FTC Ends UFC Investigation Regarding Strikeforce Purchase
February 1, 2012
Earlier today, Josh Gross from ESPN.com broke the news that the Federal Trade Commission has closed a non-public investigation into the UFC’s purchase of Strikeforce as of last week.
ESPN reports:
Documents published on the FTC website dated January 25, confirm the FTC’s Bureau of Competition conducted an investigation to determine whether the $34 million acquisition of Explosion Entertainment, LLC, by UFC’s parent company, Zuffa LLC, violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act or Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
…
In closing letters issued to counsel for Zuffa and Explosion Entertainment, FTC secretary Donald S. Clark stated, “Upon further review of this matter, it now appears that no further action is warranted by the Commission at this time. Accordingly, the investigation has been closed.”
The full letter from the FTC is below (H/T: FightOpinion.com):
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580
Office of the Secretary
January 25, 2012
Stephen Axinn, Esq.
Axinn Veltrop, and Harkrider LLP
1330 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Re: Acquisition of Explosion Entertainment, LLC (Strikeforce) by Zuffa, LLC (UFC)
FTC File No. 111 0136
Dear Mr. Axinn:
The Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition has been conducting a nonpublic investigation to determine whether Zuffa, LLC’s acquisition of Explosion Entertainment, LLC may violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act or Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Upon further review of this matter, it now appears that no further action is warranted by the Commission at this time. Accordingly, the investigation has been closed. This action is not to be construed as a determination that a violation may not have occurred, just as the pendency of an investigation should not be construed as a determination that a violation has occurred. The Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the public interest may require.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark
Secretary
New York files Motion to Dismiss portions of Zuffa’s lawsuit
January 30, 2012
The New York District Attorney and Attorney General filed separate motions to dismiss two claims in Zuffa’s lawsuit in New York City. While the lawsuits seek to dismiss only a portion of the UFC complaint, it appears that the defendants are leaving open a motion to dismiss the entire complaint in total at a later date.
Courtesy of the Fight Lawyer, the two motions are below:
Attorney General’s Motion to Dismiss
District Attorney’s Motion to Dismiss
Payout Perspective:
The crux of both arguments appear to be that despite Zuffa’s claims, the fact remains that New York had a rational basis for enacting the ban at the time it was drafted. And based on this, the statute was not vague and overbroad as it relates to the due process and equal protection claims. They cite to case law which supports the theory that despite changes over the years that may, arguably, antiquate a statute’s purpose, under a rational basis review of a law, so long as there was a rational purpose for it at the time of its introduction it is valid.
Both motions argue that the proper forum for Zuffa’s claims is with the legislature and that if Zuffa wanted to enact change, it should direct its efforts to the legislature.
Via the District Attorney’s motion to dismiss:
…as a proper exercise of judicial restraint, federal courts must uphold a statute that was rational when enacted, even when post-enactment developments cast doubt on the wisdom, logic, or providence of prior legislative decisions
It also argues that legislatures are given “substantial latitude” when it comes to enacting laws under a rational basis review of the law as “imperfections and even inequality must be tolerated.”
The defendants’ motions are persuasive and could set the dominoes in line if the court grants the motion to dismiss Zuffa’s claims. As indicated in its motions, both parties contemplate a further motion to dismiss the rest of Zuffa’s claims if it is successful with this motion.
Proposed Anti-MMA Bill in Wisconsin still alive
January 25, 2012
OnMilwaukee.com reports that an “Anti-MMA” bill in Wisconsin is still alive but is fading quickly. If passed, the bill could ban mixed martial arts in over 1,200 towns in the state.
Duke Roufus of Roufus Sport has lobbied against the measure. You may recall Roufus is the trainer for MMA fighters including Anthony Pettis and his gym is located in Milwaukee
The actual bill authorizes towns to pass ordinances banning MMA. The state’s Department of Safety and Professional Services governs the regulation of MMA in the state. The proposed bill would grant local government the authority to ban MMA in its town.
Via OnMilwaukee.com:
Referred to as “Wisconsin’s Anti-MMA Bill”, AB-308 was authored by Representative Patricia Strachota and co-sponsored by Senator Glenn Grothman in October of 2011, just a year removed from Wisconsin’s adoption of mixed martial arts regulations designed to create statewide safety and regulatory standards.
The bill’s sponsors actually supported the original legislation adopting MMA regulations. The change in course is puzzling to Roufus and supporters of MMA of that state.
Payout Perspective:
If passed, it would be a definite blow to MMA in the state. The story suggests that MMA cards are just being organized and to repeal the MMA regulations would be a disappointment for MMA fans. The bill is not as definite as New York’s ban as the pertinent language gives a town the authority to ban MMA. So, it would really be up to the local governing body whether it would enact a ban. The bill appears to be losing support but we will continue to monitor.
Update on Zuffa vs. New York: NY files motion
January 9, 2012
The Fight Lawyer reports on the latest from the Zuffa lawsuit in New York. Notably, the New York AG and the New York DA will file a motion to dismiss on the issues of due process and equal protection but the First Amendment issue will not be contested in the motion.
On January 5, 2012 a status conference was held:
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kimba M. Wood: Status Conference held on 1/5/2012. Defendants will submit a limited motion to dismiss addressing only the issue of whether due process and equal protection analysis requires the Court to determine whether there was a rational basis for the law at issue only at the time it was passed, or whether the Court must determine whether there is a rational basis for the law at present (in other words, whether the Court should take into account a change in factual circumstances that makes the law no longer rational, even if it had a rational basis at the time of passage). Defendants’ motion is due 1/27/12. Plaintiffs’ reply is due 2/17/12.Defendants’ response is due 3/2/12. (js) Modified on 1/9/2012 (tro). (Entered: 01/06/2012)
Payout Perspective:
It will be interesting to see the arguments in the motion. The minute entry appears a little confusing upon first read considering the court will consider whether a law can become constitutionally irrational. But, it appears that the Court will decide whether the MMA Ban is rational now based on the current state of MMA or whether it was rational when the law was introduced in 1997. A breakdown of the due process and equal protection claims are 3, 4 and 5 in the lawsuit addressed here.
As the Fight Lawyer commented in his post, its a limited motion and there is no mention of the First Amendment claim.
One has to wonder whether the defendants believed that Zufffa’s First Amendment claim would survive a motion to dismiss at this point or whether its strategy is to prevail on its limited motion first prior to addressing the other claims in the lawsuit.
Update on Zuffa vs. New York lawsuit
December 18, 2011
Defense counsel for New York has made its appearance and were granted extra time to file its answer to the Zuffa’s lawsuit. The court will allow attorneys for the New York Attorney General and the New York County District Attorney until January 11, 2012 to respond.
As for the Zuffa’s Complaint, MMA Payout takes a comprehensive look at each cause of action.As many of you recall, Zuffa filed suit against the state of New York citing its ban on MMA is unconstitutional. We have taken a look at the complaint and break down Zuffa, et al.’s claims.
The thresh hold issue for Zuffa’s first and most noteworthy claim in this lawsuit is whether MMA deserves First Amendment protection. In its Complaint, Zuffa goes into detail as to why it believes MMA should be protected speech. Essentially stressing the “arts” in Mixed Martial Arts.
Via the Wall Street Journal:
While the arts are protected, no court has ever directly confronted the question of whether athletes have a First Amendment right to be seen in action, said Barry Friedman, a professor at New York University School of Law who is representing the plaintiffs.
In response to this novel argument, the Zuffa Complaint offers this:
“MMA fighters participate in live events for the same reason that an actor plays a crowded hall, a figure skater skates in front of thousands of live fans, a ballerina dances at Lincoln Center, and a band plays in a packed auditorium: because they want todemonstrate their skills before a live and appreciative audience, and interact with that audience during the event. (from paragraph 123 of the Complaint)
“Live professional MMA is not just a sporting event; it is also entertainment and theatre. (from paragraph 124 of the Complaint)
However, opponents will counter that allowing a professional athletic sport First Amendment protection will open the floodgates of litigation for other sports to file suit on these grounds. The implication is that the protection is unfounded and the result of allowing MMA this protection would cause a glut in the judicial system.
Friedman counters this argument as he states in the WSJ article that MMA should be distinguished from other sports as he compares martial arts to dancing.
Breakdown of Zuffa’s Causes of Action:
1. The Live Professional MMA Ban violates the First Amendment
In this claim, Zuffa argues that the Live Professional MMA Ban (“MMA Ban”) is a content-based restriction based on the perceived violent message. (paragraph 238). Zuffa points to the legislative history of the MMA Ban as reason to argue that the purpose of the ban was due to the violent content of MMA. (paragraph 240). Hence, Zuffa concludes that New York misperceives the proper message of MMA. (paragraph 242)
Here, Zuffa argues that since MMA is public entertainment, it is thereby protected by the First Amendment.
Assuming that the court agrees with Zuffa and that it should be protected under the First Amendment, we look to how a Court would analyze the MMA ban. Courts require that governmental regulation of speech protected under the First Amendment be “content neutral.” A “content neutral” law is one that applies to all speech regardless of its message.
According to Erwin Chemerinsky’s treatise on Constitutional Law (something that all law students are familiar with), the requirement that the government be content-neutral in its regulation of speech means that the government must be both viewpoint neutral and subject matter neutral. Viewpoint neutral means that the government cannot regulate speech based on the ideology of the message. For instance, a law cannot regulate against a political ideology but not regulate its opposing view. Subject matter neutral means that the government cannot regulate speech based on the topic of the speech. Thus, a law cannot inhibit one particular subject.
In these interpretations, the government is allowed to regulate speech if there is a legitimate state interest. Its plausible that New York argues that the ban was necessary due to the violent nature of the sport and the safety issues related to MMA.
2. The MMA Ban is Overbroad and violates the First Amendment
In this claim, Zuffa argues that the MMA Ban is so broad that it regulates certain things that it cannot, by law, regulate. “A law is unconstitutionally overbroad if it regulates substantially more speech than the Constitution allows to be regulated and a person to whom the law constitutionally can be applied can argue that it would be unconstitutional as applied to others.” (Chemerinsky)
Zuffa examines the language in the MMA Ban law and indicates how the law was drafted makes things such as attending a “UFC viewing party” or litigating this lawsuit illegal. Zuffa also cites other examples where the law can be construed broadly to make legal conduct and speech illegal.
3. The MMA Ban is Vague on the face of the law and violates the Due Process Clause
“A law is unconstitutionally vague if a reasonable person cannot tell what speech is prohibited and what is permitted. Unduly vague laws violate due process whether or not speech is regulated.” (Chemerensky)
Zuffa points to terms in the MMA Ban which it argues are vague. Zuffa recites relevant portions of the law in paragraph 260 of the Complaint
Section 2 of the Ban states that “[n]o combative sport shall be conducted, held or given within the state of New York.” N.Y. Unconsol. Law § 8905-a(2). Both criminal penalties and civil liability are imposed upon “a person who knowingly advances or profits from a combative sport activity.” § 8905-a(3)
Key terms, “combative sport activity” and “professional match or exhibition” which triggers the analysis for the ban are not defined in a way which would provides definitive guidelines.
Zuffa argues that the practice of martial arts at martial arts schools in New York may or may not be affected by the MMA Ban (paragraph 262). Zuffa concludes that there is confusion in the law regarding exemptions for martial arts schools and/or clubs.
In addition, while the triggering provision in the law appears to be whether an MMA match is a “professional match or exhibition,” the ban appears to restrict amateur fights. (paragraph 268).
4. The MMA Ban is Unconstitutional as it violates the Equal Protection rights of the Plaintiffs under the 14th Amendment
Similar to the first three causes of action, Zuffa argues that New York does not have a rational basis for its blanket ban of professional mixed martial arts in the state. It states that New York does not articulate the reasons for the ban. While safety and messages of violence may be interpreted as the reasons for the law, Zuffa contends that these reasons fall flat since other forms of martial arts are legal in New York and studies show that MMA is a safe sport. In addition, Zuffa argues that there is no rational reason that it bans MMA even though there are other violent forms of speech (i.e., video games, violent movies and music lyrics) that are not regulated.
5. The MMA Ban is Unconstitutional as it violates the Due Process Clause
This cause of action relates to the right that the Due Process Clause in the Constitution prohibits the government from “intruding on liberty without rational reason.” Here, Zuffa argues once again that the MMA Ban is vague and overbroad and does not address the purpose for the law.
6. The MMA Ban Unconstitutionally restricts interstate commerce
This cause of action relates to what lawyers term the “dormant commerce clause.” State and local laws cannot place an undue burden on interstate commerce. Zuffa argues that the MMA Ban stifles interstate commerce on three fronts.
First, since the MMA Ban is only a ban on professional MMA and not amateur MMA, New York may have MMA training, gyms and exhibitions but New York bars out-of-state businesses from promoting professional events.
Second, the language of the law is so broad that “numerous interstate products and services” required for a live professional MMA event are barred from New York. Here, the argument is that the law does not address the perceived purpose of the law, which is to ban the “violent message of MMA” and improve fighter safety. Zuffa argues that there are no benefits to the ban and states that the ban has forced individuals to turn to “underground” MMA. It also indicates that if the perception of violence was at issue, New York could have found an alternative to a complete ban on MMA. The Complaint suggest it could have an age limit for attendance in live events.
Finally, Zuffa argues that the MMA Ban could have an “extraterritorial effect” on interstate commerce as the vagueness of the statute and uncertain enforcement may leave advertisers and merchandisers to limit its exposure in the New York market. As an extension, it could burden advertisers and merchandisers in neighboring states.
7. 2001 Liquor Law is Unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs
This cause of action relates to Zuffa’s claims related to the MMA ban as the 2001 Liquor Law prohibits the sale of liquor at both professional and amateur MMA events. It follows that if the MMA ban is unconstitutional, the provision of the 2001 Liquor Law would be unconstitutional as well.
It will be interesting to see if counsel for New York attempts to dismiss Zuffa’s Complaint. The lawsuit attempts to break new ground in the area of First Amendment protection and with that, we may see a motion to dismiss this case before it gets anywhere.
DISCLAIMER
The information in this post is opinion only. In addition, and because this is my opinion, it is not intended to be (and is not) legal advice or an advertisement for legal services. This post provides general information only. Although I encourage interested parties to contact me on the subjects discussed in the article, the reader should not consider information on this site to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship. I disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this post. Any e-mail sent to me will not create an attorney-client relationship, and you should not use this site to send me e-mail containing confidential or sensitive information.
Vancouver loses UFC in 2012
October 16, 2011
MMA Fighting and TSN report that Vancouver is likely out of the UFC’s rotation of events for 2012. It announced 2012 events in Montreal and Toronto and another “surprise” Canadian city according to UFC’s director of operations Tom Wright.
Wright indicated that the lack of regulatory movement, not financial success was the reason that it would not return in 2012.
Via MMA Fighting:
The shows certainly weren’t financial failures. 2010′s UFC 115 did a $4.2 million gate, while UFC 131, held this past June, drew a $2.8 million gate. Instead, the problem is regulatory stalling. Both of the UFC’s events were held during a two-year test period held by the city after overturning a previous ban on MMA. That test period will end in the coming months and apparently, the prospects of sanctioned MMA will go with it.
Via TSN:
“And the disappointing thing for our sport is that after a two-year test period, they’ve had two tests — ours,” Wright said Wednesday. “Because no other promotion could afford the indemnification or the insurance costs or the other things — or actually have the perseverance to get an event to be held there.
Payout Perspective:
A disappointment to MMA fans in the Pacific Northwest. Last June’s event was set to be the return of Brock Lesnar. Unfortunately, due to Lesnar’s health issues, Lesnar’s late scratch likely affected the attendance for the show (yet, it still did pretty well). Taking Vancouver off of the schedule is a sign for the need of uniform regulation in Canada. This is something the UFC has lobbied for in Ottawa. Bloody Elbow was critical of Vancouver for granting the UFC the opportunity to hold events in its city but not doing anything to ensure a lasting relationship with the sport of MMA. BE argues that Vancouver officials made unreasonable monetary requests of the UFC to cover for insurance, extra police security, etc. while not creating laws which would regulate the sport in the province. Certainly, this would be the UFC’s point of view as well.
Notwithstanding Vancouver’s loss, there are other Canadian cities more than willing to hold a UFC event and work with the UFC regarding regulating MMA.
For Pacific Northwest MMA fans, perhaps Seattle will be a new destination for a UFC PPV. It had the highest attendance for a UFC Fight Night and the Seattle media embraced the sport. With the Key Arena dormant except the random concert and the WNBA’s Storm in the summer, Seattle has a great venue to house the sport.
Muay Thai in New York and the “Martial Arts” Exception
July 7, 2011
As set forth in my earlier post, for the first time this Friday, July 8, my friends at Madison Square Garden (in association with TaKe On Productions– and sanctioned by the WKA) are holding a muay thai event at the Beacon Theater, Battle at the Beacon.
This will be (as far as I know) the biggest muay thai event in New York to date with 17 scheduled bouts (both professional and amateur) held in a legendary venue. I am really looking forward to a night of exciting and competitive bouts.
In response to my earlier post about the event, I received questions from readers about why muay thai events are taking place in New York despite the so-called ban on “combative sports.” Here is the explanation.
If you follow this blog you should be aware that in 1997 Governor Pataki signed a bill into law that made “combative sports” illegal in the Empire State. Specifically, in 1997, chapter 912 of the laws of 1920, which relates to allowing and regulating boxing, sparring and wrestling matches, was amended with the addition of a new Section 5-a to specifically prohibit “combative sports.”
For the history leading up to the purported ban on combative sports please see this article I wrote last year.
Section 5-a(1) purports to define “combative sports” as follows:
§ 5-a. Combative sports. 1. A “combative sport” shall mean any professional match or exhibition other than boxing, sparring, wrestling or martial arts wherein the contestants deliver, or are not forbidden by the applicable rules thereof from delivering kicks, punches or blows of any kind to the body of an opponent or opponents. For the purposes of this section, the term “martial arts” shall include any professional match or exhibition sanctioned by any of the following organizations: U.S. Judo Association, U.S. Judo, Inc., U.S. Judo Federation, U.S. Tae Kwon Do Union, North American Sport Karate Association, U.S.A. Karate Foundation, U.S. Karate, Inc., World Karate Association, Professional Karate Association, Karate International, International Kenpo Association, or World Wide Kenpo Association.
Section 5-a(1) also authorizes the New York State Athletic Commission to “promulgate regulations which would establish a process to allow for the inclusion or removal of martial arts organizations from the above list” and provides certain factors that the NYSAC should consider in doing so. The NYSAC has never promulgated these regulations, but is now in the process of doing so. I am currently reviewing and commenting on the proposed regulations — comments that I will submit to the Office of General Counsel for the New York Secretary of State.
Section 5-a(2) provides the purported ban as follows:
No combative sport shall be conducted, held or given within the state of New York, and no licenses may be approved by the commission for such matches or exhibitions.
Section 5-a(3) then explains certain penalties that will attach if a person knowingly “advances or profits from a combative sport activity.”
The “muay thai exception” focuses on the definition of “martial arts” in Section 5-a(1). As you can see, “martial arts,” are by definition not a “combative sport” and not subject to the ban.
In order to qualify as a “martial art,” a “professional match or exhibition” must be “sanctioned by” one of the enumerated organizations on the list.
Presently, to my knowledge, the only organization on the 1997 statutory list that is sanctioning muay thai in New York is the World Kickboxing Association, which is sanctioning the event at the Beacon on Friday night.
The WKA has promulgated both amateur and professional rules.
For ticket information and to learn more about the Battle at the Beacon, please click here.
Hope to see you there.
Fight Lawyer
Justin Klein is an attorney at Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP in New York City where he concentrates his practice in commercial litigation and represents clients in the fight industry. He regularly addresses current legal issues that pertain to combat sports, including efforts to legalize MMA in New York, at his Fight Lawyer website. He is a licensed boxing manager with the New York State Athletic Commission as well as the founder and Chairman of the Board of the New York Mixed Martial Arts Initiative, a non-profit organization that gives inner city youth the opportunity to experience the emotional and physical benefits of martial arts training. Justin lives in New York City where he trains in jiu jitsu and boxing.
DISCLAIMER
The information in this post and on my site consists of my opinion only, i.e., it is not the opinion of my employer or anybody else. In addition, and because this is my opinion, it is not intended to be (and is not) legal advice or an advertisement for legal services. This post provides general information only. Although I encourage interested parties to contact me on the subjects discussed in the articles, the reader should not consider information on this site to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship. I disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this post. Any e-mail sent to me will not create an attorney-client relationship, and you should not use this site or my site to send me e-mail containing confidential or sensitive information.
MMA in New York Not Happening in 2011
June 21, 2011
As predicted (and as in past years), the MMA bill has again stalled in the New York State Assembly after passing the New York Senate and overwhelmingly passing the two committees where it was debated in the Assembly–Tourism, Parks, Arts and Sports Development and Codes.
Unfortunately, the next committee in the process, Ways & Means, has issued its Agenda on this last day of the legislative session and it does not include the bill that would legalize MMA in New York.
While the legislative session could go a few days longer — until Wednesday or Thursday perhaps — the bill would still need to pass through W&M and Rules before going to the floor for a vote. This is not going to happen as Herman Farrell, Chair of Ways & Means, has voiced his distaste for MMA:
The Ways and Means chairman said that he’s “looking at” the bill, but said he’s far from a mixed-martial arts fan. “I don’t think very much of the sport,” Farrell said. “Next we’ll give them clubs with spikes on the end; that will be good.”
Moreover, Sheldon Silver, Chair of Rules and Speaker of the Assembly, has stated that he is not “enamored” with the sport.
Despite the setback, there is some room for optimism this year. Indeed, there was more mainstream media attention to the issue, which I believe and have previously written will be critical if we are going to get this done. Moreover, the votes (when votes occurred) were more favorable to MMA than past years.
The fight resumes in 2012.
Fight Lawyer
Justin Klein is an attorney at Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP in New York City where he concentrates his practice in commercial litigation and represents clients in the fight industry. He regularly addresses current legal issues that pertain to combat sports, including efforts to legalize MMA in New York, at his Fight Lawyer website. He is a licensed boxing manager with the New York State Athletic Commission as well as the founder and Chairman of the Board of the New York Mixed Martial Arts Initiative, a non-profit organization that gives inner city youth the opportunity to experience the emotional and physical benefits of martial arts training. Justin lives in New York City where he trains in jiu jitsu and boxing.
DISCLAIMER
The information in this post and on my site consists of my opinion only, i.e., it is not the opinion of my employer or anybody else. In addition, and because this is my opinion, it is not intended to be (and is not) legal advice or an advertisement for legal services. This post provides general information only. Although I encourage interested parties to contact me on the subjects discussed in the articles, the reader should not consider information on this site to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship. I disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this post. Any e-mail sent to me will not create an attorney-client relationship, and you should not use this site or my site to send me e-mail containing confidential or sensitive information.
White defends MMA in NY op-ed
June 13, 2011
Dana White made one last plea for the legalization of MMA in New York with an op-ed piece in today’s New York Daily News. While White hopes for a full NY Assembly vote, the current bill to legalize MMA is not expected to be passed.
White argued to overturn the ban in the New York Daily News:
It’s long past time to overturn that prohibition. It’s a safe and respectable sport that’s every bit as legitimate as boxing or professional football.
White stressed how different the sport has become since it was banned in the 1990s. He also addressed the issue of concussions – a topic that is becoming increasingly important when discussing safety in other sports such as football. In addition, he stressed the economic benefit the sport would have on New York.
One thing that the op-ed did not touch on that the Fight Lawyer picked up on was that there are unsanctioned, underground fights occurring in New York and legalizing MMA could curb these type of bouts. ESPN had a piece on this not too long ago.
Payout Perspective:
White’s op-ed piece is a nice bit of public relations for the UFC. It was plainspoken and laid out the arguments for the legalization of the sport. It did not point fingers or badmouth any person or group for blocking the legalization of MMA. Other commissioners of sports leagues (e.g., Roger Goodell) have used op-eds to get their points across about issues in their respective sports. This shows that the UFC is strategizing like a mainstream sports league. While the MMA bill may not go through this legislative session in New York, it is laying groundwork for its eventual passage.
Troubling Statements from Assembly Sponsor of Bill to Legalize MMA in New York
June 3, 2011
I just read an article, The fate of mixed martial arts bill uncertain, and was troubled by Assemblyman Englebright’s (the bill’s sponsor and Chair of the Tourism, Parks, Arts and Sports Development Committee where the bill originates in the Assembly) comments because they are telling and signify the bigger issue with legalization here in New York.
Specifically, he says:
There is a healthy controversy. There are very concerned members of the majority who can’t support it this year, as they could not support it in years past, . . . I imagine we’ll have similar blockage or stoppage, . . . But, you never know. There are quite a few new faces in the chamber this year. I haven’t seen a sea change, but I have seen subtle changes.
As I have posted before, the majority — the democratic leadership in the Assembly — is allowing the bill to stall out in Committee before reaching a floor vote, where it in Englebright’s opinion should have enough support to pass. This is the “blockage” and “stoppage” that Englebright is referring to.
If you follow my blog, you will recall that last year Assemblyman Englebright said essentially the same thing:
“If we were able to get it to the floor, we’d probably pass it with Republican votes,” Englebright said. “But there is a desire, I think, on the part of many of the members of our Democratic majority to resolve this matter satisfactorily within our own [party] before submitting it to the uncertainties of a debate.”
Hopefully, Englebright, as the bill’s sponsor and a member of the senior leadership of his party, can convince the other members of his majority to let the bill go to the floor for an up or down vote (i.e. let the so-called democratic process play out).
Otherwise, we may be having this same conversation one-year from now….
One last note, I am told that the bill will be taken up in the Tourism Committee next week and that there are a significant number of assembly members pushing the Assembly Speaker to let the bill go straight to the floor for an up or down vote after passage out of the Tourism Committee.
Fight Lawyer
Justin Klein is an attorney at Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP in New York City where he concentrates his practice in commercial litigation and represents clients in the fight industry. He regularly addresses current legal issues that pertain to combat sports, including efforts to legalize MMA in New York, at his Fight Lawyer website. He is a licensed boxing manager with the New York State Athletic Commission as well as the founder and Chairman of the Board of the New York Mixed Martial Arts Initiative, a non-profit organization that gives inner city youth the opportunity to experience the emotional and physical benefits of martial arts training. Justin lives in New York City where he trains in jiu jitsu and boxing.
DISCLAIMER
The information in this post and on my site consists of my opinion only, i.e., it is not the opinion of my employer or anybody else. In addition, and because this is my opinion, it is not intended to be (and is not) legal advice or an advertisement for legal services. This post provides general information only. Although I encourage interested parties to contact me on the subjects discussed in the articles, the reader should not consider information on this site to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship. I disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this post. Any e-mail sent to me will not create an attorney-client relationship, and you should not use this site or my site to send me e-mail containing confidential or sensitive information.
