[Senate Hearing 107-1098]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-1098
FEDERAL REGULATION OF BOXING
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOREIGN COMMERCE AND TOURISM
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 22, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
91-859 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska
Virginia CONRAD BURNS, Montana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
RON WYDEN, Oregon SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MAX CLELAND, Georgia GORDON SMITH, Oregon
BARBARA BOXER, California PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOREIGN COMMERCE
AND TOURISM
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
Virginia CONRAD BURNS, Montana
RON WYDEN, Oregon SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
BARBARA BOXER, California GORDON SMITH, Oregon
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 22, 2002..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Dorgan...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Ensign...................................... 12
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 4
Witnesses
Ali, Yolanda and Muhammad, Greatest of All Time, Inc............. 6
Dibella, Louis J., President, Dibella Entertainment Inc.......... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Jones, Jr., Roy, Professional Boxer.............................. 7
Lueckenhoff, Tim, President, Association of Boxing Commissions... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada....................... 2
Steward, Emanuel, President, Kronk Boxing Team................... 17
Sugar, Bert Randolph, Boxing Historian and Author................ 14
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Appendix
Atlas, Teddy, Boxing Trainer and Commentator, prepared statement. 39
King, Don, Chairman, President and CEO, Don King Productions,
Inc., Prepared Statement....................................... 41
FEDERAL REGULATION OF BOXING
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce
and Tourism,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:05 p.m. in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. I'd like to call the hearing to order this
morning. Senator McCain will be here momentarily but we wanted
to begin in the interest of time. We are joined by Senator Reid
from the State of Nevada. Let me make a couple of comments
before we begin, and before we recognize you. I have long been
interested in boxing. I think boxing in this country has given
America a glimpse of some of the most wonderful athletes that
one has ever seen and these athletes in the sport of boxing
have given many Americans a great deal of enjoyment over time.
But one of the concerns that many of us have had with respect
to boxing is that there are so many, especially young men, who
have pursued the career in boxing to end up essentially used
up, misused and mistreated by many in the boxing industry. They
end up with health problems. They end up having lost all of
their money at age 32, 35, 40 years of age.
And boxing is one of the few professional sports in our
country in which there is not some kind of Commission or some
kind of governing body in which that sport governs itself. In
the sport of boxing, it is often the lowest common denominator
of whatever regulatory process exists among the states that
represent the governing process, and it is also a sport that
many of us know as riddled with conflicts of interest.
We have boxing commissioners who are supposed to be the
ones that will make judgments about whether or not they license
a fight who are actually out there trying to promote getting a
fight to their area. This is an industry with big money and it
is also an industry in which some of the finest and most gifted
young athletes are used and then misused by promoters and
others. Many of us have felt for some long while that there
ought to be some kind of Boxing Commission or boxing czar in
which there is a central registry of fighters. There might then
be a license to box in this country with centralized records.
Then we could know that a boxer who is knocked out in Atlanta
on a Tuesday night is not going to show up in Dallas on a
Friday night and fight once again. We should have standards to
protect the health and safety of boxers, and a way for boxers
to save money or have a pension.
We have discussed all these issues before in the Congress.
There has not been much agreement on this, but I think most
everyone understands that what is happening in boxing needs to
be changed. The question is not whether, the question is how.
We are going to hear from a number of people today. Muhammad
Ali, of course, former heavyweight champion; Roy Jones, Jr., a
professional boxer; Emanuel Steward, President of Kronk Boxing
Team; Bert Sugar, boxing historian and author; Mr. Lou DiBella,
President of DiBella Entertainment; and Mr. Tim Lueckenhoff,
President of Association of Boxing Commissions.
I will introduce Senator McCain for a statement when he
appears. I think in the interest of time, I want to recognize
our colleague, Senator Reid. Senator Reid comes from a state
with a rich boxing history, I might say, since the state of
Nevada hosts many fights. Senator Reid himself was a Golden
gloves boxer, I am told. I do not know his record, but perhaps
you will share that with us. In any event, we are pleased that
Senator Reid has joined us. You may proceed, Senator Reid.
STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The fact that we are
holding a hearing on this great sport represents an interest in
seeing its success as an organized form of professional
athletics. Nevada is home to, as you have already mentioned,
some of the premiere boxing matches hosted in the United
States, not only presently, but in the past. Nevada's state-of-
the-art resorts provide a venue for the fights that is
unmatched in any part of the world. Nevadans take pride in the
historical role this state has played in the sport of boxing.
They care about the sport and about its integrity. I have both
a personal and professional interest in the sport of boxing.
As you have indicated, I have fought in the past. I have
served as a ringside judge in hundreds of fights, and all
weight classes and judged championship fights. As a lawyer, I
represented a number of boxers. All these experiences have
provided me a unique perspective of the sport of boxing.
Senator Dorgan, as I sit here and reflect, I can remember
as a young man, I was an amateur fighter, but I fought
professionals. They did that because they would call them, they
would call these fights ``exhibitions,'' and I would, because I
was a good boxer, we would do OK in these fights, but you know,
I can't imagine how that was the right thing to do. I spent
most of my time in Nevada, went to school in Utah. I would come
and do these exhibitions. I can still remember some of the
names of the professional fighters I fought. I am sure they
weren't great fighters, but it is an indication that there
needs to be now and then some overseeing of this.
I was on a radio station last time I was in Las Vegas a
week or so ago and as I am coming out, there is a man there, a
tall man with graying hair, a black man and I said hello. And
they said this is Ron Lyle. Oh man, Ron Lyle, I know Ron Lyle.
I watched him fight. He fought one of my friends. I said, do
you remember Gary Bailey, I remember Gary Bates. I believe he
fought a lot of these fighters. I asked Ron Lowery if he
remembered him. I said I remember. I said he broke all my ribs.
I am sure that is an exaggeration. But he said that he finished
dealing at Caesar's Palace at 4 one morning, flew to Reno,
drove to Lake Tahoe, fought Ron Lyle, got $4,500, went back to
work that same night with his ribs broken and among other
things broken.
That is the way his experiences were in the fight game, and
so there really does have to be something done about this. The
focus of today's hearing is primarily on three issues, one, the
current state of Federal law covering boxing, and two, whether
these laws are being meaningfully enforced and there is a need
to be a stronger Federal role in protecting the integrity of
the sport. I am not confident that existing laws are
sufficient.
I believe the Committee needs to take action on the
legislation I introduced last year with Senator McCain. I
believe our legislation, the National Boxing Commission Act, is
a step in the right direction toward improving the state of
boxing. The national Boxing Commission could best protect what
all of us agree needs protection; the health, safety and
general interest of fighters. Our legislation would provide the
sport with uniformity of regulations it so desperately needs.
Among other things, it would require the Commission to
maintain a national computerized registry for the collection of
specific information of professional boxers and boxing
personnel. One of the things my friend Gary Bates told me just
a few days ago is one of the toughest fights he had was
somebody who fought basically around the country every week. He
went from state to state fighting. He made quite a bit of money
fighting every week or 2 weeks, fought often. But there was no
checking to find out whether or not he did or did not have
those fights.
I represented a fighter who fought around the country using
different names. And I was 40-some-odd years old, and Nevada
Athletic Commission found out about this and I was there to try
to get him a license to try to continue fighting, which he did
and it was probably not one of the good things I did in my life
was helping him get a license because after that he took some
serious beatings.
And as I said, he used to fight all over using different
names. The Commission would certify for any boxing match
information publicized on the participating boxer's medical
history, would review plans to be submitted by all state
athletic Commissions for uniformity. Some action has to be
taken. I am certain a Commission could more adequately and
efficiently remedy the current problems. It is a multi, multi,
multimillion dollar business. We should have oversight.
Associations play an integral role in almost every other sport
there is today. They are so well-known many are recognized by
acronyms. NFL, PGA. I can go on. Soccer has a governing body.
There is a role that could closely monitor the activities and
controversies of this sport.
Unfortunately, since the Muhammad Ali Act was signed in law
the problems have not abated. They have grown worse. The side
shows spectacles of a Mike Tyson press conference says a lot of
the state of this sport. I am today more convinced than ever
that we need to move in the direction of creating a federally
recognized panel to oversee this sport and provide it with a
much needed uniformity of regulations governing fights. Until
we have uniformity of regulations governing this sport we will
continue to see the kind of forum shopping we are witnessing
today with Mike Tyson. Different states have different rules
and simply waiting and hoping for state legislature act is a
recipe for disaster.
Future legislation must address the issue of a level
playing field in the treatment of promoters. The business of
boxing is growing with the expansion of technology. More and
more people have access to pay-per-view processing. They will
tell you today the broadcasters have become de facto promoters.
This may not necessarily be a bad thing. That is something for
this Committee to decide but as a matter of fairness, they
ought to be held to the same standards of accountability and
scrutiny as our promoters. I voiced this opinion a few years
ago. I believe it more than ever now.
Boxing is a sport rich in history. Like the U.S. Senate, it
dates back to the days of ancient Rome. It is a sport blessed
with myth and legend. Unfortunately, too, it is a sport which
knows no political affiliation. That is why I am trying to work
with Senator McCain in trying to reform this great sport. I am
hoping to achieve something this year so we can enjoy the
annals of history. Mr. Chairman, I would also ask unanimous
consent that a statement from Don King that I received from his
lawyer, Charles Lomax, may be made part of this record.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Reid, you did not see it but just a
moment ago the Champ almost took you out.
Senator Reid. I am glad I did not see it, because I would
be running out of here now.
Senator Dorgan. Before I ask a question or two, let me call
on Senator McCain. There is no one in Congress who has worked
harder or been more relentless of trying to deal with the
issues of professional boxing. And he just today introduced
legislation that I am proud to co-sponsor. But I am really
pleased with the work Senator McCain has done. He has done a
great service. Do you have a statement for opening?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator McCain. I thank you, Senator Dorgan and I thank you
for chairing this hearing. I want to thank my friend, Senator
Reid. He is a great representative from the State of Nevada. I
believe he can be proud of the performance of the Boxing
Commission in the State of Nevada. If every Commission had
lived up to those standards, I do not believe we would have
what we have today. Senator Reid has been involved in those
issues and I am grateful for that. I'd like to welcome the
greatest champion of all time, Muhammad Ali, who is going to
speak very briefly. I know that Senator Reid has
responsibilities on the floor to get through the Republican
agenda, and I understand that that is why he asked to leave.
Senator Dorgan, I just would like to say since 1996, the
Committee has worked to improve the sport of boxing by passing
two legislative measures with your active assistance. The
Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali
Boxing Reform Act of 2000. The laws need to be fixed to assist
boxers, and to better protect them from business managers and
sanctioning organizations. However, while these laws have had a
positive impact the sport remains beset with a variety of
problems.
As you mentioned, today you and I introduced the
Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2002, which would
strengthen existing Federal boxing laws but also create a
Federal regulatory entity to oversee the sport. The United
States Boxing Administration (USBA) would be headed by an
administrator appointed by the President with the advice and
consent of the Senate. The primary function of the USBA would
be to protect the health, safety and general interest of
boxers. It would, among other things, administer Federal boxing
laws, coordinate with other Federal regulatory agencies to
ensure that these laws are enforced, oversee all professional
boxing matches in the U.S., and work with the boxing industry
and local commissions to improve the status and standards of
the sport.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, professional boxing is the only
major sport in the United States that does not have a strong
centralized association or league to establish and enforce
uniform rules and practices for its participants. The only
sport in America. There is no widely established union of
boxers, no collective body of promoters or managers, no
consistent level of state regulation among either the state
athletic commissions or tribal organizations and I might add,
there is no pension system, which is a terrible, terrible
disgrace. I note the presence of probably pound for pound the
greatest fighter in the world today, Mr. Roy Jones, Jr., who
has agreed to come here. We are honored that you are here again
and thank you for your commitment to the sport, but also for
your independence from some of the less savory influences in
the sport in which you excel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would have a lot more to say but
far more importantly, I would like to hear from our witnesses
today.
Senator Dorgan. Our first panel will be, as Senator McCain
indicated, the greatest champion of all time, Muhammad Ali, who
is accompanied by Yolanda Lonnie Ali. We would like you to come
forward and be seated. And also Mr. Roy Jones, Jr. who is, and
I agree with Senator McCain, one of the greatest boxers of our
time. We very much appreciate your being here.
As you are getting seated, let me just say to you, all of
us have our own interests in boxing. Mine began with a
grandfather who really enjoyed boxing and he gave me a
subscription to Ring magazine. As a young boy, I would read of
Nate Fleisher, and listened to Sugar Ray Robinson fights on
radio. I remember listening to them round by round, AP
descriptions over a radio of the Lewis Tung/May fight.
Boxing has a rich history in our country. But as Senator
McCain says, there is much to be done to clean up boxing so
that fighters are not used and misused. So let me thank you
both for being here. I believe Mrs. Ali, you intend to speak
for the Champ, but let us thank both of you for being here.
STATEMENT OF YOLANDA AND MUHAMMAD ALI, GREATEST OF ALL TIME,
INC.
Ms. Ali. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain and
Members of the Committee for your invitation to have us here
this afternoon and testify. And I will say this in the words of
Muhammad, if that is OK.
Mr. Muhammad Ali. The Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act
represents an important first step in the effort to improve
professional boxing and in particular, to protect the rights of
the professional boxers. I commend Senator McCain and this
Committee for this historic measure and their continued efforts
to enhance the image of professional boxing in America.
In preparation for my appearance here today, I asked my
representatives to make contact with the athletic commissions
in California, Nevada and elsewhere, and to speak with some of
my friends in the boxing industry. My statement here today is
based on the results of their findings and my own experience
and observations.
The Act represents a long overdue effort to improve boxer
safety, reduce conflict of interest, discourage coercive
contracts, and create a uniform set of standards and
procedures. There is, however, still much room for improvement.
Too many fighters without representation are still signing
agreements which are unfair and lacking adequate safeguards.
Although the Act affords a private civil remedy, many boxers
lack the resources and sophistication to understand or take
advantage of these procedures.
Promotional agreements remain largely unregulated.
Uniformity of standards have not been attained and some
Commissions refuse to assume jurisdictions over violations of
the Act. I believe our attorney, Ron DiNicola, has had some
experience with that in representing some boxers. As such, I
make the following recommendations.
First, the Association of Boxing Commissioners should
extend the use of uniform standards for bout and management
agreements to promotional agreements and Congress should insist
on the use of these forms nationwide. Second, uniform standards
applicable to licensing in general and medical requirements in
particular are needed to eliminate fraud, inefficiency, and
confusion in a sport where most fighters can expect to fight in
multiple states and jurisdictions in any given year.
Subsidies may be necessary to ensure that fighters who
fight at the club level have access to affordable medical
screening. Third, uniformity in scoring, combined with the
national rating system in order to judge the judges should be
considered as a means of reducing controversial and
questionable decisions.
Fourth, Federal legislation should mandate compliance with
these uniform standards, provide for impartial binding
arbitration in a form convenient to the boxer and, at a
minimum, expressly authorize Commissions to assume concurrent
jurisdiction to address violations of the Federal law.
Fifth, the time has come for the creation of a national
oversight body. This is necessary to ensure compliance with the
spirit and the letter of the Act and other legislation designed
to improve the sport and protect its participants. federally
mandated supervision is the only way to enhance the integrity
of the sport and restore public confidence.
In conclusion, those of us who love boxing believe that it
can and it should be saved. The power to save it rests with
you, Mr. Chairman, and with your esteemed colleagues.
Boxing gave me a place and a purpose in the world. It gave
me fame and fortune and provided me a livelihood to support my
family. Beyond that, it gave me relationships and memories that
I will cherish all the days of my life. Boxing gives to young
men and women a chance to dream big and reach for the stars. Or
as Robert Lipsyte wrote many years ago, to climb as high as
your heart and legs can carry you.
All boxing asks of its participants is hard work,
determination, courage and discipline. Those are great values
for our time, indeed and for any time. It is left to us to
preserve the sport that allows those values to shine brightly.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Mrs. Ali, thank you very much. Champ, thank
you very much for your presentation. Let me next call on Mr.
Roy Jones, Jr.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McCain.
Senator McCain. Could you identify your companion?
STATEMENT OF ROY JONES, JR., PROFESSIONAL BOXER
Mr. Jones. This is Mr. Mario Francis, my assistant trainer.
He pretty much knows this sport. First of all, the sanctioning
organizations is probably the major problem. I feel you can
lead certainly things basically requiring the organizations to
tell how they handle the rankings so that people could
understand and could also require financial disclosure of all
aspects of the organization. However, the answer to all of this
is to get a fair board who would do the ranking such as college
football or basketball and to have a separate organization
handle the sanctioning. The private sector should be able to do
this.
There was something such as the sense of Congress
requesting the private sector to do this, we think it could be
established. The second thing we see is the judging and
officiating and this goes to the state boards that control
boxing. The problem here is that the executive director of the
state boards determines who the judges will be, who the referee
will be, if the judges and referee do not please the executive
director, they do not work.
There could be legislation requiring each state to list the
names and address of all officials and to provide a procedure
on how the officials are selected and to provide a purpose,
provide a purpose to keep the victim of a serious accident from
receiving a tremendous amount of money and then being subject
to all kinds of pressure to invest or throw money away.
Similar legislation should be available to a professional
boxer. We need to simplify, we need to simply follow the
provisions for structured settlements for accident victims and
this would allow the promoter to create an annuity that would
pay the boxer a monthly amount over his lifetime. The law would
prevent the boxer from encumbering any future payment in order
to make this attractive to the promoter, you might give the
promoter a little extra tax writeoff as an incentive for
creating one of these structured settlement annuities.
Also, I feel that there are issues that go on with the
networks that control boxing right now. These people seem to
have a monopoly on the sport and they deal with certain
promoters, which doesn't allow up and coming young fighters to
step out and do things that they want to do or to be protected.
When I come here and speak, a lot of guys do not want to come
and speak out because they know that in the future with people
here such as HBO or Showtime or the people who are in control
right now when they hear you are speaking out against them,
these guys feel their livelihood is in jeopardy. Boxing is the
only way out, they believe.
I do not care. I am trying to help make the future better
for others. That is why I come here. I feel right now as though
the networks that control boxing are not really doing it the
way that they should be doing it because they are going as far
as to be promoters, try to do what the sanctioning body should
do, which is telling you who your No. 1 contender should or
should not be. I don't think that is not fair either. If it is
not television or something good for the network they feel that
we are not going to be a part of it where everybody they pick
is not going to be good for their television network. I have to
defend my title against whoever the contender is.
In closing, I would like to see those things I spoke about.
You all could do something to handle those problems if we start
at the root. Do not get me wrong, the Muhammad Ali Act has made
things more visible. They always got ways to try to go around
it. If we can handle these people, start with the television
people, I think we can handle the issue. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Jones. In your statement,
you mentioned that sanctioning bodies are a major problem. How
many championships have you held?
Mr. Jones. I have held probably nine.
Senator McCain. Nine. And when there are four or five or
six or 10 different bodies that are all bestowing a
championship belt, couldn't that diminish the fact that you are
``champion of the world''?
Mr. Jones. Yes, it does. And right now it is the same thing
because you want to give the titles up and fight, just fight
whoever comes, but at the same time the network will tell you
well, if it is not a championship fight, they do not want it.
Some guys are afraid to get rid of those belts. They use it
best when it is for them. If it is to your advantage, they are
not going to use it. When it is to their advantage, they will
use it.
Senator McCain. If you are a champion in the WBC, you may
not even be ranked in the top 10 in the WBA or another alphabet
soup organization.
Mr. Jones. Which is totally crazy.
Senator McCain. Which is the most insane thing that I have
ever seen in my life, and it is not justifiable.
Mr. Jones. Exactly. That will force people like Darius to
fight. Now he can talk about fighting me to make people think
he really wants to fight me and it makes me bad because I won't
go over there to my country. I have tried to get every title in
my weight class so the people would understand there is one
champion. However, he keeps eluding me because they won't rank
me in his championship organizations.
Senator McCain. I wish we could pass a law tomorrow to stop
that, Mr. Jones. I guess my other point here, and it is just a
point, is that if you are a champion (and I hate to pick on any
of them, but I see this with the WBA a lot as well as the WBC),
some obscure person, maybe from somewhere in Asia, is now
ranked No. 1, even though nobody has ever heard of this
fighter. And, yet, you have to fight that individual in order
to maintain your No. 1, championship ranking. And, there is a
sanctioning fee, which I think, at least once, you have refused
to pay.
Mr. Jones. Yes. I have refused to pay on a couple of
occasions because I mean it is ridiculous.
Senator McCain. How much money are you talking about?
Mr. Jones. 3 percent of your purse. The smaller guys, they
are not asking that kind of money. They are trying to survive.
At the same time when those guys come up at HBO or people
promoting you, they do not know those guys either. Either I
fight a guy who nobody knows and wants to stay, or I give up my
titles that I worked all this time to get. What do you do?
Senator McCain. I have seen a number of fights lately where
the decisions have been extremely questionable. Have you?
Mr. Jones. Horrible decisions.
Senator McCain. How do you account for that?
Mr. Jones. You do not. That is once again I feel part of
the promoters controlling boxing because a promoter could have
a particular fighter who looks like he could make better
paydays tomorrow. Perfect example is Barrera wasn't represented
by a great fighter, but Morales was. It went to Morales because
that same promoter who had the fight represented Morales.
Senator McCain. I have seen several in the last few months.
Mr. Jones. Oh yes. For sure.
Senator McCain. Well, one of the things about being a
Senator is you do not have to pass an IQ test, but it does give
us a little license from time to time. And one more question:
When are you going to fight Bernard Hopkins?
Mr. Jones. There is another issue which Don King delivered
Don Hopkins, which I understand. I delivered Roy Jones. He
wants me to take a 50/50 split with Hopkins. A guy I already
won before. Don King wants 30 percent off the top.
Senator McCain. How much?
Mr. Jones. 30 percent. Is that fair to me?
Senator McCain. Don King wants 30 percent off the top of
your purse if you fight Bernard?
Mr. Jones. Off the top of the entire purse and I fight
Bernard Hopkins and he wants me to split 50/50 with Bernard
Hopkins.
Senator McCain. A 30 million fight, you and Bernard would
have to pay for training fees, plus all the other expenses,
none of which Mr. King pays for.
Mr. Jones. Exactly. And it started worse than that. It
started where he wanted me to take 50 percent. He takes 29
percent of my 50. He is taking 20 percent of Bernard's 50
percent. People say why won't you fight Bernard Hopkins. That
is ridiculous. When I fought Montel Griffin in a rematch, I did
not care how much money I made. I wanted to prove I could beat
the guy. I took probably 25/75. This guy saying he wants 50/50.
He did not beat me the first time. I beat him. Why does he
deserve 50/50? He doesn't. And why does Don King deserve 30
percent off the top. He says he is saying that because he
delivered Bernard Hopkins. Somebody delivered Roy Jones, too.
Maybe I would think about 60/40 after that. That is just
logical because I have beat him once.
Senator McCain. Well, I think it is just remarkable that 30
percent would go to a promoter off the top.
Mr. Jones. That is what I am saying.
Senator McCain. That is a sign of the corruption in boxing
today.
Mr. Jones. And also though the media, HBO is included in
this, too, go out making Roy Jones, Jr. as such a bad guy. He
doesn't want to fight these guys. Would you give a promoter 30
percent who has done nothing for your son when your son is the
draw. People don't want to see me fight Bernard Hopkins to see
Bernard Hopkins. If they did, he could go fight anybody and
people would want to see him. That is not the case.
Senator McCain. I have exceeded my time, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator McCain, it looks like you have
another career: Matchmaker. Let me again thank both of you for
your testimony. Let me ask Mr. Jones, you have answered it in
part, but who calls the shots in boxing today?
Mr. Jones. Right now, the networks are calling the shots.
The networks, along with the promoters, and that is the----
Senator McCain. HBO and Showtime?
Mr. Jones. Basically. If they do not like you. I am a
promoter here. I promote young guys to try to give them a
better start and I have a guy right now that he is a contender
a couple of times. They had two decent fights but because I did
not do HBO once I can never get an HBO date.
I am glad to have this guy in this testimony here, Lou
DiBella, a former worker at HBO. I do not want to pick on him
but at the same time, whatever he did, he stopped working at
HBO. Not fired, yet he still has probably more dates than any
other promoters in the country at HBO. If I used to work for
you and you come back and give me something to quit working for
you, I still really work for you. We are still working
together, but they are saying it is not. Yet I can't get a date
to promote my fighters on HBO. He can. And it is not right.
I do not mind him promoting, it is just that as a matter of
fact, a lot of other promoters have having this issue, too
because the smaller promoters are getting beat on. They are
like me. If you are not playing their game you do not get
fights. It is like I got guys who when it is a world champion,
he has no contender which he fought twice but still the guy is
a good fighter. Why is he not fighting, why won't they take the
fight? It happens.
Senator Dorgan. Let me ask, you have testified before the
Congress previously. In fact, before the Commerce Committee I
believe at Senator McCain's invitation. Were there any
repercussions as a result of your testimony? You are a fairly
independent guy. You have not been willing to be under the
thumb of some promoters who insist you have to be under their
thumb in order to get various fight and you have been known as
an independent fellow and wonderful champion. But you are
pretty outspoken as well, and you came before the Senate
Committee. Were there any repercussions from that?
Mr. Jones. No. They were probably a little afraid to really
bother me. I am pretty sure repercussions will come from this
one, because I am speaking for the main people. They are not
representing me right. The way they are getting me is they do
not do the bad decisions or the bad judges because I keep that
out of their hands as much as possible. When I won't take a
stupid scenario like I said with Don King, they say how I am
not dedicated to the sport, how I won't fight big fighters or I
won't fight the guys who I should be fighting. They try to make
me look bad so I will do something stupid and fight a guy. Here
is the network encouraging me that that is a good deal for me
that Don King wants.
Senator Dorgan. We did ask Don King to deliver testimony
today. He declined. We are joined by Senator Ensign. I was on a
Committee here in the Congress and we had testimony from Sammy
``the bull'' Grafano, who was associated with John Gotti, and
it was the hearing was about corruption in boxing, and he
described a circumstance where he traveled to Las Vegas at one
point and met with one of the presidents of one of the boxing
organizations. I don't recall which one. But they had a fighter
that they wanted to fight Rinaldo Snipes.
They wanted to set up a fight in order to move this
European into a bigger fight and Snipes at that point was not
ranked so he testified that Mr. Gotti sent him to Las Vegas to
meet with this boxing sanctioning group in order to get Rinaldo
ranked. In his testimony he said that the fellow from the
boxing organization said for $10,000 we would be willing to
rank him seventh and then he explained he was here on behalf of
John Gotti. He said well then we would be willing to rank him
7th for $5,000. That was, of course, coming from North Dakota.
I was pretty stunned by that testimony. That was testimony by
Sammy ``the bull'' Grafano in this corruption hearing.
Tell me what your assessment is of the rankings process.
That testimony described just out and out corruption?
Mr. Jones. It is the same thing now today. Here's a guy,
Clinton Woods and he is ranking more for my WBC total. How? I
do not know a guy that he has beaten yet. He is my No. 1
contender? How? It has to be the same thing going on. What
happens is these guys, I know how they do it because I watch
them. I had a promoter who does the same thing. In a sense he
did not have to do that for me. I watched him with other
fighters because I like the way you get them is to get on their
side and see how they work. He wouldn't probably pay them, but
he knows how to ease his way under them, so I call and say I
got a guy being ranked, he can probably do that. I would never
need anything like that because I am doing it my way and the
reason I do it my way is so I do not get caught up into nothing
like that. These guys do that same thing right now today.
Senator Dorgan. Let me, as I turn to Senator Ensign, say to
Muhammad Ali and Mrs. Ali that your willingness to lend your
name and credibility to the efforts to reform boxing and to
legislation that specifically would make life better for these
young athletes is really quite a remarkable thing, and I
commend you for it. You not only gave me and many Americans
many, many thrills as we watched your career over the years,
but you now provide your name and your reputation to helping
make life better for young boxers, and I just tell you, I
deeply appreciate that. I think it is quite a very special
thing you are doing. Let me call on Senator Ensign.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
holding this hearing. I represent the state of Nevada and
boxing is very important to my state. I think that over the
years that boxing and Nevada has been a good partnership and
that is one of the reasons that I have such great concerns
about the current condition of boxing. I am a big fan of
boxing, and have been since I was a little kid.
The first professional fight I ever saw was Muhammad Ali
and it was part of his comeback when he fought Bob Foster. I
think Bob was the light heavyweight champion of the world at
the time and the fight was held at the Sahara Tahoe way back
when I was a kid and when I first became a fan of the sport. I
am very concerned, though, about the claims of corruption and
when you are watching a fight. I may not be an expert on how to
score a fight, but some fights are pretty obvious when the fix
is in, especially when all of the professionals on the side
lines agree that some of the decisions are completely
outrageous--especially with the fight that happened up in New
York State. We do not have to give names, but we all know what
fight we are talking about.
It is completely outrageous for those things to happen to
such a great sport that may eventually bring the whole sport
down. I applaud both of you for appearing before the Committee
today. Muhammad Ali is a great Ambassador for the sport. Over
the years, it is wonderful for you to lend your name to our
efforts at improving the sport. Mr. Jones, for you, I think you
are showing a lot of courage being here today. I think there is
a great chance for you to have repercussions in the future.
That has happened to athletes not just in boxing but in other
sports that have been willing to stand up and speak out, and so
I applaud you and I applaud both my colleagues for calling this
hearing today. I have not completely reviewed their
legislation, but I know that their legislation is attempting to
clean up some of the problems that are happening in boxing. I
do not have any questions other than just to say that I applaud
you for trying to clean up the sport.
It is a great sport. It needs to be cleaned up so that when
fans pay to watch a boxing event, whether it is on pay-per-view
or whether it is in person, that they know it is a legitimate
fight, that those fighters have both earned their way into the
ring, that those fighters are healthy and they have passed the
physical requirements to be in there to keep the sport from
having people injured unnecessarily.
It is a violent sport. We know that. But healthy people in
the ring is absolutely necessary to handle the type of physical
contact. We need to make sure all of those things are met as we
go forward in the future.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Ensign, thank you very much. Let me
make one comment, Mr. Jones, as you leave. I shouldn't, but I
can't resist. In 1984, I called the Olympic trial folks and
asked if they would consider inviting a young fighter to the
Olympic trials. They did that and it was Virgil Hill. He won
the silver medal in the Olympics. He was heavyweight champion
for 9 years. Wonderful fighter. I regret he did not get in the
ring with you at age 24, 25. When he did get in the ring with
you, it did not last all that long. He was a great fighter.
Virgil was one of the best. Let me thank you, Mr. Jones, for
the courage of coming forward today and being part of this
hearing. And as always, Champ, and Mrs. Ali, thank you so much
for your participation today.
Senator McCain. Could I just also thank Muhammad Ali again,
without whom the Muhammad Ali Boxing Act would never have been
enacted. It has made some positive changes. We all agree we
have got a long way to go, but without Muhammad Ali's active
participation in that legislation, we would have never gotten
it passed. I wonder if he wanted to say anything before we call
on the next panel.
Mr. Ali. Write me a check.
Senator McCain. Write me a check. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Champ had it right. I said that Senator
McCain would be a great promoter.
Mr. Jones. Thank you. I would like to thank everybody that
is here, especially Muhammad Ali, too because Muhammad Ali was
one of the main reasons that I got into this sport. I saw him
do more things with his mind, not only with his fist. Because
he was so strong, and stood up for what he believed, I stood up
for what was right. Today I take a lot of the hits over the
head because I stand up for what is right. I beat fighters such
as Virgil Hill who you know was one of the best heavyweights of
all time. I did what was necessary to make the big fights
happen when I could. In closing, I would just like to thank
everybody for being a part of this. I hope we can come together
and consistently make things better for younger boxers in the
future.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Jones, thank you very much. We thank
you for being here and we will ask the next panel to come
forward. You are excused. The next panel will be Mr. Emanuel
Steward, President of Kronk Boxing Team, and he just flew in
from out of town.
Mr. Bert Sugar, boxing historian and author; Mr. Lou
DiBella, President of DiBella Entertainment; and Mr. Tim
Lueckenhoff, the President of the Association of Boxing
Commissions, in the Missouri Office of Athletics in Jefferson,
Missouri. If you would come forward and take your position at
the witness table, we would appreciate it.
What we would like to do is take the statements from the
four of you first and then we will ask questions. Let me say
that your entire statement will be a part of the record. You
may summarize as you wish. You want to start, Mr. Sugar? Why
don't you proceed.
STATEMENT OF BERT RANDOLPH SUGAR, BOXING HISTORIAN AND AUTHOR
Mr. Sugar. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain. I just would like
to tell you that boxing today if it could be epitomized reminds
me of the time that my daughter came down the stairs after the
cat had given birth to a kitten in her closet. It was a real
grouping of kittens and said daddy, holding one, the cat fell
apart. Well, today boxing has fallen apart. It has fallen apart
in more ways than one.
We are here to protect yes, the boxer, but we must also
protect the sport itself and in doing so, protect the Americans
standing in the sport itself. By that I mean there were when we
were kids and Senator Dorgan, you were mentioning back when
there were fights and there were eight champions and there were
eight divisions and each was a world champion. Because of these
alphabet soup groups whom I named back in 1979, there are now
as many as four accepted champions in 17 weight classes. I
think you and I, Senator, are the only two people that do not
have a belt. It has gotten to the point where nobody knows what
is happening in the sport. And it is even worse for the United
States because somebody, a columnist named Dave Anderson in the
New York Times once asked the head of the WBC why doesn't the
United States have a voice? And he said because they speak in
50 voices.
They do not have one say at the international tables. We
have no say. We produce 60 percent per of all fighters, 70
percent of all champions and 80 percent of all money and we
have a de minimis say. In order to protect the American boxers,
we need to have a strong voice in the boxing program. This
means that somehow, some way, somewhere, we do not even give
full faith and credit to another state. It has been alluded to,
I think, Mr. DiBella will and I will let him go into, it but
Mike Tyson is turned down in one state and they are standing in
line to give him licenses in others. I mean, it just is, it
doesn't work the way it is working.
So while I accept and look forward to Senator McCain's
addendum, his amendment to make it work with the USBA, we can
also look to other areas to give us a voice so we can protect
these fighters. Whether it is something called the united
conference on commissioners on uniform state laws, they can
come out with the UCC, they have come out with the Probate Act.
They ensure full faith and credit among states and just came
out incidentally with the Uniform Athletes Agents Act so that
they are in sports and they make it feasible. For what we must
do in each case before boxing is cutoff worse than Chuck
Wittner is to make sure that we protect the boxers by being
one, the United States one, then we can sit at the table and we
do not have to listen to what Senator McCain said somebody we
never heard of from some athletic company challenging Roy
Jones, Jr. unless we have a say, and I guess that is all I have
to say.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Sugar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bert Randolph Sugar, Boxing Historian and Author
To understand the sport of boxing, one must first understand its
roots. Unlike many of today's sports, boxing did not spring full-blown
from the brow of an inventor, as basketball did from the brow of Dr.
James Naismith in 1896, nor date back to the happening of some specific
occurrence as rugby did when, in 1823, a soccer player at Rugby school
picked up the ball and ran with it.
Instead, boxing's roots are buried in antiquity, traceable, at
least in part, to the practice of a form of the sport as we now know it
by the ancient Sumerians approximately five thousand years ago. From
there it was a short hop, skip and overhand right to other places
throughout the ancient world, finally surfacing in ancient Greece
around 900 B.C.. As practiced by the Greeks, the sport became less of a
sport and more of a brutal spectacle, the ``hands and arms enveloped in
ponderous gauntlets,'' as Virgil wrote in the Aeneid, ``stiffened in
rigid coils, insewn with lead and with irons.'' The object was not only
to win but to win by stretching (the opponent) hurt to the death on the
yellow sand'' of the arena. Not content with mortal hurt, the lead and
iron were replaced with spikes to insure death.
With the conquest of Greece by the Holy Roman Empire, boxing became
an integral part of Rome's ``bread and circuses'' pageantry, trained
gladiators taking part in exhibitions, usually held following the
chariot races and immediately preceeding the wrestling and running
events. Finally tiring of the wanton brutality and waste of life,
Emperor Theodoric ended the gladiatorial contest in A.D. 500, allowing
only fighting with bare fists. Those, too, were soon banned, and boxing
all but disappeared from the face of the globe.
Twelve centuries were to pass before boxing resurfaced in what had
once been a Roman colony, England. Like Greece and Rome before it,
England, in the early eighteenth century, considered sport an
honorable, even noble pursuit. The manly sport of boxing befitted the
Englishman's concept of himself and his country as a molder of men as
neatly as a well-tailored waiscoat. Indeed, poet John Milton, in his
Treatise on Education, recommended boxing for young men as an excellent
athletic exercise and builder of character.
However, the sport of boxing was hardly the sport we know today,
resembling more organized king of the mountain than boxing, with
wrestling, choking and gouging an integral part. It remained for one
man, James Figg, to bring order out of chaos and a small smattering of
science to barbarity.
Figg opened an Amphitheatre on Tottenham Court Road dedicated to
the teachings of ``the manly art of foul play, backsword, cudgeling,
and boxing.'' From the day it opened in 1719 it was liberally
patronized by many royal and noble parsonages--``the fancy''--who
supported his exhibits with their presence. Boxing, as taught by Figg,
was a mere interlude to the entertainments given by exponents of cudgel
play, backsword, quarterstaff, and other practices of the day.
Time has a way of mis-bestowing its memorial garland now and then.
And so it is that the name James Figg endures fallaciously in the
history of a sport that honors him. For even though Figg is known as
the ``Father of Boxing,'' his fame might have the same mythic trappings
as that of Abner Doubleday, who is wrongly credited with ``Inventing''
baseball. Figg, who professed to teaching his students the art of
``scientific boxing,'' was in reality teaching them nothing more than
the art of fencing with the two weapons with which nature and God had
endowed them, their hands. His methods, indeed even his technical
terms, guards, acts, and the positioning of the feet and hands, were
borrowed from fencing.
The true science of boxing had its foundation and beginning in the
teachings of Jack Broughton, who pioneered in the modern art of self-
defense. According to Pugilistica, ``The successor to Figg in
popularity, Boughton far exceeded that stalwart crudgeler in fistic
science and application of those principles which srtipped the practice
of boxing of any of those features of ruffianism and barbarity with
which the unregulated contests of mere bruisers had invested it.''
By the 19th century all of England had embraced the sport of
boxing, so much so that they celebrated it in chauvinistic verse:
Since boxing is a manly game
And Britons recreation,
By boxing we will raise our fame
`Bove any other nation.
Throw pistols poniards swords aside.
And all such deadly tools.
And boxing be the Britons pride
The science of their schools.
However, by the beginning of the 19th century the sun was already
imperceptibly setting on the English boxing empire, the result of
``Yankee-doodle-dom,'' the influx of Americans drawn to England, thus
creating the international sport of boxing.
But just as James Watt's newfangled steam-powered ships were
bringing American fighters over to England, they were also bringing
boxers back across the Atlantic--now an even smaller pond, due to Mr.
Watt's invention--in effect fueling what would be the start of boxing
in America.
Soon American boxing ``rings''--then actually rings drawn in the
sand--would be filled with immigrants from England and Ireland, all
seeking to escape their hardscrabble roots and find fame and fortune.
Throughout the next century-and-a-half boxing has continued to be
the refuge of those seeking to escape their roots as youngsters from
the tenements, the ghettos, the projects and the barrios all used the
sport as a social staircase out of the mean streets that formed their
limited existences, with first the Irish, then the Jewish, Italian,
African-American and Latino boxers attempting to gain full fellowship
into our society by the only means of escape they possessed: their
fists.
And, as they turned to boxing, many also turned their lives around,
much as former middleweight champion Rocky Graziano of ``Somebody Up
There Likes Me'' fame did. Speaking in his native New Yorkese, peppered
with more than a few ``dems'' and doses,'' Graziano would say of his
less-than-exemplary behavior: ``I never stole nuthin' unless it began
with a `A' . . . `A' truck, `A' car . . . `A' payroll . . . '' And
then, in a telling indication of just what the sport meant to him,
would add, ``If it wasn't for boxing, I woulda wounded up electrocuted
at Sing Sing Prison.''
But even as they fought in hopes of finding a way out of places
which offered them little presence and less of a future, they did so
alone, almost naked, save for a pair of boxing trunks and two gloves.
As Buster Mathis Sr. once said of his manager and trainer when they
continued to use the pluralistic ``we'' once too often, ``Where do they
get that `we' s--t? When the bell rings they go down the steps and I go
out alone.''
It is for these warriors, boxing's most precious commodity, that we
must seek help--help they are often denied in the world outside the
ring, where they can least defend themselves. And help as well for the
sport itself which provides them with their sole hope of gaining
admittance to full fellowship into our society.
For while each and every boxer struggles to gain his place at the
top of boxing's mountain, their climb is made all the more difficult by
our country's inequality at the international boxing table.
It is an inequality that was best articulated by WBC president Jose
Sulaiman, who, when asked by New York Times columnist Dave Anderson,
``Why doesn't the United States have more of a `say' in the world of
boxing?'' answered: ``Because they're unorganized and speak with 50
voices.''
That lack of organization by the powers-that-be who run boxing, so
to speak, has made our country--which can boast of supplying 60% of all
boxers, 70% of all champions and 80% of all money in boxing--a second-
rate power in the sport. And allowed those groups which I call
``Alphabet Soups'' to control the sport, most from outside the U.S..
It is for that reason that American boxing needs a way of becoming
organized to the point of having one voice at the international boxing
table. And why the Muhammad Ali Bill is an important first step.
For the Muhammad Ali Bill is the first piece of meaningful
legislation ever to come out of Congressional hearings--most of which
have been little more than fault-finding hearings about the sport, like
the Roth investigation of the controversial decision in the James
Toney-Dave Tiberi fight a few years back.
However, I happen to agree with the bill's sponsor, Senator John
McCain, who is quoted as having said, ``So many people have said I want
a federal commission with ultimate authority. That would be a last
resort. I'm a fundamental conservative, I want to limit government.''
In keeping with Senator McCain's stated goal, we do not have to re-
invent the boxing wheel; the mechanism to organize the sport is already
in place. And it is called ``The National Conference of Commissioners
on Uniform State Laws.''
This is a group that was organized in 1892--not incidentally, the
same year as the John L. Sullivan-James J. Corbett fight, the fight
which brought in modern boxing as we know it today, with three-minute
rounds and gloves under the Marquess of Queensberry Rules.
The stated purpose of The National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws is ``to ptomote uniformity in state law on all
subjects where uniformity is desirable and practable, by voluntary
action of each state government.''
As such, The National Conferencce of Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws has drafted uniform laws in many fields and then encouraged states
to adopt them on a state-by-state basis as law--including such diverse
laws as the UCC, the Probate Act, the Anatomical Gift Act, and the
Interstate Family Support Act.
And why do we need uniform laws? My colleague, Michael DeLisa,
making a speech to a group known as the Association of Boxing
Commissions back in 1994, cited the case of former heavyweight champion
Bob Fitzsimmons who, in 1914 at the age of 50, applied for a license in
the State of New York and was turned down by the New York State
Athletic Commission. His appeal was denied by the New York Supreme
Court (NY Supreme Court 146 New York Supplement 117 (1914) ), and two
days later Fitzsimmons went over the border and fought in the State of
Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania, in its infinite non-wisdom, gave neither reciprocity
nor full faith and credit to the New York State decision--and
Fitzsimmons fought in the state twice after being turned down by New
York and having that denial upheld on appeal.
But one state failing to recognize another state's refusal of a
license to a boxer is hardly limited to the case of Bob Fitzsimmons. In
fact, it happened again this year when, after the State of Nevada
refused to grant Mike Tyson a license to fight Lennox Lewis other
jurisdictions lined up, with licenses in hand for Tyson--one State,
Georgia, requiring only $10 for the license, less than it costs for a
dog license.
In a manner similar to the time my daughter's cat went into her
hall closet and gave birth to kittens and she came down the stairs
hollering, ``The cat just fell apart,'' boxing has fallen apart, with
no uniformity nor reciprocity for its rules and regulations
The world of boxing today is like the old wild, wild west, with an
anything-goes as far as the boxing rules of the several states
regulating the sport.
This lack of uniformity can best be seen by comparing the very
definition of the word ``boxing'': While Hawaii defines it as, ``A
contest in which the art of attack and defense is practiced with gloved
fists by two contestants,'' the State of Florida defines it as a
``Means to compete with fists,'' with nary a word about gloves
contained therein.
Then there's the difference, on a state-to-state basis, on such
things as scoring, with Montana giving a 10-9, not 10-8, round to a
boxer who knocked down another, with the other boxer getting up right
away, thus showing he's not hurt, while Florida will make it a 10-9
round if the fallen fighter takes a 9-count, which shows his ``ring
generalship,'' as opposed to one who gets up immediately in a groggy
condition. (And here, words like ``ring generalship'' are almost
impossible to define, even by General George Patton.)
And so, while the Muhammad Ali Bill is the correct first step, it
still does not provide for the state-to-state uniformity needed to
conduct boxing in the United States, nor for the United States to be
able to conduct itself as a single entity--not 50 different ones at the
international boxing table.
Instead this august Committee should urge The National Conference
of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (or the Association of Boxing
Commissions) to draft a bill which every state could then adopt.
(And here, let it be known, that after years of not wanting to be
involved in sports, finally in 2002, The National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved and recommended for
enactment in all states of the Uniform Athlete Agents Act.)
I believe it time the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs,
Foreign Commerce and Tourism urged the National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform Laws to draft a uniform law covering the sport
of boxing, one which would make boxing a uniform sport within our
borders. And thus ensure that the noble and high-minded goals contained
in the Muhammad Ali Bill become the law in all 50 states.
Thank You,
Bert Randolph Sugar
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Sugar, I am sure there is much more
than that, and we will dig it out in questioning. Mr. Steward,
why don't you proceed?
STATEMENT OF EMANUEL STEWARD, PRESIDENT, KRONK BOXING TEAM
Mr. Steward. First of all, I am very interested in coming
here, was interested because boxing is such a unique sport. It
is unlike other sports that we have where we can regulate so
easily the football, the baseball. First of all, they are just
national. There is a similar background of all of the athletes.
They pretty much have went through the same school system and
recruitment, whatever. But in boxing it is really truly an
international sport and that lies a lot of the problems alone.
The fact that most people who are internationally and other
countries involved primarily think and act according to what is
best for their country or their countrymen for the most part. I
think that regardless of all of that boxing is at an all-time
high in terms its popularity as far as I am concerned.
I was just recently about a year ago having a lunch at
Spago's on a Monday afternoon. No one was in the place except
for four or five customers. Two ladies came over to the table
to say you are Emanuel Steward, are you not. I said yes. They
said we would like to ask you a question, our husbands over
there are too bashful. I said what is your question. She says
who is going to win between Trinidad and Roy Jones. I said
people today are so into boxing where it used to be just the
men. Women, everyday people are into boxing. They invited their
cousins to come over. We talked boxing.
Based on television and a lot of things in broadcast
systems and exposure, so many people know who Roy Jones is.
They know who Morales is. Years back it was mainly Muhammad Ali
and one or two. I think boxing hass a tremendous chance to go
to a big level because of the interest that is broader than
ever. We have great boxing matches coming up scheduled already,
potentially maybe Roy Jones as he was speaking of with Hopkins
and Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson. But just as well as we are going
to set and regulate and protect the boxers, I think we have to
start doing things that regulate and protect the fans because
when you have megamillions of dollars that are being poured out
today into watching these fights and you are having some of the
worst decisions and even in the big fight we have coming up
with Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson it is so difficult for me to
train a boxer to not only take care of himself and do things
according to the rule books but all of the illegal tactics that
are implemented, and the fact that the tactics are expected
more so than they are going to be unexpected.
This is where we have to do things to regulate this. Not so
much for the protection of the boxers, but also the fans. I
think at present they are probably being abused as much as the
boxers, and we have to set up systems to take care of some of
these horrible decisions that is coming up and a lot of people
are being turned off, totally off of just those decisions alone
saying it is no longer where one has taken a dive but just a
fact that officials can render decisions is totally out of
order from anyone else and do not have to answer to anyone.
And I think that this means that we will have, and I hope
to be a part of what will help change some of those things and
some of the unfair practices that boxers may suffer from
promoters and sometimes promoters get screwed by boxers also.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Steward, thank you very much. Next we
will hear from Lou DiBella. Lou is President of DiBella
Entertainment, and used to be with HBO for over a decade.
STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. DIBELLA, PRESIDENT, DIBELLA
ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
Mr. DiBella. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and senators.
Boxing is a great sport and viewed with compelling drama and
the ability to capture the imaginations of tens of millions of
people. The overwhelming majority of fighters are decent young
men who have been undereducated. Unfortunately, the prevailing
system of state regulation of the sport is woefully inadequate
to protect them. The system of governance in boxing by profit
for profit world sanctioning organizations is subject to
manipulation and inappropriate influences and often results in
inequities in the ranking of fighters.
State Commissions are generally underfunded and dominated
by political patronage appointees with virtually no knowledge
of the sport who are incapable of understanding the business,
let alone policing it. State Commissions are asked to enforce
and administrate antiquated state laws that fail to address the
realities of the industry today. These laws were written prior
to the proliferation of big money televised boxing. They were
written before the advent of nuclear imaging. The majority of
states do not adequately safeguard against permanent
neurological damage.
In short, these laws and the definition within them do not
work. When state boxing laws were enacted, managers were
actually directing the careers of fighters. A manager
negotiated with the promoter to determine the purse the
promoter would pay his fighter. From this purse the manager
trained. The revenue was from the ticket sales. The promoter
speculated on revenue and was the money behind the event. As
the person negotiating for the fighter with the promoter the
manager had a fiduciary duty to the fighter. All state boxing
laws that I have seen reflect this paradigm. This paradigm
doesn't work in the age of television dollars and site
guarantees.
The promoter, not the manager is now the entity negotiating
with the money. The money is now primarily television dollars.
This is troubling since the promoter has no legal duty. The
manager now relegated to middleman may legally take as much of
a third of the fighter's money before expenses are taken out.
Effectively the definitions of manager and promoter are
redundant and workable. Does a fighter need both? I think Roy
Jones can answer that question.
Consider that mismanagement is blatant. State laws actually
provide a framework for the financial exploitation of fighters.
While the Ali Act was a positive step, there were two major
problems with it. It accepts the present form of antiquated
state regulation and nobody is enforcing it. A new national
boxing law must be written in the national Boxing Commission
established. Prize fights are notorious for questionable
judgment. Polls taken in the wake of the controversial first
fight between Lewis and Holyfield showed that the majority of
the American people thought the fight was fixed. The plethora
of past investigations focused on the inequitable scoring of
fights have consistently failed to find a smoking gun. There
wasn't any. No envelopes of cash need be legally passed to buy
decisions. Since the operations of the world sanctioning bodies
and existing laws allow manipulation and the exercise of
clearly improper economic interest.
Sanctioning bodies require judges to be licensed by the
sanctioning body itself, pay annual fees and attend organized
events. The sanctioning bodies involved with state Commissions
in determining who will judge a title fight often involve
doling out plum assignments. The sanctioning fees that are paid
are based on a percentage of the fighter's purses. The more
popular and highly paid the fighter, the more money the
sanctioning body makes. This provides a great incentive to
favor big name fighters.
Judges learn by the quality of the assignments they are
given, the class of air travel and hotel provided to the judge
and per diems paid to him are paid for by the promoter without
any required standardization. The promoter can choose to
entertain judges the way he sees fit. Would anyone tolerate Abe
Pollin entertaining referees during the basketball playoffs?
Until there is a new national boxing law which makes
sanctioning bodies and promoters out of the system of selecting
and reimbursing judges, biased decisions will continue to
abound and discredit the sport. On June 8th the circus is
coming to Memphis. The scheduled Lewis Tyson heavyweight title
fight is more reality television than it is sport, but in this
reality show it is unlike any in the long run that there will
be a survivor. Tyson's life has been a litany of abhorrent
behavior with criminal activity, serious verbal abuse of women,
shocking instances of unsportsmanlike conduct of the ring and
the recent meltdown and biting of his opponent at a press
conference. Still, scores of individuals and TV companies and
other corporations have lined up to make and/or recoup their
money from him. Tyson is correct in stating that no one cares
about him and that even he is being exploited.
When Nevada correctly denied Tyson's boxing license, the
commissioners made Tyson face his inability to control his
demons. The Commission threw reciprocity out the window and to
align with greedy local politicians, no redundancy intended, to
provide Mr. Tyson with a venue. Can you imagine the
commissioner of a major sport allowing an athlete with Mr.
Tyson's recent history to compete? When you invite the circus
to town, you shouldn't be surprised when clowns and wild
animals appear.
The power of the dollar in existing boxing regulation and
the general status of boxing is the Dodge City of sports. No
matter what happens on June 8th, the scheduled occurrence of
Lewis-Tyson provides a compelling argument for the
establishment of a national Boxing Commission empowered to
enforce a new, workable coherent Federal boxing law with the
assistance of the states. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. DiBella follows;]
Prepared Statement of Louis J. DiBella, President, DiBella
Entertainment, Inc.
Good Afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Senators. My name is Lou DiBella
and I am the president of DiBella Entertainment. My company creates
sports and entertainment programming and represents and counsels
professional boxers with respect to matchmaking, television
distribution of their bouts and marketing. It is the mission of DiBella
Entertainment to create a business model that shifts the balance of
power from promoters to fighters and to establish a legacy of
matchmaking excellence. Prior to opening my company in the spring of
2000, I spent over a decade as a senior executive at HBO Sports, the
world's preeminent telecaster of professional prizefights. There, I was
primarily responsible for purchasing the boxing matches to be televised
on HBO and for recruiting and signing a bevy of boxing stars to
multifight HBO contracts.
Boxing is a great sport, imbued with compelling drama and the
ability to capture the imagination of tens of millions of people
worldwide. The overwhelming majority of fighters are fine athletes and
decent young men who are, generally, socio-economically deprived and
under-educated. They are deserving of our attention and protection.
Unfortunately, the prevailing system of state regulation of the sport
is woefully inadequate to protect them. The system of governance in
boxing by private, for profit, world sanctioning organizations is
subject to manipulation and inappropriate influence and often results
in inequities in the ranking of fighters, the determination of
mandatory challengers for titles and the judging of prizefights. State
and federal regulation of the sport has not been successful in curbing
these inequities. State commissions are generally under-funded and
dominated by political patronage appointees with virtually no knowledge
of the sport, who are incapable of understanding the business, let
alone policing it. To compound the problem, state commissions are asked
to enforce and administrate antiquated state laws, rules and
regulations that fail to address the realities of the boxing industry
today. These laws were initially written prior to the proliferation of
big money televised boxing, casino sites, and significant sponsorship
dollars. Unfortunately, they were also written before the advent of
nuclear imaging and modern neurological testing; the majority of states
do not adequately safeguard against head injury and permanent
neurological damage. In short, these laws and the definitions within
them no longer work.
When state boxing laws were enacted, managers were actually the
people directing the careers of fighters. A manager negotiated with a
promoter to determine the purse that the promoter would pay to the
fighter for the fighter's participation in a particular prizefight.
From this purse, the fighter paid his manager, trainer, cornermen and
certain other expenses. The promoter's primary source of event revenue
was from the ticket sales; the promoter speculated on ticket and
secondary revenue and was the money behind a boxing event. As the
person negotiating for the fighter with the promoter, the source of
money, the manager had a fiduciary duty to the fighter. The promoter
was simply bound by contract. All state boxing laws that I have seen
reflect this paradigm.
This paradigm no longer works with respect to big time boxing,
which generates television dollars and site guarantees. The promoter,
not the manager, is now the entity negotiating with the money; the
money is now primarily television dollars and secondarily site revenue.
This is troubling, since the promoter has no legal duty to maximize a
fighter's money and the promoter's share of revenues is not limited by
law. The manager, who is now relegated to middleman, may legally take
as much as a third of the fighter's money before expenses. Effectively,
the definitions of manager and promoter, found in virtually every state
boxing law, are now redundant and unworkable. Does a fighter need both?
Considering that blatant conflicts of interest between managers and
promoters are rampant and totally unpoliced, state laws actually
provide a framework for the financial exploitation of fighters. While
the Ali Act was a positive step, there are two major problems with it:
it accepts the present form of antiquated state regulation and no one
is enforcing it. A new national boxing law must be written and a
national boxing commission established.
Prizefights are notorious for questionable judging. Every boxing
fan can name major fights memorable for seemingly inexplicable scoring
and/or the wrong result. Polls taken in the wake of the controversial
first fight between Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfield found that the
majority of Americans believed that this fight was ``fixed.'' The
plethora of past investigations, federal, state and local, which have
focused on the inequitable scoring of fights, have consistently failed
to find a smoking gun or evidence of criminal behavior. There was none
to find. No envelopes of cash need be illegally passed to buy
decisions. This isn't necessary since the operations of the world
sanctioning bodies, and existing federal and state laws, allow
manipulation and the exercise of clearly improper economic interest
with respect to the judging of fights.
Sanctioning bodies require judges to be licensed by the sanctioning
body itself, pay annual fees and attend organized meetings, conventions
and seminars. The sanctioning body is involved with state commissions
in determining who will judge a title fight, often doling out plum
assignments and sought after trips to desirable locations.
Unfortunately, sanctioning bodies are characterized by institutional
biases. The sanctioning fees that are paid are based on a percentage of
the fighters' purses; the more popular and highly paid the fighter, the
more money the sanctioning body makes. This provides a big incentive to
favor big name, television-friendly fighters. Judges get the message by
watching certain promoters and boxers being honored regularly at
organizational meetings and conventions. They also learn whether or not
they are in favor with their sanctioning organization by the quality of
the assignments they are given. To compound this problem, the class of
air travel and hotel accommodations provided to the judge and the per
diems paid to him are arranged and paid for by the promoter without any
required standardization. The promoter can choose to entertain judges
any way he sees fit. Isn't the promoter, in effect, lobbying for his
fighter? Would anyone tolerate Abe Pollin or Peter Angelos entertaining
referees or umpires during the basketball or baseball playoffs? No
federal or state laws prohibit these behaviors and the system is easily
corruptible without the necessity of criminal behavior.
On back-to-back weeks last month, the Mayweather/Castillo and
Tapia/Medina title fights resulted in controversial decisions and
clearly questionable scoring. In my opinion, it is not surprising that
the perceived stars won. Until there is a new national boxing law,
which takes sanctioning bodies and promoters out of the system of
selecting and reimbursing judges, biased decisions will continue to
abound and discredit the sport.
On June 8, 2002, the circus is coming to Memphis. The scheduled
Lewis/Tyson heavyweight title fight is more reality television than it
is sport. The world is waiting to see what Mike Tyson will do next, but
in this reality show it is unlikely, in the long run, that there will
be a ``Survivor.'' Tyson's life in recent years has been a Greek
tragedy in the making. It has been a litany of abhorrent behavior and
personal disintegration. There has been criminal activity,
incarceration, serial physical and verbal abuse of women, shocking
instances of unsportsmanlike conduct in the ring and the recent
meltdown and biting of his opponent at a press conference. By Tyson's
own admission, he is medicated, self-loathing and in despair. Still, he
is the biggest generator of dollars in boxing, and scores of
individuals and corporations have lined up to make and/or recoup money
from him. Tyson is correct in stating that no one cares about him and
that even he is being exploited.
When the Nevada State Athletic Commission correctly denied Tyson
his boxing license, commissioners addressed Tyson's unwillingness to
face his personal demons and his inability to control his behavior.
They sought not only to protect boxing from Mike Tyson, but also to
protect Mike Tyson from himself. It only took a matter of hours from
the Nevada decision for other state athletic commissions to throw
reciprocity out the window and to align with greedy local politicians
to provide Mr. Tyson with a venue. Can you imagine the commissioner of
a major sport allowing an athlete with Mr. Tyson's recent history to
compete? Tennessee, and the other states that attempted to lure Lewis/
Tyson, should be ashamed. When you invite the boxing circus to town,
you shouldn't be surprised when wild animals and clowns appear.
The June 8th event in Memphis is a monument to the marketability of
bad sportsmanship and self destruction, the power of the dollar in
boxing regulation and the general status of boxing as the ``Dodge
City'' of sports. Even Mike Tyson has been victimized by the
callousness of Tennessee and the other states that courted the event.
No matter what happens on June 8th, the scheduled occurrence of Lewis/
Tyson provides a compelling argument for the establishment of a
national boxing commission, empowered to enforce a new, coherent
federal boxing law with the assistance of the states.
Thank you for allowing me to present my views today.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. DiBella, thank you very much. Next we
will hear from Mr. Lueckenhoff, president of the Association of
Boxing Commissions, administrator of the Missouri Office of
Athletics.
STATEMENT OF TIM LUECKENHOFF, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF BOXING
COMMISSIONS
Mr. Lueckenhoff. I am Tim Lueckenhoff, and I am the
President of the Association of Boxing Commissions, an
organization of 46 state and four tribal boxing Commissions
throughout the United States. My sincere appreciation is
extended to this Subcommittee for this opportunity to present
testimony. The information provided to you today will address
current issues, problems facing professional boxing, the
success of current Federal legislation, and the ABC's
recommendation for further legislative reform.
The enactment of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996
for the first time provided a Federal mandate as to certain
minimal safeguards and requirements for every professional
boxing contest held in the United States. In 2000, amendments
to the Professional Boxing Safety Act were enacted through the
Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act. These amendments focused
primarily on economics as opposed to safety reforms.
One significant incident occurred in 2000 that I would like
to bring to your attention. A sanctioning body threatened the
state Boxing Commission 5 minutes before a nationally televised
world title bout with the withdrawal of their sanction unless
one of the member judges was allowed to judge the bout. The
Commission under the threat allowed the unassigned official to
judge the bout.
In the written comments previously provided to you,
significant benefits of this Act have been outlined as well as
other specific violations. While the various provisions of the
Federal legislation provide basis for major reform in the
industry historically burdened by inequity and propriety and
criminality, additional measures are needed, particularly as to
enforcement. The ABC is not aware of any such court action
having been brought by the U.S. attorney general or state
attorney general regarding the Professional Boxing Safety Act.
There appears to be a need for an administration of these
Federal laws on a nationwide basis, while the ABC is in place
and has potential to perform such a function, it has been and
continues to be without source of funding. The measures that
the ABC does take are performed by a handful of individuals who
serve on respective boxing Commissions which form its
membership.
The needed administration of the Federal laws could be
accomplished by either providing funding for the ABC toward
this effort or creating a Federal boxing administration. In
either instance, it would be imperative to maintain the
autonomy of the state and tribal boxing Commissions but at the
same time provide an entity to administer Federal laws in
support of the respective boxing Commissions.
In addition to these amendments to the existing Federal
law, the ABC recommends additional provisions. I have provided
you a detailed explanation of each of the provisions in my
written comments, however, I will briefly outline each
suggested change or addition.
It is recommended that there be a Federal mandate that
judges and referees are to be assigned to each boxing contest,
including championship bouts solely by the Boxing Commission
that is regulating the boxing event without any interference
from a sanctioning organization. All boxing officials must be
trained and tested by the ABC or Federal boxing administration
to be sure the official possesses the necessary skills to
perform effectively.
Boxing contests held in states or on tribal land where
there is not a Boxing Commission should not be permitted,
should only be permitted if the promoter agrees among other
things to provide liability insurance coverage for each member
of the respected Boxing Commission whom is a member of the ABC
and who will participate in the regulation of the boxing
contests held in the state or Indian land without a Boxing
Commission. There is a need to provide reciprocal enforcement
of all suspensions imposed by a Boxing Commission. Currently
this enforcement is applicable only to suspensions imposed on
boxers for recent knockouts, injuries or a physician's denial
of certification.
Mandatory licensing should be enacted. Such as the
requirement, mandatory licensing guidelines should be enacted
such as requirements that each Boxing Commission develop a
criteria for review of each boxer's record, suspensions,
medical and administrative and other relevant matters which
serve as a basis for licensure. There should be a Federal
provision for the creation of a centralized medical data bank
into which all medical examinations undergone by a licensed
boxer are placed. With this information, it should be
accessible to each boxing commissioner. Promoters should be
required to post collateral such as a surety bond, an
irrevocable line of credit or cash. The ABC does not imply that
the adoption of these measures would constitute a solution as
to the problems associated with professional boxing.
However, the adoption of such measures outlined herein
would significantly advance the economics and integrity of the
sport of professional boxing. Thank you for your time and
consideration. I would be happy to answer any questions you
would have of me. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Lueckenhoff follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Lueckenhoff, President, Association of Boxing
Commissions
As the President of the Association of Boxing Commissions
(``ABC''), an organization of 46 state and tribal boxing commissions
located throughout the United States, my sincere appreciation is
extended to this Subcommittee for this opportunity to present
testimony. My testimony will address current issues and problems facing
professional boxing, the success of current federal legislation and the
ABC's recommendation for further legislative reform.
Professional boxing is the only major sport in the United States,
which operates in the absence of any private sector association,
league, centralized association or collective organization to establish
and enforce uniform rules, business practices and ethical standards.
Other than the federal laws discussed below, State and tribal boxing
commissions have been left to enact and enforce laws and regulations,
applicable only within the borders of their respective states and
tribal lands, which provide certain safeguards to the boxers, both
physically and economically. However, these state and tribal laws and
regulations are varied with differing degrees of stringency and
enforcement.
The enactment of the Professional Boxers Safety Act of 1996,
codified as 15 U.S.C. Sec. 6301, et seq. (hereinafter, ``PBSA''), for
the first time, provided a federal mandate as to certain minimal
safeguards and requirements applicable to every professional boxing
contest held within the United States. One of the most significant and
far-reaching of these reforms was the requirement that a boxer secure,
and produce, a federal identification card as a prerequisite to the
boxer's participation in every boxing contest held in the United
States. This effectively eliminated such untoward activity as, for
example: (1) a boxer being knocked out during a fight in one state on
Friday night and, then, participating in a fight on Saturday night in
another state under a false name; and (2) a promoter illegally
transporting an individual across the U.S. border to participate in a
fight under an assumed name, and, following the individual being
knocked out in the first or second round (thus, enhancing the record of
the boxer under contract to the promoter), dumping the beaten
individual back into the country from whence he came. The PBSA also
mandated minimal protective measures such as: (1) a physical
examination of each boxer by a physician certifying whether or not the
boxer is physically fit to safely compete; (2) the continuous presence
of a ringside physician, as well as an ambulance or medical personnel
with appropriate resuscitation equipment, at each boxing contest; and
(3) health insurance for each boxer to provide medical coverage for any
injuries sustained in a boxing contest. The PBSA also prohibited
certain conflicts of interest; expressly barring, among other things, a
member or employee of a boxing commission from belonging to, or
receiving any compensation from, a sanctioning organization, a promoter
or any other person having a financial interest in an active boxer.
In the year 2000, amendments to the PBSA were enacted as the
``Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.'' These amendments focused primarily
on economic, as opposed to safety, reforms; specifically addressing
disreputable and coercive business practices, pervasive in the boxing
industry, such as: (1) unexplained and unjustified changes in the
ratings of boxers by sanctioning organizations (in some instances
premised upon the payment of briberous monies, as opposed to the record
of a boxer), (2) questionable scoring by judges who are members of
sanctioning organizations, (3) boxers being coerced into signing
inequitable contracts with promoters as a condition of being able to
participate in a boxing contest against a particular opponent, and (4)
promoters unjustly deducting significant portions of a boxer's purse
for the promoter's own use. In light of this legislation, sanctioning
organizations are now required to, among other things: (1) annually
submit to the FTC or, in the alternative, publish on the Internet, its
written criteria for the ratings of boxers; (2) post on the Internet an
explanation for changing the rating of a boxer previously rated among
the top ten; and (3) provide boxers with notice that the sanctioning
organization will, upon request of the boxer, provide the boxer with a
written explanation of the organization's rating criteria, its rating
of the boxer, and its rationale for such a rating. Sanctioning
organizations also are required to provide to the applicable boxing
commission: (1) all charges it will assess a boxer participating in an
event sanctioned by the organization; and (2) all payments the
organization will receive for its affiliation with a boxing event from
the promoter, the host of the event and any others.
As to promoters, the ``Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act'' requires
the promoter to make certain disclosures to the applicable boxing
commission and to the boxer. As to the boxing commission, the promoter
is to disclose: (1) a copy of any written agreement between the boxer
and the promoter, as well as a statement, made under oath, that there
are no other written or oral agreements between the promoter and the
boxer regarding a particular boxing contest; (2) the amount of the
boxer's purse the promoter will receive, as well as all fees and
expenses that will be assessed by, or though, the promoter to the boxer
including training expenses; (3) the amounts of compensation or
consideration the promoter has contracted to receive as a result of the
boxing contest; and (4) any reduction in the boxer's purse contrary to
the terms of the contract. In addition, the promoter is to disclose to
the boxer Items (2), (3), and (4), above.
The ``Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act'' also requires judges and
referees to disclose to the appropriate boxing commission a statement
as to all consideration, including reimbursement for expenses, that the
judge or referee will receive from any source for participation in the
match.
While the various provisions of this federal legislation provide
the basis for major reform in an industry historically fraught with
inequity, impropriety and, in some instances, criminality, additional
measures are needed; particularly as to enforcement. Pursuant to the
above-referenced federal laws, the Attorney General of the United
States may bring a civil action in the appropriate U.S. District Court,
based upon ``reasonable cause,'' including the seeking of injunctive
relief or the obtaining of an order to restrain a person from engaging
in any activity that constitutes a violation of these provisions. In
addition, the ``chief law enforcement officer'' of a state who has
reason to believe that a person or organization is engaging in
practices that violate these provisions may seek an order of court
enjoining the holding of a boxing contest in which the practice is
involved; enforcing compliance with these provisions; and seeking the
imposition of prescribed fines. Further, any boxer who suffers economic
injury as a result of a violation of any provision of these federal
laws may bring an action in the appropriate federal or state court and
recover damages.
Notwithstanding these enforcement provisions, the ABC is not aware
of any such court actions ever having been brought by the U. S.
Attorney, the chief law enforcement officer of a state, or a boxer. It
is not known if the problem is in the non-reporting of violations by
the boxers or others for fear of reprisal by unethical promoters and/or
sanctioning organizations, the non-detection of violations by the
respective boxing commissions, the non-involvement of law enforcement,
or otherwise. Accordingly, there appears to be the need for the
administration of these federal laws on a nation-wide basis. While the
ABC is in place and has the potential to perform such a function, it
has been, and continues to be, without any source of funding. The
measures that the ABC do take are performed gratuitously by a handful
of individuals who serve on the respective boxing commissions which
form its membership. The needed administration of the federal laws
could be accomplished by either: (1) providing funding for the ABC
toward this end, or (2) creating a federal boxing administration. In
either instance, it would be imperative to maintain the autonomy of the
state and tribal boxing commissions, but, at the same time, provide for
an entity to administer the federal laws in support of the respective
boxing commissions.
In addition to these amendments to existing federal law, the ABC
recommends the following additional provisions.
First, there should be a federal mandate that judges and referees
are to be assigned to each boxing contest, including championship
matches, solely by the boxing commission that is regulating the boxing
contest without any interference from a sanctioning organization. The
need for such a measure is evidenced by an incident which occurred last
year in regard to a nationally televised, championship fight held in a
mid-Western state. Well before the date of the fight, as to the
officials who would ``work'' the fight, the sanctioning organization
and the state boxing commission agreed that the sanctioning
organization would designate the referee and one judge, and that the
state boxing commission would designate the other two judges. Less than
five minutes before the live nation-wide televised coverage was to
commence, a representative of the sanctioning organization threatened a
state boxing commission member with a withdraw of the organization's
sanction, reducing the status of the fight to a non-title one, if the
state boxing commission did not agree to replace one of the judges
designated by the state boxing commission with a judge designated by
the sanctioning organization. The state boxing commission member
capitulated.
As a curative measure regarding championship matches, federal
legislation could provide for the following procedure. Based upon
certain prescribed criteria, the respective boxing commissions would
submit to the ABC or a federal boxing administration a list of names of
those judges and referees deemed to be worthy of officiating at a
championship match from which a ``pool'' of such qualified judges and
referees may be comprised. As a prerequisite to being placed on such a
list, all judges and referees would be required to participate in
mandatory training courses and then be tested by the ABC or a federal
boxing administration to ensure that the official possesses the
requisite skills necessary to effectively perform. The boxing
commission where the championship match is to take place would then
select from this ``pool'' of officials, again without any interference
from a sanctioning organization, the judges and referee who would
officiate at the championship match.
Second, boxing contests held in a state, or on tribal land, where
there is not a boxing commission should be permitted only if the
promoter agrees, among other things, to provide liability insurance
coverage for each member or representative of the boxing commission
from another state who will participate in the regulation of the boxing
contests held in the state, or on tribal land, without a boxing
commission. This is necessary, as the sovereign immunity which may
provide such protection when the boxing official performs such duties
in his or her own state does not attach when the boxing official is
functioning in a different state.
Third, there is the need to provide for the reciprocal enforcement
of all suspensions imposed by a boxing commission. Currently, such
reciprocal enforcement is applicable only to those suspensions imposed
on boxers for: (1) recent knockouts or a series of consecutive losses,
and (2) an injury, ordered medical procedure, or physician denial of
certification. If, for example, one boxing commission suspends a boxer
for falsifying documents or for inappropriate behavior, the boxer
should not be enable to totally negate the suspensive sanction merely
by traveling to another state. Similarly, if a suspensive period is
imposed on a licensee other than a boxer, such suspension, likewise,
should be reciprocally enforced.
Fourth, additional mandatory safety measures should be enacted,
such as a requirement that each boxing commission develop criteria for
the review of each boxer's boxing record (win-loss-draw/knock-outs),
suspensions (medical and otherwise) and other relevant matters which
serve as a basis for licensure.
Fifth, there should be a federal provision for the creation of a
centralized medical data bank into which all medical examinations
undergone by every licensed boxer is placed, with this information
being accessible to each boxing commission. This would assist each
boxing commission in determining if a license should be issued, and may
avoid a boxer having to duplicate such medical exams in regard to each
jurisdiction in which he or she seeks licensure. In this regard, a
``medical information release'' form should be signed by those boxers
who agree to do so.
Sixth, currently the federal law provides that ``it is the sense of
Congress'' that certain ``health and safety disclosures'' be made to a
boxer including the risks associated with boxing and the risk and
frequency of brain damage. It is suggested that such disclosures be
made mandatory, and that the disclosure be made at the time of the
issuance of a federal identification card. The boxer should be required
to sign a document acknowledging that such disclosures were made.
Seventh, promoters should be required to post a collateral (e.g.,
surety bond, irrevocable letter of credit, cash) to ensure the payment
of all purse monies and other expenses.
While it certainly is not suggested that the adoption of these
measures would constitute a panacea as to the problems attendant to
professional boxing, the adoption of such measures would provide
significant inroads toward improving the safety, economics and
integrity of the sport of professional boxing.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Lueckenhoff, thank you very much. A
vote has just begun. There is 10 minutes remaining in a vote
over in the Senate. We would like to take a 10-minute recess.
Senator McCain and I would go and vote and with your permission
we will come back and ask questions. The Subcommittee will be
in recess for 10 minutes.
[Recess.]
Senator Dorgan. Let me begin with you, Mr. DiBella. Mr.
Lueckenhoff described the sanctioning bodies 5 minutes before
the fight. As I heard that, I was curious. Is not it the fact
that HBO and Showtime, the television really runs the show
here. How can a sanctioning body get by 5 minutes before the
fight when the money is really in the hand and running through
the hands of the television folks at this point?
Mr. DiBella. Remember first, the television folks are not
paying the fighters. The television folks pay the promoter. The
promoter pays the fighter. Sanctioning regulations are
unregulated by state law or Federal law other than the Ali Act
which nobody is enforcing. The sanctioning bodies insist upon
involvement in the selection of judges or they threaten to pull
their sanction of the fight. The state athletic Commission goes
along with them and there is usually a process in which the
state Commission is symbiotic with these corrupt sanctioning
organizations and determining what judges are there. As I think
I tried to illustrate in my statement, these judges are
inherently biased.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Sugar?
Mr. Sugar. Just to add to what Mr. DiBella said, it is also
not of minor interest that two of the three major sanctioning
bodies, these alphabet soups that Senator McCain thankfully
used my phrase, are outside the boundaries of the United
States. The WBA and the WBC which might be one of the reasons
they were investigating the various and sundry sanctioning
bodies, the only one they came down on was the IBF in the U.S.
and not the WBA and the WBC. They get away with capital M
murder.
Senator Dorgan. Are the Sanctioning bodies by and large
corrupt?
Mr. Sugar. They have been called Los Banditos. Would that
be a good answer. If they are not corrupt, they failed their
function.
Mr. DiBella. Senator Dorgan, to complete the question you
asked before, when I was at HBO we were doing a fight between
McCallum, it was a world title fight between two champions. At
the last moment, the sanctioning body of one of the champions
was pulled from his organization, he was stripped by his
sanctioning body for fighting another world champion and not
the untalented No. 1 contender of the organization. At the time
we went ahead and televised the fight any way. But the sanction
was still pulled from that fighter by the sanctioning body.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Steward, you described the training of
Lennox Lewis for the upcoming fight in June. You said that in
addition to the regular type of training you would use to
prepare a boxer for a fight, you are on this occasion having to
prepare a boxer for more than that. We know that Mr. Tyson has
bitten off part of the ear of a fighter. Describe what you are
doing here.
Mr. Steward. I won't say I am preparing Lennox. In fact,
this is the first time I have publicly even mentioned that. For
the most part I am concentrating strictly on just the fight
being a fight because I do not want to drift. It would take
away from the fight of speaking too much about Mike Tyson's
unfair tactics, but I am doing things separate, not with Lennox
so much, with officials and people to try to protect him. I get
this on Lennox's mind he won't be able to function at all when
he is worried about being bit or elbow being twisted. It is
just bad enough to be fighting Tyson, who is a very devastating
puncher, and one of the best in the heavyweight division.
I would like to address something they were speaking on. We
could have horror stories told the next 2 hours about the
ruthless practices of the organization and I have had a lot of
experiences myself. I think ultimately the only solution is
going to be, and you hit on it in the beginning, the most
powerful force really in boxing which I don't think has been
utilized right now is the networks, the broadcast places. The
money, the revenue, the multimillions of dollars for the most
part has been paid out and spent on financing this boxing game
primarily is from the networks. And I think they are going to
have to somewhere along the line get more involved and step up
to the plate and have certain things that they have more power
and start exerting their power. If they do not make this money
available a lot of these things eventually won't take place.
But right now they are laying back and letting these other
organizations do what they want.
Senator Dorgan. You are suggesting the networks would use
their power for good. It seems to me not just with respect to
sports but generally, the networks are in a race to bottom here
with respect to taste and character. You just look at the
programming these days. My own impression would be that I
wouldn't expect the networks to come in and see if they can
raise standards with respect to boxing.
Mr. DiBella. Senator, are not the networks just televising
what you and most of the public wants to see.
Senator McCain. Tonight on Fox, there Refrigerator Perry
will fight Riddick Bo.
Mr. DiBella. The ratings were extraordinary the last time
they did celebrity boxing. The Mike Tyson fight in Memphis,
which should not be taking place will probably do a tremendous
amount of business. If you do not want to see it, don't buy it.
It is on pay-per-view television. If people were not to buy
this fight, if it was not a likelihood that this fight was
something to do something like $100 million worth of business,
the states that were running and standing on line to host the
site would not have done so. The only reason they stood in line
was because of the almighty dollar and because of the public's
fascination with Mr. Tyson, who is now the Jerry Springer show.
Mr. Sugar. I will not be covering that fight in Memphis.
The reason is, and Lou has alluded to it, that this sport which
I am proud of and I am here to defend it and try to make what
you gentlemen have done into some sort of biting law which is
enforceable and has teeth. I came to defend both the sport and
Mike Tyson. Mike Tyson has become the poster boy in boxing. He
is as much that as Count Dracula is to the Red Cross blood
drive. Boxing is a blood assault that has been legalized.
The only reason that raises it to this level of a sport is
its rules and regulations which we hear about to make them
enforceable. Mike Tyson admits to none of those. He tries to,
as Mr. Steward said, break elbows, bite ears, hit, you name it,
with elbows, with heads, it doesn't matter. Knock down
referees. That was a good one.
If on June 8th and I hope as Mr. DiBella said there will be
a couple of me, at least two or three of me, if on June 8th I
feel a growing need, an urge to see the home of Elvis, instead
of going to Memphis, I am going to Cleveland, Ohio to see Elvis
Grbac's home. I am not going to Memphis and I wish people
wouldn't look at Mike Tyson as part of boxing. He is separate
and distinct.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Sugar, thank you. Mr. Lueckenhoff, let
me ask you, in your testimony you are not aware of any court
action that has ever been brought by U.S. attorney, chief law
enforcement officer of a state?
Mr. Lueckenhoff. That is correct. Since becoming president
of the Association of Boxing Commissions, I have sent letters
to attorneys general regarding violations of the law. No
response.
Senator Dorgan. Why will they not respond?
Mr. Lueckenhoff. Most of the time they are not aware of the
law. It is small potatoes to them.
Senator Dorgan. Are any of you aware of a fighter named
Mouse?
Mr. Sugar. Bruce the Mouse Straus?
Senator Dorgan. Yes. I read a lengthy piece in Sports
Illustrated. I think it was called The Opponent and actually
features him, among others. I do not know anything about him
except what I read and saw, but he is a person who essentially
falls through the cracks of everything because he is able to be
knocked out in Atlanta one night, go to Dallas two nights
later, get knocked throughout and nobody has any records of who
he is.
Mr. Sugar. Sometimes he wins. Bruce the Mouse Straus. In
fact if Bruce the Mouse Straus doesn't like anybody, he will
adopt their name so their name goes in the record book as a
loser.
Senator McCain. Hasn't that stopped with the ID card?
Mr. Sugar. No. Because he is also the promoter of the
fights, and when a fighter doesn't come, he fills in for them.
He filled in twice one night on his own card and came down the
aisle and he said you fought an earlier fight and he said that
was my twin brother Moose. He is the one filling out the card.
Mr. DiBella. Much more important on focusing on Bruce the
Mouse Straus what happens to be one of the more amusing
characters in the history of boxing. Focus on Stephan Johnson,
who was found by the Canadian Boxing Commission to have a bleed
on his brain and that information never traveled to a state
athletic Commission in the U.S. which allowed him to fight.
Based on him being allowed to fight in a state that had a sub
par Commission and no ability to check on this guy's health, he
was later allowed to fight in the state of New Jersey, where he
suffered a life-ending injury in the ring. That is the problem.
Yes, Bruce the Mouse Straus is a nice funny story and yes
he has fought under fictitious names and been knocked out four
times in a month. But consider the fact that a young man lost
his life because a state athletic Commission in this country
could not receive information that was of record in Canada
where he was fought and subsequent to the ending of the fight
was found to have a bleed on his brain. That is completely
unacceptable.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. DiBella, the point about Mouse is
somebody who can get knocked out four times in a week is
risking their health and risking their life. There is nobody
that will stand up for fighters. The major thing is there needs
to be something that protects fighters. We hope future steps
will be taken to address those issues. Mr. Steward, one point
and then I am going to call on Senator McCain.
Mr. Steward. I would like to point out even though Bruce
the Mouse Straus or whatever his name is, he is part of our
botching folklore but he primarily operates in small locations,
in the midwest. So the passbook is working for the most part. I
know, as a manager and trainer that the passbooks was one of
the best steps made I think toward getting consistency and
regulation. For the most part, they are very effective. Still
certain guys will find the Kentuckies and Indianas and Iowas.
That is why we need a Federal law that can stop them from
running anywhere in the cracks. He doesn't go to the major
cities. Not in Las Vegas, not in New York. And he was----
Senator Dorgan. Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. Just picking up
on what our previous conversation, the ID card is not
effective?
Mr. Steward. It is effective. We should not discount that.
It is always a little loophole. Primarily operates off the
beaten path type towns. That is where he is operating at. But I
think the idea is a very good system. I have had a lot of
problems with fighters that couldn't fight that night because
he left it at home. The main event when he could not fight and
in his own state where he was registered at so it is a very
effective law.
Mr. DiBella. It works, but there are some states that are
so ineffectual in their regulation it is almost irrelevant.
Senator McCain. The ID card?
Mr. Sugar. The ID card I think will work and you can better
it because there is a way technologically where you put it into
a machine and you, it doesn't punch out until the fight's over
and all of the material that is necessary is not only punched
into that but bashes up on a central locale and this is going
to be yes, suspensions, injuries, questions about injuries.
Senator McCain. Perhaps the ID card system should be
expanded to honor suspensions for reasons other than physical
injury. Maybe that was a mistake we made in the first law. Mr.
Lueckenhoff?
Mr. Lueckenhoff. Yes. We are only aware of a couple of
states where ID cards have been altered. But for the most part
fighters fighting under false names have stopped. There is a
problem with state boxing Commissions getting complacent to
where they know the fighter and they do not require to look at
the Federal ID card. That gets to be a real problem because of
the expiration date on them. I want to leave you with the fact
that the ID card has been one of the positive things coming out
of the Federal law being in Missouri in the midwest and in
Oklahoma, where Mouse Straus was fun. He did not fight many
times in Missouri, but we had a real problem in the midwest
with that and the ID card has taken care of that problem for
us.
Senator McCain. I want to also say Mr. Steward, I
appreciate you being here. You are the smartest man in boxing
that I know.
Mr. Steward. Thank you.
Senator McCain. The work you have done with a long line of
fighters is pretty marvelous. I have watched you motivate your
fighters on occasion and you are probably a pretty good student
of how to motivate people. You would have made a great football
coach, as well as what you have done in boxing.
Mr. DiBella, I thank you and thank you for going against
the grain quite often. It would have been much easier for you
to get along by going along and you probably would have been
wealthier today.
Mr. Sugar, I have been enlightened and entertained by you
for perhaps longer than you would like me to recollect.
Mr. Sugar. You do not mind if I do not repeat that to my
bride, do you.
Senator McCain. I thank you for being here. Mr.
Lueckenhoff, I want to thank you and Mr. Greg Sirb, your
predecessor. Mr. Lueckenhoff, would you support this
legislation in its general form with some changes?
Mr. Lueckenhoff. Yes. The ABC would support with the
preface that the state boxing commissions need to maintain
their autonomy.
Senator McCain. Basically, Mr. Steward, what this would do
would provide an administrator, appointed by the President,
whose functions would be to protect the health and safety of a
fighter while enforcing these existing laws. There has not been
one single action brought by a state attorney general.
Mr. Sugar. In fact, Senator McCain, may I? There was a case
in Puerto Rico in which a fighter named Hertado had to go to
court to get out of an onerous option contract by Don King. He
was the No. 1 rated contender and he was going to fight Randall
Bailey so not even there, which is one of the premises of the
bill.
Senator McCain. I will come to you in just a minute, Mr.
Steward. Do you have to catch a plane?
Mr. Steward. Yes. Two other things. Let me just make a
couple of comments if I could. One, I think that this
administrator would have a beneficial effect on these
sanctioning organizations if you want to dignify them by saying
that, because he could really lend credence to what a real
champion is. We tried to do so today. One of them is
management. The manager's role is vague today. But I think a
lot of people who are licensed as managers, do not qualify to
be managers. And they should have some system set up where they
have to go through certain tests and requirements, much like a
lawyer or doctor.
Senator McCain. For example, the son of a promoter.
Mr. Steward. Yes. Let me tell you another good example.
Just recently we had a Don King situation, and I don't fault
Don. I think he had a fighter that was fighting, Carl Daniels.
While they were negotiating back and forth trying to get done
up to 800,000, 900,000, there was a purse bid. Don had one of
his guys place a purse bid. It may be a total of $2 million and
so all he has to do according to the rules is to pay this man
25 percent really for 25,000.
I have been involved in two cases recently. Also one over
in Spatafor, where these guys have got their wives as managers
and they have got friends and they do not know the rules.
Manager should know certain things about boxing and what the
rules are. You are dealing with a person's life. So life to
some degree, and also in the suspensions medically. I have
boxers who I see on the suspension who cannot fight for 90 days
are in the gym in 2 weeks. Brain is still damaged. A lot of
these guys are ruined for life.
I said do not let Roberto go nowhere near a ring for 6
months. Roberto Duran has not been knocked down since then. I
saw a young white girl looked like she was about 18 years old,
weighed 120 pounds, big strong guy beating her up. The guy said
she wants to be here and be like the guys, she is going to have
to learn to take a beating. These are things that we cannot
regulate that goes on in these gymnasiums. Setting up some
national guidelines, if you are under suspension you are not to
be boxing if you are caught 20 or 30 days. A lot of these other
loophole things that I think we can have a chance to have some
input.
Mr. Sugar. There are two things. Mr. DiBella said it once
and now Mr. Steward did and a thought occurred to me which I
know is a breakthrough and that is why with the Uniform
Athletes Agent Act already on the books are not these managers
somehow some way considered to be agents and enforceable under
that basis.
Mr. DiBella. Why is no one doing simple math? A promoter is
taking his money from the overall revenue. He doesn't have to
tell anybody what he is making.
Senator McCain. Disclosure.
Mr. DiBella. By the way, I would also support disclosure by
television networks because a fighter has the right to know the
money that is being paid with respect to his services and that
is a regulation of television networks that I think would be a
positive.
Senator McCain. We will work on that. Why should a promoter
get 30 percent of Roy Jones' purse right off the top?
Mr. Sugar. For Don King that is low.
Mr. DiBella. For most promoters, that is not so out of
line. There is nothing regulating that. Hey, a manager who does
virtually nothing now is allowed to take 33 percent prior to
deduction of the trainer's expenses, corner man's expenses.
Senator McCain. Disclosure would shed some light on that. I
do not know how you pass a law that dictates how much somebody
gets, but certainly full disclosure is important.
Let me mention a couple other things real quick and maybe I
am just venting. I have watched the Mayweather-Castillo fight,
I watched the Johnny Tapia and Medina fight. Both terrible
decisions.
Mr. Sugar. I disagree with you on Mayweather.
Mr. DiBella. You are right, Senator.
Mr. Sugar. Would you please after listening to Harold
Letterman explain ring generalship. Even General Patton
couldn't do that, define it.
Senator McCain. I mean, I can list you some terrible
decisions and there is one thing in common, if I might finish.
That is, the fighter who is going to earn the most money is the
one that won. Bert, it may have been that ring generalship, but
would that ring generalship have counted if Castillo had been
the one exercising the ring generalship? I just want some
general comments about the quality of judging in boxing today
and go ahead, Lou.
Mr. DiBella. If you are a sanctioning body, and your
profit, quote unquote on an event is based upon 3 percentage
points of the fighter's purses, who are you going to want to
win? The guy that can generate $5 million to $10 million a
fight.
Senator McCain. The guy from Mexico that beat Ayala in San
Antonio.
Mr. Steward. That is my main gripe coming here today. What
I am saying is it is hurting the public. People are being duped
when you are paying this kind of money watching pay-per-view,
just HBO alone. Just recent fights. I think knowing the fact
that the promoters are taking out officials the night before
and they are not telling what all they are doing, I saw them
put $5,000 in each of the judge's pockets, have a nice dinner.
They give you a beautiful girl for the night. Without being
paid to fight, he is going to vote according to what is the
best for that particular promoter.
Mr. DiBella. The guy at the Four Seasons has a different
agenda from the guy staying at Motel 6.
Mr. Steward. We need to have some system set up where
officials just like in basketball, baseball and football, we
have a top line of officials and they are selected by this
governing body and not letting officials being selected by the
promoter. As long as you let that happen by individual managers
and promoters picking individuals, just like for the Super
Bowl, I don't think you are going to have a certain team. I do
not know how it happens. You need to have some system where
certified qualified top officials like for this Tyson Lewis
fight. They should be picked by this governing body and they
should be certain if they make bad decisions that are so far
out like the Taglia fight that they should be held before
border review. Maybe the decision is not changed, but they
should be maybe put on suspension, overwhelmingly approved by
looking at it. They would make them accountable. Officials
write and do what they want and never have to be accountable
for anything and just walk away. That has to change.
Mr. Sugar. If your USBA exists with someone overseeing it
then there are tests for officials whether we honestly disagree
or not. The good ones go, the bad ones stay. I must compliment
you on one thing, Senator. Unlike Senator Roth after the James
Toney-Dave Tiberi fight, and he called it the gripes of Roth,
whole investigation, the whole field was crooked because he
disagreed with the decision. This is the valid place to have
this forum. And I think if you do an overall USBA or, czar, or
whatever it is, that can be the office of judging judges if you
will.
Senator McCain. Mr. Lueckenhoff, you can respond to this as
well as the others. Julio Cesar Chavez a couple of years ago
was at the end of his career. He wanted to fight Castillo in
Las Vegas. Las Vegas told him: you are not qualified to fight.
Guess who sanctioned the fight? The Boxing Commission in the
state of Arizona, and you'll recall Cesar Chavez was rendered
unacceptable in the sixth round. Mr. Lueckenhoff, this is one
of the things, at my embarrassment, my own state's boxing
commission, that motivates me to have this boxing Czar, which
Senator Dorgan and I and others resisted for years, as we tried
to find other ways to help this sport because of our, I speak
for myself, personal dislike of government bureaucracies,
bigger government, et cetera. You want to respond to that?
Mr. Lueckenhoff. Certainly I do. I agree with you. That
upset a lot of the members of the ABC. As I mentioned in my
statement, we want all suspensions to follow through and be
carried through.
Senator McCain. He wasn't suspended. Chavez wasn't
suspended. He just was not allowed to fight there.
Mr. Lueckenhoff. See, I agree. I think denials have to be
involved there. Tennessee, if they did not have the law to deny
the license and they have to let him fight obviously. I am not
sure whether they do or not so I think all medical suspensions
or denials need to, each state needs to follow those and that
is where I think this national----
Senator McCain. If Tennessee would have followed what
Nevada did, there would not be a fight in Memphis, Tennessee.
Mr. Sugar. And Washington, D.C. and California and Texas
and West Virginia and Georgia all stood in line. And do you
know, Senator it cost $10 for Mike Tyson to get a license in
Georgia. Which is less than a dog license, which might tell you
something about this sport, or maybe Mike Tyson.
Senator McCain. It is a tragedy for a human being.
Senator Dorgan. If you will yield on that point. The issue
here is just one word. Money. It is all about money. Nothing
else. After one state, Nevada, said we won't sanction you to
fight, other states in other areas jumped in line to see if
they couldn't attract the fight. Why? Money.
Senator McCain. We are not embarrassed about saying it is
about money.
Senator Dorgan. Not a bit. It is not about protecting the
reputation of the sport. It is about money. And so I am sorry.
You wanted to finish.
Senator McCain. No. No. This is what is motivating me to
take action. Mr. Lueckenhoff, go ahead.
Mr. Lueckenhoff. I have one comment about the officials. We
certainly support a pool of officials. In my written comments
we indicate that officials need to be trained just like any
professional does whether they be an accountant or a doctor or
whatever, they need to have training and they need to be tested
so the ABC has developed an officials training seminar that
will be taught for the first time down in Miami and we think
this is the way to go.
Senator McCain. Will every state be required to
participate?
Mr. Lueckenhoff. We are sending out voluntary compliance,
but we are looking for you to help us out. We feel that these
officials need to be qualified and tested and educated.
Senator McCain. Go ahead.
Senator Dorgan. Is the Lewis-Tyson fight likely to be the
biggest money fight of all time?
Mr. Steward. In addition to being the biggest money fight,
it will probably be the most viewed live event in the history
of the world. It could be a disaster for the sport, too, as
well.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Steward, you will be involved in that
fight on behalf of Mr. Lewis. Who at this point will judge and
referee that fight? Do you know?
Mr. Steward. Well, I made it very adamant that I had a say-
so in the referee because I think the referee will be the most
important referee in the history of boxing. I was able to
convince them to get a guy, Eddie Cotton. Not too many to
select from. You can choose among one hand. The other officials
are pretty much left, but they had a strong commitment. Left
for whoever just to pick whoever.
Senator Dorgan. What do you mean by that?
Mr. Steward. Who picks the judges?
Senator Dorgan. It is a big deal. That is why I am asking
the question.
Mr. Steward. You have so many promoters around, like the
Lewis Lennox fight.
Senator McCain. Who will have the final say?
Mr. DiBella. You have two ratings organizations in tandem--
--
Mr. Steward. That is why we need to say the government can
pick the officials.
Mr. DiBella. Two sanctioning bodies will pick the officials
with the state athletic Commission. That is my understanding.
Senator Dorgan. But my point is this. This is going to be a
very big fight. It is going to be a very big fight. It is now
mid to late May. The fight is a few weeks away. Senator McCain
suggested a recent history of fights with decisions that in
some cases appear to be incompetent. In other places, and
circumstances it is perhaps corrupt. But in any event, the
question is who is going to be the referee and who are going to
be the judges and who is going to select them for this fight.
At this point, you say Mr. Steward that you do not know who the
judges are?
Mr. Steward. No system is set up. That is why we need to
have a governing body and pick these officials, not have the
promoters pick officials. We are going to favor them the most.
Going back to Holyfield and Lewis which is a perfect example.
They told me they had a woman they wanted to have named Jean
Williams. They came up to my suite and I told them no. She was
primarily into amateur boxing. I do not like it that much any
way. I insisted that I did not want her.
After 2 days they said look, Bob Lee has said that he wants
her and Bob Lee through this connection and that connection,
they had two or three other people come up to talk to me. I
said I do not care. I do not want her in a fight of this type
because I know her connections. They overrode me, said Evander,
used to be the manager on this case. We are going to work her
anyway. At the end of the fight, Lennox was cheering to the
crowd, I cussed him out and nobody in the place ever knew why I
was going crazy. If he hadn't have went out and won the 12th
round big, he wouldn't even have got a draw, and that is
because once again here is a woman that renders a bad decision,
she is not accountable to anything. But still, this is what
hurts boxing.
Senator McCain. Reports were that she had a significant
debt that was paid off.
Mr. Steward. Yes. The rewards for doing things that is good
for the favorite promoter is you get other trips. You get more
next fights. That is how you are rewarded.
Mr. DiBella. When he says favored promoter, judges have to
go to meetings by organizations where promoters get promoter of
the century, of the decade, fighter of the year. Emanuel is not
wrong when he says there is no system for making these judges.
The system stinks. Three judges are all going to be affiliated
with the World Boxing Council. IBF moved aside and all three
officials will be WBC officials, is that correct? Yes. There
are three officials, all of whom will be affiliated with the
World Boxing Council.
Senator McCain. That is comforting.
Mr. DiBella. They had to bring in a state commissioner from
New Jersey and the referee will be imported from another state
because they have nobody in the state of Tennessee that knows
what they are doing when it comes to boxing.
Mr. DiBella. The WBC is pretty good at this because in the
Tyson-Douglas fight in 1990 when the referee who counted out
Tyson but two rounds earlier had not counted out Douglas when
he went down and would not change his opinion never got another
refereeing job. I don't think he was ever seen again.
Senator McCain. Fortunately, the Tyson fight is not going
to go to the judges. That still doesn't change the fact that it
is just a sorry and sad situation. As you mentioned, having to
import commissioners. How many fights are going on in the state
of Tennessee that are basically unregulated and the fighters
end up losing. I think Mr. Jones can testify as to the
importance of the referee, though.
Mr. Steward. There was a popular and influential person and
it has been about 2 weeks Bill Clancy, Bill Clancy, and I told
them I do not care what I am not going to accept him because he
doesn't have the experience in the big fight. But that shows
there is no system, though. No system at all.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. DiBella?
Mr. DiBella. Right now the New York staff commissioner job
is open. Commissioner Ray Kelly stepped aside and now there is
an open job. There is rumored to be an individual who is being
considered for the job who is very politically connected person
and basically got on the Commission vis-a-vis patronage. This
person is likely to get the job.
When Holyfield fought Lewis the first time in Madison
Square Garden, there were inspectors that surrounded the ring.
Inspectors that had been chosen by the Commission were
inspectors with a great deal of experience. Unfortunately, an
election occurred right around the time of this fight. And the
person that is now being considered for the New York State
commissionership was on record as moving those inspectors off
their positions, replacing them by completely inexperienced
inspectors from the new political party in control, and went on
the record and basically said did you forget, when it was asked
about switching inexperienced people for people who knew what
they were doing said I guess you forgot who won the election.
And that provides you with a lot of the reason that state
regulation of boxing doesn't work.
Mr. Sugar. Which also brings to mind the Czar, as we have
commonly called him, being appointed by the President. He now
is a political person, is he not? I mean by definition, he has
to be, regardless of which party and I know I am talking to
both of them.
Senator McCain. But I think you are talking about such a
high visibility position that no President would politicize
that. He would select the most qualified, as, for example,
other government agencies that are ``independent'' agencies,
and it would require confirmation by the Senate and so if it
was a blatant political kind of a thing, the Senate would not
confirm. And that is our check and balance appointment to any
independent agency, and if you do not have a President
appointed? Who do you have appointed. Do you see, Bert?
Mr. Sugar. Why not this Committee?
Senator McCain. Well, we would love to, but I think----
Mr. Sugar. I know that is out of your purview but probably
you would know more. He is going to have to come with your
recommendation?
Senator McCain. In this bill is a list of qualifications
that would be necessary in order to fulfill the job. But as
important as Senator Dorgan and I are, I am the loser and I am
not sure my judgment would be viewed more favorably than that
of the President of the United States, although I am sure we
would have an input because the nominee would have to go
through this Committee process in that situation.
Look, I have taken way too much of you all's time, Senator
Dorgan's time, and everybody else's time. I'd like to sit here
for the next three or 4 hours and hear some very entertaining
and interesting stories, but I think that the fact that you are
here and the fact that we have made a record, is going to
overcome a lot of bias and a lot of resistance within the
states who see this as an erosion of their authority. The
patronage jobs and the states are not willingly going to go
along with this proposal and your testimony here, I think, has
been extremely important and helpful in this effort. I do not
believe that any of us who love boxing are satisfied with the
state of professional boxing in America today.
I thank you, Senator Dorgan, for holding this hearing and I
consider it a great personal favor, you being so involved in
this issue.
Senator Dorgan. Senator McCain, thank you very much. I do
not know whether there are bridges that you have not yet burned
today, and hope that you are not having to travel soon over the
bridges you have burned, but I think your testimony has been
extraordinary. We appreciate your candor and your frankness.
This has not been a good time for the sport of boxing and
as I said when I began, we have some wonderful young athletes,
some of the best athletes in the world who aspire to do good
things and perform in this sport, and then discover that there
are people out there who want to use them up and throw them
away and we need to do better than that.
I want to especially thank Mr. Lueckenhoff. Mr. Sugar, I
have been listening to you for years. Mr. DiBella, thank you,
Mr. Steward, thank you for what you have done to the sport and
especially to Mr. Jones, who, the record should show, has
stayed during this entire proceeding. I have deep admiration
for not only your skills but also your character and appreciate
what you are trying to do for the sport of boxing.
We hope to make progress again on this legislation. We
expect there will be some states who will not want to see any
kind of consolidation of authority, but I think it is
inevitable that we do that and I am pleased to work with
Senator McCain's lead on this and we will work hard to try to
make some progress. Again, thank you all and this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 3:05 p.m.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Teddy Atlas, Boxing Trainer and Commentator
The following is my testimony that would have been delivered at the
May 22, 2002 Hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee. Please
understand any confusion regarding my appearance was not related to any
lack of desire to assist in the difficult task before you. Instead it
apparently originated out of misinterpretation of my reason in wanting
to attend in the first place. I have obligations as a Commentator for
ESPN and a commitment to my fighters. In no way do these commitments
overshadow my desire to help the sport of boxing. I have not only been
an advocate of the formation of a Federal Commission, but have also
challenged politicians to stand up and help. Furthermore, in no way did
my incentive relate to seeking publicity in such a forum, but instead
solely to help the sport that has been a major part of my life for over
twenty-five years.
I have openly been an advocate of boxing reform as evidenced by my
calling upon Senator McCain several times during our weekly Friday
Night Fight broadcasts. The last time originated out of another poor
exhibition of rule interpretations from another weak boxing commission.
I can see that Senator McCain has not only heard the outcry, but has
responded. I, too, will respond. The following is what my testimony
would have been in regards to the responsibilities of a Federal Boxing
Commission.
Allow me to acknowledge that one of the other guests scheduled to
attend your Hearing is the great Mohammed Ali. If there had been a
Federal Commission in place when Mr. Ali was fighting, he would not
have been allowed to fight and endure a horrific beating by Larry
Holmes. If this had not taken place, then perhaps Mr. Ali would have
been able to readily read his statement himself in it's entirety.
I am very thankful that this Hearing has been called to evaluate
the formation of a Federal Boxing Commission. When this country was
young (as in the case of an up and coming preliminary fighter), it had
areas that were strong and some that were weak. Nevertheless, it
recognized the weaknesses needed strengthening for all to succeed. Some
of those areas were in the West, the Wild West, and the strength
required was lawful regulation. Eventually, Billy the Kid and the like
(WBC/WBA/IBF) were removed. Today we do not have to do this in the same
way as the Wyatt Erps and others took control. As sheriffs began to pop
up in other towns, laws spread. However, every once in a while one of
the smaller towns, beyond the prairies (like Tennessee), would fall a
little short of the law! As the country continued to develop, the
government understood the need to reach out and ``blanket'' states with
more efficient rule.
To further extrapolate to the sport of boxing, we not only need
more efficient law, but we also need to know what the laws should be
and have confidence that they will be enforced everywhere. We need to
eliminate the ``Dodge Cities'' of boxing and chase out the ``gun
slingers'' and create a town that can grow and flourish. We need a
Boxing Czar appointed by the President, but only after a great search.
We need the right person, not a political hack, but a man with care
and understanding of the conventional and practical needs of boxing.
This must be a man without ties to managers, promoters, but still a man
familiar with the sport. It must be a man unafraid to make enemies, and
a man sensitive to the realities of boxing. The sport needs an
individual who can administrate; who is proactive with a vision and
intellect for reform. I believe his term should be limited to help
protect against familiarity and corruption, so often connected with the
sport today.
Committees and Subcommittees should be formed to oversee the
various departments requiring close monitoring. These areas include,
but are not limited to the following:
I. OFFICIATING
I suggest developing a panel to oversee and regulate
officiating. This would include monitoring judges' performances
and even suspension of judges who have shown a predisposition
or a pattern of either incompetence or corruption. Furthermore,
there should be proper training/certification of these
officials including clear criteria on scoring and refereeing.
Other sports regulate and oversee the performances of their
officials. Separate and eliminate the contact between officials
and promoters/managers. It remains a common practice to see a
manager, promoter, or world body entertaining officials at
fancy restaurants and conventions before a fight. When is the
last time anyone heard of George Steinbrenner taking the
Umpires out for dinner prior to a baseball game with the
Yankees?
II. MEDICALS
There must exist conformity as to what medical requirements are
necessary for fighters. These minimum standards must be upheld
from state to state. I suggest the right medical people come up
with these answers such as Dr. Flip Homansky and Dr. Margaret
Goodman from the State of Nevada. They are both experienced and
have proven themselves to not only be competent, but also
reform minded with a practical idea of application.
III. RATINGS
Hopefully with the formation of such a commission, the power of
the corrupt organizations will have been completely eliminated
(such as what took place with the IBF being found guilty of
selling ratings). A panel then needs to be formed to actually
rate the fighters. This has to be done by merit and not by
relationships. I recommend regional boxing writers who
routinely cover fights supplemented with some strong
independent commissioners or former commissioners (such as Marc
Ratner and Greg Sirb). This could be done through an advisory
panel.
IV. TRAINING/GYMS
Trainers and managers should be tested more thoroughly before
being allowed the responsibility of guiding a young fighter.
There should be periodic drug testing of trainers and managers.
Perhaps this would even eliminate some of the poor choices made
in matchmaking and training. We also need monitors in the gyms
to ensure fighters and trainers on suspension are not working.
I suggest a hotline number for gym owners to confidentially
report if a fighter/trainer is working while under suspension.
I would even support a $10,000 fine for gym owners that do not
report such infractions. This will help a tremendous amount in
preventing potentially injured fighters from training too soon
after a serious loss/ knockout. Fighters AND their trainers
with 6 straight losses, or trainers (and their fighters) having
three knockouts in a row be placed under a 2-year suspension.
V. STATE COMMISSIONS
The right people should be selected by the Federal Boxing
Commission Czar to run the state commissions in accordance and
in alliance with the Federal Commission. All politically
appointed patronage jobs must be eliminated. A prime example is
what has taken place over the last few years in the State of
New York. We need people of merit with background in the sport.
Stop insulting us with the status quo of individuals filling
many of these positions throughout the country. We don't allow
this in legal firms and hospitals, as it would be unethical or
dangerous. The same applies here. Let these people find
``easy'' jobs where they can't hurt anyone.
VI. TELEVISION/CONTRACTS
Fighters require delegates or liaisons to assist in
negotiations. Too often promoters or agents deal directly with
television, and fighters are unaware of the ``full'' deal.
Incorporated along with this would be legal counsel available
to act as a monitor, arbitrator to fighters in regards to
management and promotional deals.
In conclusion, I would like to mention financing a Federal Boxing
Commission. I do not expect the Federal Government to absorb the bill.
Although I must say the lives that boxing influences and saves
outnumber most of the political programs that fall short of the jobs
they were intended to do when it comes to rehabilitation and saving our
youth. The financing for this commission can come from the same monies
that are now given to the Ratings Organizations for ``Sanctioning
Fees.'' This contribution, as well as a 2% tax from large successful
promotions, such as De La Joya-Vargas, or even Tyson-Lewis could assist
in subsidizing the costs of running a commission.
If these areas can be policed by the proper government support, as
in the example set by other sports, then boxing can do what it does
best when given the right opportunity. It can bring out the best in
people; help them find themselves; and develop confidence and dignity
through the tool of discipline and a structured road. Not all will
become champions, but many will become better people. I would hate to
think that the other more corporately amenable sports would be the only
ones where there is enough care to structure and secure the athletes.
That would mean that those participants are more worthy than the ones
in boxing. I hope not.
______
Prepared Statement of Don King, Chairman, President and CEO, Don King
Productions, Inc.
Ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your invitation to participate
in your hearings today on the federal regulation of the sport of
boxing. Nothing would please me more than to be with you today.
Unfortunately, however, due to a prior commitment critical to my
business, I am unable to appear personally. However, I have prepared
this statement and offer it for the record.
Boxing is alive and well. It is a global sport ranking probably
second only to soccer. Major fights are televised to billions worldwide
with audience levels comparable only to the Olympics and the World Cup.
Unlike other popular sports in the United States, boxing's
simplicity is universal and the rules are easy to understand. It is an
honorable tradition dating back to antiquity and more than any other
sport, incorporates athletic prowess, bravery, courage, endurance,
pageantry, excitement and compassion, all at the same time.
Boxing is governed by four major world sanctioning organizations,
viz., the World Boxing Council (WBC), the World Boxing Association
(WBA), the World Boxing Organization (WBO) and the International Boxing
Federation (IBF). The first three are controlled by Hispanics in
developing countries and the last by an African American woman in the
United States.
Free Enterprise and Diversity
While there is no question that boxing is big business, it has
historically been one of the last bastions of free enterprise. The fact
that my company is the most successful boxing promotional company in
the world demonstrates the fact that pioneers and trailblazers like me
can succeed in this land of opportunity.
This is not to say that it has been easy for me. when I first
entered boxing as a promoter and obtained the right to promote the
fight between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman, because of the color
barrier, I was forced to take the fight away from the country that I
love and promote it in one of the poorest countries in the world,
Zaire. Although that fight has come to be known as the ``rumble in the
jungle,'' the posters for that fight carry the original name I gave it:
``from the slave ship to the championship.'' You may be interested to
know that although I promoted the fight, I do not have any rights to
it, since, being unsophisticated at that time, I unwittingly
relinquished my rights to people I trusted. But it bought me my
economic emancipation, and I have never looked back.
I recognize that reform and progress are diametrically opposed to
custom and tradition, and that being a maverick, I make some people
uneasy. How is it that a black man from the ghetto, a former numbers
man, a convicted felon no less, was able to come to such prominence in
such a major sport? Is something going on? Given boxing's sordid past,
surely he must be involved in similar unsavory activity. The reality is
that I am a victim of my own success. I am the gadfly, rocking the
boat, and should learn to stay in my place. Simply, I am an American
and I believe in America!
I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. I live and breath these sacred and solemn words. They are my
soul. I am part of the evolutionary process of this great nation. It is
why I say ``only in America could a Don King happen.''
I also understand that while recent Congressional attempts at
reform were made in the spirit of the betterment of boxing and the
fighters, in my humble opinion Congress needs to take a serious look at
the inequity of targeting boxing for specialized treatment as well as
the unintended consequences of its reforms.
No other major sport in the United States, be it baseball,
basketball, football, etc. has the record of diversity that boxing has.
While the participants in these sports are predominantly minorities,
the teams and the sports themselves are controlled almost exclusively
by non-minorities. Given the Congressionally enacted monopoly for
baseball and the professional leagues for the other sports, it is
almost impossible for minorities to gain a foothold in these sports.
A short anecdote of mine illustrates this point. A few years back,
I was offered the opportunity to purchase a major league baseball team.
The owner was having some problems with the other team owners and told
me point blank that the best way he could think of to get even with
them was to sell the team to an African American. Nothing was more
frightening to them than that and they accommodated his every whim and
caprice and made him an offer he couldn't refuse in order to prevent
such an enormous calamity.
As you know, even non-minorities have difficulty entering the
market for other sports. The recent failure of Vince McMahon's and
Fox's XFL football league demonstrates the difficulty of entering the
other sports markets. We should be proud of boxing's free enterprise
history and do everything in our power to preserve and enhance it.
The Media Companies' Attempt to Control Boxing
I say this with some trepidation, however, as there have been
certain developments in recent years, particularly by the major media
companies to control the sport. HBO which is owned by AOL Time Warner;
Showtime which is owned by Viacom; and ESPN which is owned by Disney,
all have begun signing exclusive multi-fight agreements directly with
fighters. These companies are not regulated by any boxing commissions.
Under these exclusive agreements which often contain terms beyond
those permitted by law to promoters under current legislation, the
media companies have begun acting as the fighters' de facto promoters.
They control when the fighters fight, who they fight, where they fight
and how much they are paid. The questions must be asked: is it fair or
even legal to regulate promoters and not the media companies as well?
Does this really enhance free enterprise and the entrepreneurial spirit
of this great nation?
A few years ago when I was Mike Tyson's promoter, I tried to
promote a fight between him and Lennox Lewis, but was blocked by
Showtime and HBO which had exclusive agreements with Tyson and Lewis,
respectively. While the world sanctioning organizations have been much
maligned recently by these same media companies, the reality is that
the June 8th Tyson/Lewis fight only came about because the WBC had made
Mr. Tyson the mandatory challenger to Mr. Lewis. This meant that if HBO
and Showtime did not reach an agreement for the fight, the WBC would
have put the fight up for a purse bid. Under the purse bid rules, the
other promoters, like me, could have bid for the fight. The highest
bidder would have obtained the right to promote the fight, and HBO and
Showtime would not have necessarily had any rights to televise it. The
bottom line is that it was due to the role played by a world
sanctioning organization, the WBC in this case, that made this fight
happen.
But even more importantly, one need only look to what happens when
any promoter is eliminated from the equation. The last real mega-fight
equivalent to the upcoming Tyson/Lewis fight is the Holyfield/Tyson II
fight on June 28, 1997, notoriously known as the ``bite fight.'' That
fight generated 2 million pay per view buys and to date is the largest
grossing fight ever in the history of the sport.
When that fight was held, the pay per view universe in the United
States consisted of about 33 million homes and the retail price per
household for the fight was $50. For that fight, I guaranteed purses to
Tyson and Holyfield totaling $63 million. Today, the universe is 50
million homes (more than 50 percent higher than the number in 1997),
and the retail price for the fight is $60, $10 higher than in 1997.
Yet, instead of fighting for more money, Tyson and Lewis are fighting
for a combined $35 million in guaranteed purses, nearly \1/2\ of what I
paid 5 years ago. Again, the questions must be asked: is this what
happens when the media companies are not only the broadcaster, but also
the promoter? Is this good for the sport? Is it good for the public? Is
this free enterprise at work? Or is it restraint of trade? Or vertical
price fixing?
It is my belief that allowing the major media companies to become
boxing promoters is dangerous and that legislation should be enacted to
protect the fighters and promoters from the predatory practices of the
media companies. Just as it is important for a promoter to deal at arms
length with a fighter's manager, so too is it critical to the integrity
of this sport that the licensees of rights to a fight be at arms length
with the promoter. Combining the role of licensee and promoter is just
as dangerous as combining the role of promoter and manager.
While the traditional promoters are regulated under the Muhammad
Ali Boxing Reform Act and state athletic commission laws, the media
companies are virtually free from regulation. For example, HBO and
Showtime are effectively acting as the promoter of Tyson/Lewis;
however, they are not required to file their agreements with Tyson and
Lewis with the Tennessee State Athletic Commission since they are not
technically ``promoters'' under the Ali Act. Instead, if they hire a
local promoter to work the fight and if the local promoter is not a
party to the master agreements for the fight, those agreements may
never be filed with the commission. Furthermore, the disclosures under
the Ali Act which require the promoter to inform the fighters how much
revenue is to be earned from the event may not necessarily be provided
since the ``promoter'' will not truly be exploiting the rights to the
fight.
It is my view that the Ali Act should be revised to clearly make
these de facto promoters subject to the same rules as the traditional
promoters. The playing field should be leveled for all promoters, even
if these companies nominally call themselves broadcasters.
Another fact which needs to be considered is that the media
companies sign exclusive agreements with only the very best fighters.
They are not interested in performing the traditional role of promoters
in developing fighters. My company has approximately 140 boxers under
contract. One of our primary objectives is to develop young and up and
coming boxers. To do this, we effectively allocate part of the license
fees being paid by the media companies to these many other fighters so
that they can sustain themselves during the early part of their
careers.
While the media companies insist on televising primarily title
fights which are sanctioned by the major world sanctioning
organizations, they criticize them unmercifully and urge the fighters
signed with their network to relinquish their titles if the media
companies do not approve of the opponent.
Congress must ask itself what will happen to all the young and up
and coming fighters if the media companies are successful in putting
the traditional promoters and the sanctioning organizations out of
business. Will the sport be the better if a handful of huge corporate
monoliths control the sport?
The power of the media companies is awesome and my statements here
today may be the beginning of my demise. However, I owe it to America
and to the sport I love to tell it like it is. The reality is that as
big as the media makes me out to be, I am a small fry compared to these
giants, and Congress should be wary about their true intentions. In the
end, they will control not only what we read and think about the sport,
but they will control the sport and its makeup as well. That is what
Congress must correct.
The Pay per View Cartel
Another area that I believe must be addressed by federal
legislation is the unfair business practice that exists between the
major media companies and the cable pay per view distributor, in
demand. Many people do not realize that when they pay $50 dollars to
see a fight on pay per view, half the money, or $25 dollars, goes to
the cable operators.
While there are a number of cable operators in the United States
(although I would note that there are fewer and fewer that are
independent of the major media companies), they have gotten together
and created a cartel called ``In Demand''. In Demand is owned by AOL
Time Warner, AT&T, Comcast, Cox and Adelphia, although AOL Time Warner
controls the company. Additionally, almost all cable operators in the
United States are in demand ``affiliates.'' through its relationships
with the cable operators, in Demand effectively controls the pay per
view distribution of all boxing events in the United States and is able
to extract an exorbitant 50 percent fee from promoters for itself and
its affiliates.
The reality is that when you purchase a movie over the same pay per
view channel, the cable operators only get about $2. For roughly the
same amount of broadcast time, a boxing promoter must pay 1,250 percent
more. The American public and fighters are suffering as a result of
this cartel because if a promoter did not have to pay half the money to
the cable operators, the $50 pay per view price tag could be reduced
for the consumer and there would be even more money available to the
fighters.
While there is no question that other sports such as baseball have
difficulties with respect to cable distribution (the squabble between
the YES network and Cablevision is a recent example), by and large,
their problems pale in comparison to the ones plaguing boxing and for
the most part resolve themselves through free negotiation and without
coercion in a free marketplace.
I know for a fact that if there is free competition, the amount
that a pay per view distributor is willing to take to televise the
program decreases dramatically. You may have heard of DIRECTV which is
a satellite broadcaster. A few years ago, DIRECTV and a company Called
United States Satellite Broadcasting (USSB) were distributing their
programming over the same satellite system. We had been using USSB for
our pay per view events and like the cable operators, USSB was taking
about 50 percent of the retail price.
Because the fights were coming over the same satellite used by both
DIRECTV and USSB, even if you only subscribed to DIRECTV, you could
still purchase a pay per view fight from USSB. The same was true if you
only subscribed to USSB and not DIRECTV. This was materially different
from the cable operators since each cable operator owns the cable line
going into each home.
When DIRECTV learned how much USSB was earning from the pay per
view fights, they offered us a deal to be the exclusive distributor of
our fights over the satellite system for substantially less than the 50
percent USSB was taking. When USSB discovered this, they countered with
a very lucrative deal that they admitted effectively reduced their 50
percent share.
This proved to me that if there was free competition, the amount
that a cable or satellite distributor would be willing to take to
distribute a pay per view fight was substantially less than 50 percent
of the retail price. It is my view, therefore, that the in Demand
cartel is hurting fighters and American consumers and must be regulated
to enhance free competition.
Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act Compliance
With respect to the Ali Act, we have been told by a number of state
boxing directors, including Marc Ratner (Nevada), Greg Sirb
(Pennsylvania), Ray Locascio (New York), Chris Meffert (Florida), Billy
Lyons (Mississippi) and Peter Timothy (Mashantucket Pequot Tribal
Nation), that my company is the only one that has complied with the
full letter of the law. I understand that I was the principal target of
this law, but the reality is that it is the law of the land and if my
company has to file all its agreements and disclose how much revenue it
is earning from the fight, it is only fair and just that the other
promoters (including the television companies which are acting as de
facto promoters) should also have to comply.
Coercive Agreements
Now as we look back at the Ali Act, one of our principal concerns
is that the fighters could use it to attack an otherwise valid
agreement because the law itself is extremely broad and subject to
different interpretations.
Specifically, the Ali Act prohibits a promoter from having a
promotional agreement with a fighter for more than one year if the
agreement is ``coercive.'' A coercive agreement is defined as one the
fighter signs as a ``condition precedent'' to getting a fight with
another fighter who is already under contract to the promoter. While I
entirely support the policy behind this provision, the reality is that
it is being used by boxers to circumvent deals which they voluntarily
entered into with the advice and consent of competent legal counsel.
Since there are criminal penalties involved, my attorneys have advised
me that prior to signing a fighter to a three year promotional
agreement, I should obtain an affidavit (signed by the boxer under the
penalties of perjury and only after review by his attorney), that he is
voluntarily entering into a promotional agreement with my company and
not as a ``condition precedent'' to getting a fight with another
fighter. The realty is, however, that even with these affidavits, some
fighters are trying to use the Ali Act to try to circumvent their
contracts after they have fought for me and become champions under my
promotion.
Congress should look to create a safe harbor to the coercive
agreement rule. This safe harbor would provide that if the fighter is
represented by a licensed attorney or licensed manager, the coercive
agreement rule would not apply. Under this safe harbor, Congress could
be assured that if a fighter is signing a promotional agreement with a
promoter, he is being adequately represented. As long as the promoter
lives up to his end of the bargain, the fighter should not be able to
later threaten a lawsuit for violation of the Ali Act simply because he
fought one of our other fighters during the term of his promotional
agreement.
Ali Act Filings
The Ali Act requires a promoter to file all agreements with the
fighters with the applicable state athletic commission and to disclose
to the fighter the amount of gross revenues to be received by the
promoter from the event.
Although the Ali Act provides rules for keeping the fighter
agreements confidential, the reality is that the media companies have
been able to obtain the amount of purses being paid to the fighter for
the bout. More importantly, they have then been able to learn the
amount of compensation to be earned by the fighters for their future
bouts and then use this information to negotiate lower license fees
which they are willing to pay for the fighter's future bouts. Media
companies simply do not care about the fact that part of their license
fees are being used by the promoter to pay purses of undercard boxers
so that they can earn a living and hopefully develop into main event
fighters. The media companies are only interested in the ``creme-de-la-
creme'' fighters and not in maintaining the sport itself. Only
promoters bear the responsibility for developing fighters, and thus
they play a crucial role in the perpetuation of the sport.
As a result of media companies gaining access to this information,
instead of being able to negotiate higher license fees from the media
companies, the license fees have been decreasing and as a consequence,
the amount that we as promoters are able to pay the fighters and
particularly the undercard fighters is being reduced dramatically. I am
confident that this was not Congress' intent in requiring the
promotional agreements to be filed, but it is a reality and Congress
needs to address the benefits of requiring these filings versus the
costs to the fighters and the sport in general.
Ali Act Disclosures
We are also concerned about the rule in the Ali Act requiring a
promoter to disclose to all undercard boxers fighting in the event the
amount of gross revenues to be received by the promoter. This
information is proprietary and is not at all relevant to the undercard
boxers. The reality is that the undercard bouts are not televised and
the arena is substantially empty when their fights take place, except
for friends and relatives of the boxers who in most cases have obtained
their tickets for free. These fights are included as part of the event,
not because they generate additional revenues for the promoter, but
because the promoter has an obligation to the sport of boxing to
promote and develop these fighters so that they can hopefully become
main event fighters. Their purses effectively represent an investment
by the promoter in the boxer. No legitimate policy is served by
requiring this information to be disclosed to undercard fighters.
With respect to the main event fighters, many of these fighters
receive upsides in their bout agreements and obtain audit rights to
verify the amount of the upside. Additionally, the main event fighters
are in a superior bargaining position compared to the undercard
fighters and the managers and attorneys already know their value. The
disclosure of gross revenues is irrelevant to the main event fighters
since it does not require disclosure of how much the opponent is
earning nor the other expenses of the promoter. Requiring a promoter to
disclose such amounts gives a distorted picture to these fighters and
serves no legitimate purpose. What is required (and in fact what
already exists under state boxing laws) are mechanisms to ensure that
the promoter pays the fighter the agreed upon purse.
Reciprocity
Another issue that I feel must be addressed relates to the
reciprocity among the various state athletic commissions. As you may
know, there is an association in the United States called the
Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC); however, the ABC's decisions
do not have to be followed by the various state athletic commissions. I
personally believe that it is an abomination that other state athletic
commissions did not respect the reasoned decision of the Nevada State
Athletic Commission (NSAC) to reject Mr. Tyson's application for a
boxing license, especially after Mr. Tyson testified, under oath, in
his hearing that he had not Bitten Lennox Lewis during the press
conference in New York and later admitted that he did bite him. The
NSAC is the most respected boxing commission in the world and the ABC
also recommended that other commissions honor the NSAC's decision.
Although many boxing Commissions did honor Nevada's decision, it is our
view that the decision should have been respected and followed by all
boxing commissions in the United States.
Federal Boxing Commission
This segue ways into whether there is a need for a federal boxing
commission to regulate boxing in the United States. As I alluded to
earlier, the ABC already provides quasi federal oversight and I believe
that Congress should recommend that its decisions be followed by the
other commissions. That being said, I do not believe that we should
take away from the states the power to regulate the fights taking place
in their respective jurisdictions. I am concerned that creating a
federal agency might affect the entrepreneurial spirit of boxing.
Additionally, such an undertaking would be very expensive and
effectively require the creation of huge federal bureaucracy to
replicate what already exists at the state level. There still would be
a need to staff and house local commissions in each of the major boxing
states since the commissions effectively run the shows. They conduct
the weigh ins, select the referees and judges, hold hearings, engage
medical personnel, oversee the anti-doping and ensure payment of the
fighters' purses. It is my view that to recreate this at the federal
level would be an unnecessary expenditure of taxpayers' money.
Retirement Plan
One of the most troubling things for me as a promoter is to pay
hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) to a fighter only to
see it squandered on extravagances. The worst thing is that I am then
blamed for the fact that some fighters later end up destitute and on
public welfare. Although we counsel our fighters and encourage them to
save for their retirement, the reality is that many fighters come from
the lowest rung on the socioeconomic ladder and do not have the
training and experience to see that their career will be over in just a
few years and that the money they make now must last a lifetime.
One of my favorite mottos is ``prevention is better than cure.''
therefore, I am strongly in favor of mandatory retirement deductions
from a fighter's purse to fund a retirement plan for the boxers. The
contributions would kick in only after the gross purse reaches a
certain level, e.g., $25,000, and would be an increasing percentage as
the purse increases. There could be exceptions if the fighter
demonstrates that he has established his own retirement plan or for
early withdrawals, such as for medical needs. A retirement plan would
help ensure that the boxer lives a dignified life after he retires and
does not become another burden to society. We owe this to the fighters
who provide us with such wonderful and glorious entertainment.
Finally, I would again like to thank the Committee for giving us
the opportunity to express our views. To the extent that you feel the
need for new legislation, we would welcome the opportunity to provide
you with our comments. I would respectfully request that my statement
be made part of the official record. Thank you.