(Brendon Murnane is a LaTrobe University journalism student and BPL intern.)

The Ultimate Fighting Championship is a sporting phenomenon and, from humble beginnings two decades ago, now attracts millions of followers for each pay-per-view telecast. It is contested in seven countries currently and is the sport of choice for millions around the globe. Hell, the UFC circus even flew into Sydney in February this year for UFC 110, its first major event outside of North America and Europe in over a decade.

But in little old Melbourne, the supposed sporting capital of the world, UFC is banned. It has been blacklisted by the Victorian Government with little hope for revision before the next State election.

The Minister for Sport and Recreation, James Merlino, suggested recently that because UFC bouts takes place inside a chain linked fence they are in fact a form of cage fighting and thus illegal. "The Victorian Government believes the spectacle of two competitors fighting in caged combat-style competition does not meet the community's standards of what is acceptable for professional combat sports in our state,'' he said.

I would argue the time has come for Mr Merlino and the state government to re-think their stand, re-evaluate their current legislation and allow Mixed Martial Arts' largest and most successful promotion to host bouts in Victoria.

This notion of deciding whether or not a professionally sanctioned bout can take place based on the grounds of the structure that it is enclosed is hard to fathom.

Mr Merlino stated that the idea of two professional athletes taking part in a bout that is refereed, as well as being a fully sanctioned mixed martial arts fight but takes place inside a cage-like structure is not acceptable.

Yet when the same bout, with the same athletes and the exact same rules takes place inside a ring than it is deemed to be OK.

Surely, if there was any concern about hosting sporting events inside structures that are perceived to be dangerous, than Etihad Stadium should have been demolished years ago. OK, that might be taking the argument to ridiculous extremes but the point is this: the cage aspect of UFC does not make it a dangerous sport.

UFC 110, held at Sydney's Acer Arena, was a huge success both as a financial venture for the company as well as the New South Wales government.

All 17,000 tickets for the event sold out in under an hour with the UFC conducting an analysis on the financial benefits that the event had on the New South Wales economy in the months after. This research concluded that the single event contributed $15 million dollars to the economy through the businesses, hotels and motels as well as restaurants and other areas in the hospitality industry.

It is obvious that hosting a UFC event would provide a financial boost for the state's economy, a notion that would be a welcome respite and no doubt warmly received in light of the Melbourne Grand Prix continuing to haemorrhage tax payer's funds.

The issue, in this case, is not one of money. No, in fact the problem relates to the structure that each bout takes place in.

Normally when the UFC attempts to expand their events into new territory they are generally met with some resistance that predominantly revolves around the negative connotations that was associated with the company in the early '90s.

This resistance can be at least tolerated if not entirely understood, as some people have formed misconceptions having glanced briefly at the sport whilst changing TV channels.

However, since UFC President Dana White took over the company in 2002 there has been a wide variety of changes to the sport that was once famously dubbed by Presidential candidate, John McCain, as "human cockfighting." Since these changes took place, which included an overhaul of the rules, the introduction of weight classes as well as the restructuring of events to coincide with State Athletic Commission's regulations, Mr McCain has since given his approval for the sport to continue.

The debate about the safety of the sport is an argument for another day and one that will no doubt provoke a vast array of interesting opinions.

But in this case the Victorian government's beef with UFC is not related to those outdated perceptions but instead with a technicality of what type of ring the bouts can take place in.

It is this type of legislation that Mr Merlino has put in place that muddies the waters and adds further confusion to an already murky debate.

By all accounts there is no problem with the actual sport of Mixed Martial Arts yet the problem lies with the image that a cage brings to the sport. Mr Merlino further suggested that there are inherent dangers about fighting within a cage.

This statement is contradicted however with the testimony of several fighters who have fought in both a ring and a cage, who stress that the cage is much safer as there is an actual fence between you and the spectator and not four or five flimsy ropes.

Hopefully the Victorian government can realise the confusion that the fine print of their legislation causes and work with the UFC to educate the public about this ever expanding sport known as MMA.

If not, then Mr Merlino is making a decision for the people of Victoria that will not only cost them financially, but deprive Melbourne, the sporting capital of the world, of the fastest growing and one of the most exciting sports on the planet.