Public Hearing on Theatrical Wrestling Regulation Amendment Act – March 25, 2026
Public Hearing on B26-0026, the Theatrical Wrestling Regulation Amendment Act of 2025 – March 25, 2026
Councilmember Zachary Parker, Chair of the Committee on Youth Affairs, called the hearing to order at 3:00 PM on Wednesday, March 25, 2026. The hearing examined legislation to create a new regulatory category for theatrical (independent professional) wrestling, distinct from competitive combat sports. The bill defines theatrical wrestling as scripted, choreographed entertainment in venues with fewer than 2,000 attendees or as part of festivals. Councilmember Nadeau, a co-introducer, delivered opening remarks. Public witnesses testified in strong support, describing regulatory burdens and mistreatment by Commission staff. Government witness Chairman Andrew Huff of the DC Combat Sports Commission supported the bill’s intent but raised concerns about health, safety, consumer protections, and terminology. The committee will work toward a compromise, including a possible local promoter's incentive fund.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Billy Dixon (Kyle) – A black queer professional wrestler from the South Bronx, New York, with 10 years of experience. He testified that the DC Combat Sports Commission has been dismissive, disrespectful, and unprofessional. He recounted being body-shamed by a Commission doctor, witnessing sexual objectification of female performers, and seeing Commission staff under the influence of alcohol. He argued that independent wrestling is a low-earning art form and that current regulations are oppressive, pricing out local communities. He expressed full support for the bill as a necessary compromise.
- Michael Hairson (Mike) – A career nightlife worker, not a wrestler. He argued that theatrical wrestling is fundamentally different from combat sports because performers actively avoid injury and outcomes are predetermined. He noted that similar risks exist in other entertainment forms (e.g., theater with trapdoors) and that overregulation chokes out cultural opportunities. He supported the bill.
- Brandon Skull – Owner of DC Brau Brewing Company. He testified that he previously hosted independent wrestling events that were highly successful but ultimately unsustainable due to Commission requirements. He described a last-minute demand for a $1,200 insurance policy from a Texas vendor, bizarre requests for blank checks, and a general lack of professionalism. He called the regulatory framework “coercive” and stated that the talent pool refused to continue because of disrespect from Commission officials. He strongly supported the bill and said these events brought meaningful post-COVID revenue and community building.
Government Witness Testimony
- Andrew Huff, Chairman of the DC Combat Sports Commission – The Commission supports the intent to reduce barriers but opposes the specific language of the bill. Key concerns: (1) Creating a separate “theatrical wrestling” category would be inconsistent with Maryland and Virginia, which use “professional wrestling,” potentially hindering license reciprocity. (2) Venue size does not eliminate health and safety risks; independent wrestlers often lack traveling medical staff. (3) Consumer protections (e.g., ticket information) would be weakened for smaller events. (4) The festival exemption is unnecessary because the Commission recently updated rules to allow wrestling at festivals with only a wrestler’s license (no promoter’s license). Huff noted that the Commission has already reduced professional wrestler license fees from $200 to $25 and promoter license fees to $130, and extended medical exam periods from six months to one year. He acknowledged the problematic behavior described by public witnesses and said the former staffer involved is no longer employed. He highlighted the Commission’s role in protecting participants and attendees, and offered to explore a local promoter’s incentive fund as an alternative to deregulation.
Discussion Items
- Chairperson Parker questioned Chairman Huff on the alleged mistreatment and unprofessionalism. Huff admitted the blank check request was inappropriate and said the commission has not received formal complaints but learned of issues through an article and “rumor mill.” He explained that insurance requirements are not vendor-specific, but the former staffer offered a personal contact. Parker pressed for a complaint process; Huff indicated complaints would go to DLCP’s investigative unit. Parker recommended the Commission develop an internal feedback mechanism (e.g., anonymous tip box or survey).
- Parker and Huff discussed venue availability and costs as a major barrier. Huff agreed that DC’s high venue rental costs (not under Commission purview) drive promoters to Virginia and Maryland. Parker noted that the current system results in few to no independent wrestling events in DC (nearly zero licensed events under 2,000 seats in recent years).
- Parker raised the possibility of allowing existing business insurance to satisfy the $10,000 minimum event insurance requirement. Huff said the Commission is already discussing this with DLCP and general counsel.
- The committee explored the definitions: Huff argued that “theatrical wrestling” is simply another name for professional wrestling, and that the bill’s use of “amateur” (based on pay) is confusing, as independent wrestlers are paid. Huff stated that the bill would exempt professional wrestling if labeled “theatrical,” but the Commission believes it should remain under oversight for safety.
Key Outcomes
- Chairperson Parker will follow up with Chairman Huff on the specific instances of mistreatment (Dixon and Skull will provide documentation offline).
- Parker instructed Huff to provide formal data on the number of licensed professional wrestling events with fewer than 2,000 attendees over the past five years, the cost of Commission staff payments, and the ticket tax rate.
- The committee will work with Councilmember Nadeau and Chairman Huff to find a compromise, potentially via budget provisions for a “local promoter’s incentive fund” to offset commission-related costs (e.g., EMS, insurance).
- No vote was taken; the hearing was informational. Written testimony may be submitted until April 8, 2026, at 5:30 PM via the council’s hearing management system.
- The hearing adjourned at 4:21 PM.
Meeting Transcript
Recording in progress. Good afternoon. I am Councilmember Zachary Parker, Chair of the Committee on Youth Affairs. Today is Wednesday, March 25th, 2026. The time is now 3 o'clock PM, and I'm calling to order this public hearing on B26-0026, the Theatrical Wrestling Regulation Amendment Act of 2025. Today's hearing concerns a subject that may be unfamiliar to some, but has real consequences for communities across the district. Wrestling events have long served as a vehicle for cultural expression and community building, particularly for black, Latino, and LGBTQ wrestlers and fans. These events are closer in character to theatrical performance than to competitive sport. Match outcomes are typically predetermined, moves are choreographed, and participants are working together in performance, not competing against one another. Under current district law, a small independent wrestling show at a community venue is governed by the same regulatory framework as a championship boxing bout at Capitol One Arena. And we would hear testimony today on whether that should remain the case. The result has been that nearly all small independent wrestling events have relocated to Maryland and Virginia. The scene has, for all practical purposes, been pushed out of the district. B26-0026, introduced by my colleague, Councilmember Node and co-introduced by myself and Councilmember Robert White seeks to address this issue. This legislation amends the Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act of 1975 to establish theatrical wrestling as a distinct category of event, one defined by its performative, non-competitive nature, and limited to smaller venues or festival settings. In doing so, it removes the regulatory requirements that have made it effectively impossible for independent promoters to operate in the district. This legislation is consistent with recent reforms in Washington State and Louisiana and with longstanding practice in states like Missouri and Virginia. This legislation was originally referred to the Committee on Business and Economic Development, but following committee reorganization in January of this year, the Committee on Youth Affairs now has jurisdiction over the DC Combat Sports Commission. Subsequently, the bill was referred to the Committee on Youth Affairs on March 3rd, 2026. This hearing gives us an important opportunity to examine how our regulatory framework can better serve the full range of events at communities that fall under the Commission's scope. I want to be clear that this effort is not about weakening oversight of genuine competitive combat sports. Rather, it is about ensuring that the Commission's resources and requirements are right-sized appropriately to what is being regulated. I look forward to ensuring that this is the case throughout today's hearing. The committee looks forward to hearing directly from the Commission about how this legislation would interact with existing regulatory operations, and we appreciate Chairman Huff's willingness to engage with us on this question. Before we begin, a few procedural notes. Each witness will have three minutes to present your testimony, followed by a 10-minute round of questioning. And given that we have uh a short list of witnesses, uh, we will likely only have one round of questions. Uh written testimony may be submitted for the record until April 8th, 2026 at 5 30 p.m. via the council's hearing management system. And with that, I will call our witnesses for the question. Oh, I am sorry. I totally miss uh the author of this legislation. I will turn to my colleague, Councilmember Nodeau, uh, for opening remarks. Thank you so much, Chairman. It's tough in that room to tell who's online. Um in December, Capitol One Center hosted over 19,000 fans for John Cena's Farewell event, which set a record for the highest grossing WWE event in its history and made it clear that the District of Columbia is a destination for pro wrestling and sports entertainment. At the same time, however, our local performers and promoters have struggled. Despite a long and storied history here, independent pro wrestling in the district has been stifled by regulatory requirements and high costs. These wrestling exhibitions are much closer to theater performance than like than sport like boxing. Pro-wrestling match outcomes are usually predetermined or non-competitive, and moves are choreographed in advance. Even Shakespeare wrote a wrestling scene in As You Like It. This legislation defines theatrical wrestling as its own class of events, acknowledging that it should not be treated in the same way we treat competitive combat sports in larger events. It's also in line with longstanding policy in states like Missouri and Virginia and legislative reforms passed in Washington State and Louisiana. Designating designation as a theatrical wrestling event would apply only to the performances of mock combat for the purposes of entertainment and venues with a capacity under 2000. It's my hope we can again see a resurgence in indie wrestling in DC. I don't think that this simply that's and I want to say for the record that I don't think that simply granting flexibility to the commission is the solution here. We should strive for a streamlined and sensible set of rules that are easy to follow. I've met with Chairman Huff and the Combat Sports Commission when this bill was first introduced, and I've appreciated the chairman's openness to collaborating with the council on determining the right regulatory approach for this type of performance. Chairman Parker, thank you for holding this hearing today, and thank you to our witnesses who've come out to testify. Thank you.
openpublica.com