decisions from Albany. Comparing gambling to MMA just doesn’t make sense. Once provided with real information on the sport, any logical lawmaker will be able to discern that this is a legitimate sport and not some freak event that should be showcased in barrooms and indian reservations. Gambling is considered a vice because it is. On top of that, casinos – including those owned by the Fertitta’s – are suffering record losses due to the economic problems nationwide. When people are cutting back luxuries, one of the first to go is gambling. This economic incentive is surely part of the reason Ohio voted down on the gambling amendment – at this time it is a losing business. The opposite can be said for MMA and the UFC in particular and that is the reason why it will be legalized sometime in 2009.

by dropkick101 on Nov 24, 2008 2:23 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Very well said.

And another reason why the Ohio thing isn’t a very good example is because that was a referendum voted on by the people.

In NY, it just has to go through the legislature, and the NY political machine is well oiled and has been moving for a long time. Just because a similar thing fails in referendum in one state, that has no bearing at all on what the NY legislature is going to do.

by Phildo on Nov 24, 2008 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly. That’s another relevant element here that I failed to mention. The Ohio comparison is like apples to oranges – it just doesn’t work.

by dropkick101 on Nov 24, 2008 4:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yea, I’m not in NY right now, so I don’t know what a referendum would have done, but the city council just extended term limits for city officers from 2 to 3 terms, basically because Bloomberg wants to be mayor again, and the 8 year limit was a referendum,. ( I don’t blame them, it’s probably smart to have him in charge during the financial mess, especially because he has a pretty good salary for the city.)

by Phildo on Nov 24, 2008 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Great Post

I liek your reasoned argument and I pretty much agree with you.

by rainmaker6 on Nov 25, 2008 2:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Madison Square Garden

Madison Square Garden is a boxing mecca. For years it has been the place for huge fighting events.
It is only a matter of time before the UFC is there. And in my opinon a new era in MMA will evolve.

by Turtlemmaspot on Nov 27, 2008 2:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs