Abstract
Cage-Fighting, also known as Mixed Martial Arts (MMA), is a combat sport that allows participants to grapple, punch, kick, elbow and knee-a combination of elements from many martial arts. While it is debatable whether adults ought to be free to engage in risky sports such as MMA, the question of whether children ought to partake in MMA is even more fraught. This is for two reasons. Firstly, MMA is riskier for children than adults due to their very vulnerable brains and undeveloped and fragile skeletal structure. Secondly, as most children will not have the capacity to consent to engaging in MMA, the decision falls to the parents or guardians. Hence, there is a tension between the parental right to make decisions on behalf of a child and the right of the child to be protected from harm. This paper begins by assessing the empirical evidence concerning the harms and benefits of kid's MMA, and note the potential for the evidence to be value-laden. We assess the risk associated with kid's MMA using a rubric that considers both the likelihood and severity of harm. Despite the lack of conclusive empirical evidence, we consider the harm associated with kid's MMA to be substantial. The paper then outlines the tension between parental autonomy and a child's right to be protected from harm. After considering the frameworks of best interests, the zone of parental discretion and a child's right to an open future, we conclude that parents should be able to allow their children to participate in MMA-that kid's MMA should not be banned.