Michigan House Bill HB5156

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 10/17/23
• Refer: 10/17/23
• Report Pass: 5/14/24

Caption

Occupations: athletics; third-party sanctioning bodies; allow to supervise, conduct, and oversee contests of certain unarmed combat events, and modify licensure requirements for certain participants. Amends secs. 10, 11, 33b & 54a of 2004 PA 403 (MCL 338.3610 et seq.) & adds secs. 33e, 52a & 54b.

Impact

The modifications proposed by HB 5156 will have significant implications on state laws governing unarmed combat sports. The bill seeks to improve oversight and safety standards in these combat sports by mandating medical clearances and specific training for event officials. By allowing third-party sanctioning bodies to operate, the state can streamline event approvals and potentially expand the types of combat disciplines that can be sanctioned, thereby enhancing the variety and health of combat sports in Michigan. However, this may also lead to an increase in the administrative burdens for promoters who must now navigate an additional layer of regulatory oversight.

Summary

House Bill 5156 proposes amendments to the Michigan Unarmed Combat Regulatory Act, focusing on enhancing regulation for unarmed combat events, including boxing and mixed martial arts. The bill introduces modifications to licensing for event participants such as referees, judges, and trainers, requiring that they undergo training in concussion management every five years. This aims to promote safety for participants and align Michigan’s regulations with contemporary standards in the combat sports industry. The inclusion of 'third-party sanctioning bodies' is a notable aspect, allowing independent organizations to oversee events, thus potentially increasing the opportunities for amateur and professional bouts under regulated conditions.

Contention

While support for the bill stems primarily from those advocating for safer regulations within the combat sports arena, some concerns arise regarding the implementation of requirements for medical clearances and licensing. Opponents might argue that the additional barriers could deter amateur participants or smaller promoters from hosting events due to perceived increases in costs and logistical challenges. Furthermore, the reliance on third-party sanctioning bodies may raise questions about uniformity in regulation enforcement and oversight, leading to potential inconsistencies in how events are conducted across different organizations.