October 28, 2009 Mass. lawmakers move one step closer to approving MMA Play video

(NECN: Peter Howe, Boston) - It's a version of prize-fighting so intense that head kicks and all but eye-gouging and biting are allowed -- and it's Massachusetts' newest economic-development strategy.

Following a 34-1 vote in the state Senate in July, the Massachusetts House of Representatives voted 144-10 on Wednesday in favor of legalizing and closely regulating ultimate fighting, also called "mixed martial arts.''

For a certain segment of sports fans, this is a very popular sport, with big money, millions of dollars in tickets and television rights for fight nights. That is money Massachusetts officials say they would like to get some of, while also bringing some regulation to a version of prizefighting that's been showing up on special event nights in Plymouth and other parts of the state.

Traditional boxing this is not. No gloves. Five-minute rounds, kicking and all but the most vicious body shots allowed until a loser submits -- taps out -- or judges pick a winner. (To get some feel for how rough it is, the list of what's -not- allowed include things like grabbing an opponent's trachea or groin, hair pulling, "small-joint manipulation" and kicking, kneeing, or stomping the head of an opponent who's already on the ground.)

Fight nights have been known to gross $3 million a pop, and while 37 other states have preceded Massachusetts in legalizing and regulating the sport, it remains controversial.

Rep. Steven D'Amico (D-Seekonk, Mass.)

speaking on the House floor against the bill, said, "I don't know why we are about to do this. Maybe it's for money. There are a lot of things we can do for money ... We're about to legalize a sport here that is, let's face it, professional face-punching, professional face-kicking. We might as well call it that ... I don't know why we want our kids to go to the Boston Garden and see these blood sports and be inspired by these blood sports. I think we're better than that. We're Massachusetts.''

Howe: To a great extent, a lot of the arguments in favor of the mixed martial arts bill, which was originally sponsored by Sen. James Timilty (D-Walpole), mirror those made nearly 40 years ago when the Massachusetts Lottery was established to put the mob-run numbers racket out of business. If people are going to play the numbers, the thinking goes -- or in this case, watch and participate in ultimate fighting -- why not have the state regulate it and make some money from it?

Just how much money the state makes is unclear, because it's driven heavily by television rights and pay-per-view revenues. Clearly, though, one big fight in Boston or Lowell or Springfield, or a few around the state over the course of a year, could definitely mean several million dollars in economic activity for the state. And to a big extent the argument for legalizing and regulating this kind of fighting is similar to the current argument for building resort-style casinos in Massachusetts: If the business exists and customers are going to other states to patronize it, why not legalize it in Massachusetts to keep more of that money in the state.

Rep. Michael Costello (D-Newburyport, Mass.), chairman of the Legislature's public safety committee, said, "Whether you agree with this sport or you don't agree with this sport, and I'm not here as a proponent or an opponent of this sport, we know that it's much better if it's regulated. it's much better if it takes place in a safe environment.''

The bill would allow the state to collect a 4 percent ticket tax on ultimate fighting events, plus up to $75,000 per televised fighting event staged in Massachusetts. An expanded state Boxing Commission with two new members -- one a specialist in mixed martial arts -- would regulate and license fighters and promoters and set insurance requirements for those sponsoring events. Also, any of the state's 351 cities and towns would, under an amendment pushed by Sen. Marc R. Pacheco (D-Taunton), be allowed to ban ultimate fighting within their borders.

Aides to Governor Deval L. Patrick said late Wednesday the governor hadn't reviewed the bill and decided if he would sign it. As a technical legislative matter, however, both the House and the Senate have now approved the measure by far more than enough votes to override a Patrick veto were the governor to issue one.