Bob Reilly's Political Strategy

Sticking with today's theme of politics, the legislative battle over the legalization of mixed martial arts continues in New York. Last week, MMAWeekly's interview, with New York Assemblyman and MMA opponent Bob Reilly, gave us some interesting perspectives about Mr. Reilly's political strategy. 

First, Reilly is trying to break the narrative that legalized MMA will bring in tax revenue to New York.

Reilly: And I don't think that Ultimate Fighting adds to our economy ... I think it detracts from our economy.

MMAWeekly.com: How would it suck money out of the economy?

Reilly: Ultimate Fighting, that franchise is owned by interests in Las Vegas. If you have a gate in the city of Albany, the live gate would be $4 million. There's revenue that would stay here, lets us say a half a million. But three and a half million would go right out of our economy and out of our state to Vegas, and I think that's harmful to our local economy. It doesn't generate money on a long-time basis. It's what I call a "false economy."

 

Reilly is essentially saying, that an out of state company is putting on an event and taking the majority of revenue back with it, that there would be a drain of local money that would not be made up by incoming tourists. In other words it would detract from New York's economy in the same way Wal-Mart's negatively affects small towns. Whether this argument will gain traction or not is still unknown, but his language makes clear his tactical decision. 

The second part of Reilly's rhetoric is focused  on morals and ethics. This is something MMA fans have heard many, many times before,

I have on a regular basis had my constituents come up to me and say, "You're doing the right thing. Keep this out, this is wrong." The vast majority of my constituents are opposed to it, because they think it's brutal.

While this is nothing new for MMA fans social conservatives may rally to this call. The chief way to combat this, is through education on the part of MMA proponents. 

There is a third strategy which has not yet been employed but could be by Reilly. If the MMA detractors concede that the UFC will bring money into the state they could counter it by trying to create a split between New York City and the Rust Belt.

I think it is safe to conclude that the UFC won't be headed to Albany, Rochester, Syracuse or Buffalo -- considering the Bills don't even want to stay in Buffalo -- for any of their pay per view events. Thus New York City will be the major economic beneficiary of an UFC event. 

Reilly's interview suggests that the UFC is showing their economic numbers as viable for most New York cities. Reilly even referenced the Albany arena then used UFC data as a metric for possible revenue. While the legalization of MMA would open economic opportunities in the rust belt cities, in the form of minor league MMA events, a majority of the tax and tourist revenue, from an UFC event, would go predominately to New York City.

Could MMA detractors build a Rust Belt coalition to block the bill over this issue? 

There is no current evidence that suggests that Assemblyman Reilly or other MMA opponents are coalescing around this narrative. But UFC proponents should be careful in talking about the flagship promotion coming to the state, because it will only be coming to New York City. That could breed jealousy in the upstate assembly members of New York.