Earmarked legislation could box Nashville out of millions

Mixed martial arts bill could bring in millions of dollars, but the hold-up involves the UT Chattanooga wrestling team

Email | Print By Ken Whitehouse

A bill is before the state legislature that would replace the commissioner of commerce and insurance as the regulator of boxing and kickboxing with a new athletic commission to regulate those sports as well as mixed martial arts.

How does that affect Nashville? For one, revenues from a single mixed martial arts event can inject between $25 million and $50 million dollars into the local economy. According to the bill sponsor, Rep. Curry Todd (R-Memphis), legalizing MMA and updating the state's boxing code would have an estimated direct economic statewide impact of $100 million and bring in revenues from broadcast fees.

The Nashville Predators have talked about needing more revenue-generating events at the Sommet Center in order to keep the team in Nashville in the long term. Well, their current lease says they would get a cut of the proceeds of any MMA event held at the facility.

So what's the hold up? It's not that legislators are squeamish about holding the events in Tennessee. Nope, many want to bring in one of the country's fastest-growing sports, whose pay-per-view events are among the highest-grossing in the nation.

The hold-up is the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga's wrestling team.

An amendment attached to the bill would earmark money generated by MMA events to fund Division I wrestling programs at public institutions in the state. As it turns out, the only such program in the state is at UT-Chattanooga.

The amendment was attached to the bill despite objections from Todd at the urging of State Senators Dewayne Bunch (R-Cleveland) and Bo Watson (R-Hixson).

The practice of earmarks may be common in Washington, but not in Nashville. After quick consultation with a number of legislators and lobbyists, no one can recall a similar instance of something like this being attached to a bill. The move has caused the bill to stall in the legislature.

What may end the controversy is a perusal of the NCAA's Division I manual. While the funding mechanism might violate Title IX because it only funds a male athletic program, there is also another regulation that may present some problems.

According to rule 12.6.1.4 in the 2008 edition of the NCAA Division 1 manual, an athletic program "may receive funds from a professional sports organization, provided: The money is placed in the institution's general fund and used for purposes other than athletic; the money is placed in the institution's general scholarship fund and commingled with funds for the assistance of all students generally; or the money is received by the institution as a result of a reciprocal contractual marketing relationship and is placed in the athletics department's budget for the specific purpose of marketing and promoting any institutionally sponsored sport other than football and men's basketball."

Furthermore, rule 12.6.1.5 says an "institution shall not accept funds from a professional sports organization if: The funds are for the purpose of recognizing the development of a former student-athlete in a particular sport. The receipt of such funds by an institution would make additional moneys available that could benefit student-athletes and thus result in student-athletes indirectly receiving funds from a professional sports organization; the money, even though not earmarked by the donor, is received and credited to institutional funds for the financial assistance of student-athletes generally; or the money is placed in the institution's general fund and credited to the athletics department for an unspecified purpose."

So even if the bill is passed as amended, it doesn't look as if the UT-Chattanooga wrestling program could take the money.

The bill is scheduled to be heard again next week in the Senate Finance Committee.