Audio By Carbonatix
Home to a high altitude for training fighters and the first-ever UFC fight, Colorado has a long and unique relationship with mixed martial arts.
But now it’s time to sit down and talk, according to several lawmakers and a recent state report.
A bipartisan bill in the state legislature wants the Colorado Combative Sports Commission to add more checks and balances for MMA managers and promoters. Largely following suggestions from a sunset review in late 2025 by the Colorado Office of Policy, Research and Regulatory Reform, sponsors of House Bill 26-1194 also want the state athletic commission to give more power to consulting physicians and gather safety-related data that could influence future rules around the ring.
The sunset review was mandated by the Professional Boxing Safety Act, a state law passed in 2000 creating a regulatory framework to license and hold boxing, kickboxing, MMA, Muay Thai and bare-knuckle boxing events in Colorado. As part of the law, the policy office was required to write a review of combat sports regulations every so often, with the last one before 2025 taking place in 2016.
The most recent sunset review argues that “numerous other combative sports have grown in popularity” in Colorado over the last ten years, such as mixed martial arts and Muay Thai, and the proof is in the money spent.
According to a report from the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, a ONE Championship event at Ball Arena in 2024 that featured grappling, Muay Thai and MMA bouts had an economic impact of $18 million. The rising popularity in combat sports outside of boxing requires “statutory clarification,” the policy office says, and some of that clarification involves clerical work, like changing “boxing” references in the state law to “combative sports.”
But other changes proposed by HB 1194 and the sunset review would put more scrutiny on MMA managers and promoters.
When an industry’s leading figures are Dana White and Don King, it’s probably not the most athlete-friendly. However, as the policy office notes, at least boxers have rules shielding them from collusion between their managers and fight promoters, both in state law and under the Muhammed Ali Boxing Reform Act, a federal law meant to protect boxer pay and safety conditions.
Athletes competing in MMA don’t have the same protections in state law right now. If passed as written, HB 1194 would prohibit a manager of any combat sport athlete from the following:
- Having a financial interest in the promotion of a participant
- Being employed by a promoter or matchmaker
- Receiving compensation or other benefits from a promoter or matchmaker beyond the contractual amount agreed upon between the manager and athlete
“This helps to ensure that managers and promoters (and by extension, the promoter’s matchmakers) do not collude to defraud a participant or to improperly match participants,” the sunset review notes. “Importantly, the Federal Act applies to professional boxing only. This conflict of interest does not apply to other combative sports.”
Trust the UFC?
A coalition of former MMA fighters have pushed to add more combat sports to the Muhammad Ali Reform Act, so far to no avail. In fact, Congress is more likely to tinker with the current Ali Act, with new legislation recently approved by a U.S. House committee that would “reshape the American boxing industry,” according to sports business publication Sportico. The controversial bill has both support and opposition across the fighting space, and is pushed by TKO, the parent company of the UFC, WWE and a new boxing venture. Dana White, CEO of the UFC, is a friend and supporter of President Donald Trump, who has promised a UFC fight on the White House lawn in 2026.
For years, the UFC has been criticized for low fighter pay, with athletes receiving less than 19 percent of revenue, according to media reports. (In comparison, the NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB all split revenues between players and ownership at near a 50-50 rate, plus or minus a couple of points.)
Former MMA fighters have sued the organization over antitrust violations, as well. In 2024, the UFC paid $375 million to settle an antitrust suit representing hundreds of fighters who competed in the 2010s, and it’s currently fighting another antitrust lawsuit from former fighter Kajan Johnson, who represents fighters after 2017.
If HB 1194 passes, more combat sports would be under review by the commission to see if they should join the regulatory framework, and safety data would have to be collected by the commission director for future rulemaking. House Bill 1194 would also give the two physician roles on the Colorado Combative Sports Commission, currently servicing in advisory capacities only, the ability to vote on commission rulings. This would bring the number of voting commission members to seven.
“There appears to be no valid public policy reason as to why the two physicians on the Commission are advisory only and are unable to vote…yet the two members of the Commission best suited to address participant safety are not able to vote on such issues,” the report reads, adding that “this recommendation should not be interpreted as disparaging the five voting members of the Commission.”
The bill, sponsored by state Representatives Regina English and Carlos Barron, as well as Senator Nick Hinrichsen, was introduced on February 11. Its first hearing, set for the House Health & Human Services Committee, has not yet been set.
