Paul Grondahl of the Times Union is reporting that a bill supporting MMA passed through New York’s Tourism, Parks, Arts and Sports Development Committee last week with a 12-9 vote. The same bill had passed in the same committee last year (14-6), but was returned after it stalled due to inaction – lawmakers simply ran out of time.
Now the bill will move onto the New York Assembly’s Codes Committee while a companion bill travels through the Senate.
Payout Perspective:
In April, Gov. Patterson introduced a state budget proposal for the state of New York and it included a piece of legislation that would legalize mixed martial arts with the idea of allowing the sport to generate revenue for the cash-strapped state. However, the budget has yet to pass due to differences in the Assembly, and what looked to be a very good situation for the MMA community has turned into somewhat of a guessing game.
The latest passing of this MMA bill – something completely independent of the state budget proposal – has renewed hope that MMA will be legalized in New York before the end of the year. Then again, the process has hit snags before and no one should be surprised if something happens again to derail the progress of the bill.
Thanks for the update Kelsey. It boggles my mind how MMA is not yet sanctioned in New York and even Toronto for that matter. Feels like a lot of posturing by those in control of the athletic commissions to me.
The silliest thing about the whole quest for sanctioning is that New York and Ontario must recognize that the regulation of MMA in their areas is practically INEVITABLE. What people like Bob Reilly hope to accomplish by merely stalling the inevitable sanctioning of the sport is beyond me. While MMA is not a mainstream sport (yet) it has grown to the point where those who label it illegitimate will soon be seen as thinking in a backwards manner. New York and Ontario’s governments must recognize that failing to regulate the sport in their areas only serves to create a dangerous, unregulated, underground fight industry that will only hurt people. People in New York and Ontario watch MMA on TV and the internet all the time, it is a proven fact. Merely preventing (legal) live events from taking place there is only causing them to miss out on dollars for their economies.
studies show that the economic impact from sporting events have no real bearing on a cities economy because people will just spend their money else where and on other things.
I’m not sure anyone can ignore the potential for bias in any economic impact study; often times these studies are funded by organizations that are seeking another bargaining tool.
However, every economic impact study is different – some are more accurate than others. The substitution effect is a problem in some situations, but not for an organization that draws anywhere between 40% to 70% of its crowd from out-of-market locations.
Moreover, while each individual consumer only has a finite amount of money to borrow and spend, that consumer can be motivated to spend less or more of that money depending on what sort of purchasing options are available. This hits at the critical flaw in some of the anti-economic impact study crowd: just because people have money, doesn’t mean they’re going to spend it (even in America where people have traditionally spent more than they’ve made in the last few decades).
MMA is the type of sport – the UFC, an organization in particular – that can motivate consumers to spend more than they regularly would in any given situation.
brockmann on June 7th, 2010 8:27 PM
“studies show that the economic impact from sporting events have no real bearing on a cities economy because people will just spend their money else where and on other things.”
So what about the money that the thousands of fans who travel from other cities,states, and countries?
As a resident of West Virginia i have went to 2 UFCs in Columbus, Ohio; 1 in Cincinnati, Ohio; 1 in Atlantic City, New Jersey; 1 in Atlanta, Georgia. Did these cities not benefit from my money and the money of my 5-7 friends who went also? Or did out money magically disappear.
The “study” you are talking about seems very fishy. There are some people who do something on a given night. If you take away an option they probably will choose another form of entertainment to spend their money. But there are just as many people who if not for a specific even would have been sitting at home doing nothing. The more options for people to spend their money the better chance people will part with their money. According to the logic of the “study” there should only be 1 form of food, entertainment, transportation, etc.
If Pizza was the only fast food then everyone would eat out less. The numbers wouldnt be the same.