Does South Dakota's Athletic Commission have legal authority to regulate slap fighting contests (where two competitors trade open-hand blows to the face)?

Plain-English summary

Governor Kristi Noem asked the AG whether the South Dakota Athletic Commission had legal authority to regulate slap fighting events. Slap fighting is a relatively new combat sport: two competitors stand opposite each other, no gloves or headgear, and take turns delivering open-handed strikes to the face. The Nevada Athletic Commission had decided slap fighting fit Nevada's definition of "unarmed combat" and pulled it under regulatory authority. The South Dakota Commission was getting inquiries about its own jurisdiction.

AG Marty Jackley said no. SDCL 42-12-9 limits the Commission's authority to "boxing, kickboxing, and mixed martial arts competitions and sparring exhibitions." The opinion walks through each definition:

• Boxing (SDCL 42-12-7.1(3)): "fighting with fists in which participants wear boxing gloves." Slap fighting uses neither fists nor gloves. Not boxing.
• Kickboxing (SDCL 42-12-7.1(4)): boxing-style punches in gloves plus kicks from bare feet. No kicks, no gloves, no punches. Not kickboxing.
• Mixed martial arts (SDCL 42-12-7.1(5)): kicks, punches, blows, holds, and other techniques to injure or incapacitate, drawing on boxing, kickboxing, wrestling, grappling, or other martial arts. Slap fighting has open-hand strikes only, no wrestling, no grappling, no martial-art system. Not MMA.

Since slap fighting falls into none of the three categories the legislature put under the Commission, the Commission has no jurisdiction. The opinion is a textbook gap-in-the-statute analysis: the AG cannot expand the Commission's authority beyond what the legislature wrote.

The practical effect is unregulated combat. Slap fighting contests can be held in South Dakota without medical screening, injury reporting, safety protocols, or licensing. That is uncomfortable for a contact sport with documented concussion risks, but the AG opinion does not have an enforcement remedy. The fix is legislative.

What this means for you

If you are a slap fighting promoter or organizer

You are not currently required to be licensed by the South Dakota Athletic Commission. You are also not required to follow the Commission's safety standards, medical screening rules, or contest procedures. That sounds like an advantage, but it has downsides:

• No insurance protection from the Commission's licensing framework.
• No standardized medical clearance for fighters, which leaves you exposed to liability claims if a fighter is injured.
• No safety officer requirement, which (depending on the venue) may shift the safety responsibility entirely onto your promotion company and the venue.

You should still:

• Verify with the local venue whether municipal or county rules apply.
• Carry your own contest insurance.
• Implement your own medical screening and on-site response (cornerman with first aid, on-site EMTs, hospital nearby).
• Document everything: waivers, medical clearances, contest rules, incident reports.

If you are a venue (bar, arena, hotel ballroom) approached about hosting slap fighting

The AG opinion does not require the Athletic Commission to sanction the event, but it also does not bar your own due diligence:

• Confirm the promoter has insurance, ideally with venue-additional-insured coverage.
• Require evidence of medical screening for participants.
• Require on-site medical response.
• Talk to your liability insurer about the event before agreeing to host.

The unregulated status of slap fighting in South Dakota means your contractual risk allocation has to do all the work a state regulatory framework would otherwise do.

If you are a state legislator

The opinion explicitly invites legislative action: "At this time, the Legislature has not authorized the Commission to regulate slap fighting contests or exhibitions in the State." Options:

1. Expand SDCL 42-12-9 to include slap fighting (or a broader category like "combat sports involving repeated unprotected blows").
2. Add slap fighting to SDCL 42-12-7.1's definition list.
3. Adopt the Nevada model of "unarmed combat" as the broader regulatory category, sweeping in slap fighting and any future combat sport that fits the description.

Concerns to address: medical screening of fighters; concussion protocols; insurance requirements; minimum safety standards (referee, ringside doctor); injury reporting. The Nevada framework is one starting point; other state athletic commissions have similar models.

If you are a fighter considering competing

Without state regulation:

• You bear most of the safety risk yourself.
• Medical clearance, if any, depends on the promoter.
• Insurance for injury, if any, depends on the promoter.
• Post-injury care, including concussion follow-up, is your problem.

Ask the promoter:

• Will I get a pre-contest medical exam?
• Will there be an on-site doctor or EMT during the contest?
• Is there insurance that covers injuries sustained during the contest?
• What is the process for concussion evaluation and follow-up?

If the answers are vague, weigh the risk carefully. The repeated unprotected head strikes that characterize slap fighting have known concussion and traumatic brain injury risk; medical literature on the sport is still emerging.

If you are an emergency medical provider near an event venue

Unregulated combat events near you may produce concussion patients, lacerations, or worse without the structured medical response that a sanctioned event would provide. If a venue in your service area starts hosting slap fighting, consider:

• Pre-event coordination with the venue and promoter.
• Standing equipment and personnel for the night.
• Concussion screening protocols for any patient arriving from the event.

If you are working on combat sports regulation policy nationally

South Dakota is now formally a "no jurisdiction" state for slap fighting, contrasted with Nevada's affirmative regulation. As state athletic commissions across the country decide how to handle the sport, the South Dakota gap is meaningful: it allows unrestricted contests pending legislative action. Track which states adopt regulation and which leave the gap; pressure on uniformity will likely build over time.

Common questions

Q: What exactly is slap fighting?
A: A combat sport in which two unarmed, ungloved competitors stand opposite each other and take turns striking each other on the face with an open hand. The competitor receiving the blow cannot defend; they must take the strike. Rounds continue until a knockout, technical knockout, or judges' decision.

Q: Why doesn't slap fighting count as "boxing"?
A: SDCL 42-12-7.1(3) defines boxing as fighting with fists in which participants wear boxing gloves. Slap fighting uses open hands (not fists) and no gloves. It fails both elements of the boxing definition.

Q: What about "unarmed combat" as in Nevada's framework?
A: South Dakota's framework lists specific categories (boxing, kickboxing, MMA) rather than a general "unarmed combat" category. The AG cannot import Nevada's definition; only the legislature can.

Q: Is slap fighting illegal in South Dakota?
A: The opinion does not address criminal law. Slap fighting between consenting adults is probably not a criminal offense in itself (the participants consent to the contact), but specific contexts could implicate other rules — minor participants, contests on alcohol-licensed premises, illegal gambling, etc. The opinion only addresses regulatory jurisdiction.

Q: Can a city or county regulate slap fighting?
A: The opinion does not address local regulation. Municipal and county police powers may extend to public-safety regulation of contests within local boundaries, but specific authority would need to be confirmed under local ordinance authority and state preemption analysis.

Q: Did Nevada's regulation hurt slap fighting in Nevada?
A: Not noticeably; slap fighting has continued to operate as a regulated sport in Nevada with promoter licensing, medical clearance, and standardized rules. The Nevada Athletic Commission's regulatory presence has not eliminated the sport; it has structured it.

Q: Could the Athletic Commission regulate slap fighting voluntarily, even without legislative authority?
A: No. The Commission's authority is statutory under SDCL 42-12-9. It cannot expand its own jurisdiction beyond what the legislature has granted. The AG's strict-construction reading binds the Commission to the listed categories.

Q: Does this opinion bind future AGs?
A: AG opinions are not binding precedent. A future AG could revisit if facts (or statutes) change. Most likely, however, this opinion stands until the legislature amends SDCL chapter 42-12.

Background and statutory framework

The South Dakota Athletic Commission was created to regulate combat sports for public safety reasons: medical screening of participants, standardized contest rules, ringside medical presence, and licensing of promoters. Its jurisdictional grant in SDCL 42-12-9 limits authority to "boxing, kickboxing, and mixed martial arts competitions and sparring exhibitions."

When the Commission was created, slap fighting did not exist as a recognized sport. The sport emerged in the late 2010s and early 2020s, primarily in Eastern Europe (Russia, Poland) and then in the U.S. mixed-promotion combat scene. Power Slap League, a Dana White-backed promotion, ran its first event in 2023 with Nevada sanction. The growing visibility prompted the AG inquiry from Governor Noem.

The AG's analysis uses standard plain-language statutory construction (Olson, Wintersteen Revocable Trust, Goetz). When the statute lists categories and slap fighting fits none of them, the AG declines to read in a fourth category. The opinion explicitly invites legislative action if South Dakota wants the sport regulated.

The contrast with Nevada is the comparative-jurisdictions angle. Nevada's framework is broader ("unarmed combat"), which lets the Nevada Athletic Commission adapt to new sports. South Dakota's framework is narrower (named categories), so each new sport requires legislative action to be brought under the Commission. The trade-off is between regulatory flexibility (Nevada) and statutory specificity (South Dakota). Either approach is defensible; this opinion just clarifies which model South Dakota currently has.

For policy advocates concerned about safety in unregulated combat: the opinion is the documentation needed to support a legislative push. It establishes (a) the current statutory gap, (b) the legislative path to closing it, and (c) the Nevada model as a comparative reference.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- SDCL 42-12-9 (Athletic Commission jurisdiction)
- SDCL 42-12-7.1(3) (boxing definition)
- SDCL 42-12-7.1(4) (kickboxing definition)
- SDCL 42-12-7.1(5) (mixed martial arts definition)

Cases on statutory interpretation:
- Olson v. Butte County Commission, 2019 S.D. 13, 925 N.W.2d 463
- In re Wintersteen Revocable Trust Agreement, 2018 S.D. 12, 907 N.W.2d 785

Source

• Landing page: https://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/OfficialOpinions/opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://atg.sd.gov/OfficialOpinions/August%2024%202023%20ltr.%20MJJ%20Official%20Opinion%2023-02.pdf

Original opinion text

OFFICIAL OPINION No. 23-02

Re: Regulation of Slap Fighting Contests by the South Dakota Athletic Commission

Dear Governor Noem,

As Governor of the State of South Dakota you have requested an official opinion from the Attorney General's Office on the following question:

QUESTION:

Does the South Dakota Athletic Commission have jurisdiction to regulate slap fighting contests or exhibitions?

ANSWERS:

No, the South Dakota Athletic Commission does not have jurisdiction to regulate slap fighting contests or exhibitions under current state law.

FACTS:

Slap fighting is held out as a combat sport were participants, wearing no gloves or protective headgear, trade open hand blows to the face. The Nevada Athletic Commission determined that slap fighting met the Nevada statutory definition of unarmed combat, and concluded it fell under the jurisdiction of the Nevada Commission. The South Dakota Athletic Commission has fielded inquiries regarding its jurisdiction and authority to regulate slap fighting contests in South Dakota.

IN RE QUESTION:

Based upon the above facts, you have asked whether the South Dakota Athletic Commission (Commission) has jurisdiction to regulate slap fighting contests or exhibitions?

The Commission is vested with the authority to regulate all "contests and exhibitions of boxing, kickboxing, and mixed martial arts competitions and sparring exhibitions held in the State[.]" SDCL 42-12-9.

When interpreting a statute to determine its meaning, "'the language expressed in the statute is the paramount consideration.'" Olson v. Butte County Commission, 2019 S.D. 13, ¶ 5, 925 N.W.2d 463, 464 (quoting Goetz v. State, 2001 S.D. 138, ¶ 15, 636 N.W.2d 675, 681). "When the language in a statute is clear, certain and unambiguous, there is no reason for construction[.]" In re Wintersteen Revocable Trust Agreement, 2018 S.D. 12, ¶ 12, 907 N.W.2d 785, 789 (internal citations omitted). When the intent of the statutory language is unclear, "the intent of the [L]egislature is derived from the plain, ordinary and popular meaning of the statutory language." Id.

Based upon the unambiguous language of SDCL 42-12-9, slap fighting must fall within the statutory definitions of either boxing, kickboxing, or mixed martial arts for the Commission to have authority to regulate slap fighting contests or exhibitions.

"Boxing" is defined by state law as "the sport or practice of fighting with fists in which participants wear boxing gloves." SDCL 42-12-7.1(3). I conclude, based upon this definition, that slap fighting cannot be considered boxing under State law. Slap fighting does not involve the use of fists, and slap fighting participants generally do not wear boxing gloves.

"Kickboxing" is statutorily defined as "the sport of attack and defense in which participants wear boxing gloves and throw punches as in boxing and kick with bare feet as in karate." SDCL 42-12-7.1(4). As with boxing, I conclude slap fighting does not meet the statutory definition of kickboxing. Again, slap fighting does not generally involve the use of boxing gloves. Slap fighting also does not involve the "[throwing of] punches as in boxing" or "kick[ing] with bare feet as in karate." Id.

"Mixed martial arts" is defined as "the sport of fighting in which participants inflict or employ kicks, punches, blows, holds, and other techniques to injure, stun, choke, incapacitate, or disable an opponent, using a combination of boxing, kickboxing, wrestling, grappling, or other martial arts." SDCL 42-12-7.1(5). As established above, slap fighting does not meet the statutory definition of boxing or kickboxing. Wrestling is commonly defined as "a sport in which two competitors attempt to unbalance, control, or immobilize each other by various holds and maneuvers." Grappling is defined as "a struggle or contest in which the participants attempt to wrestle with each other by clutching or gripping."

The act of slapping another individual with an open hand blow does not meet the generally accepted definition of wrestling or grappling. "Martial art[s]" are defined as "the arts of self-defense, such as aikido, judo, karate, or tae kwon do, often practiced as sports." In comparison to those sports traditionally considered to be martial arts, I conclude slap fighting is not a "martial art" as that term is used in SDCL 42-12-7.1(5). While slap fighting participants inflict blows upon each other to incapacitate or disable their opponent, I conclude these blows are not delivered using a combination of "boxing, kickboxing, wrestling, grappling, or other martial arts." Id. As such, slap fighting is not a mixed martial art as defined by state law.

CONCLUSION

I conclude that slap fighting does not meet the definition of any of the fighting styles referenced in SDCL 42-12-9. As such, the Commission does not have the authority to regulate slap fighting contests or exhibitions in South Dakota. At this time, the Legislature has not authorized the Commission to regulate slap fighting contests or exhibitions in the State.

Sincerely,

Marty J. Jackley

ATTORNEY GENERAL

MJJ/SRB/dd