[Senate Hearing 119-510]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-510
RETURN TO YOUR CORNERS:
HAVE FEDERAL BOXING LAWS GONE THE
DISTANCE OR SLIPPED THE JAB?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 22, 2026
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
64-418 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi Ranking
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GARY PETERS, Michigan
TODD YOUNG, Indiana TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
TED BUDD, North Carolina TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JOHN CURTIS, Utah BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
TIM SHEEHY, Montana JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ANDY KIM, New Jersey
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director
Nicole Christus, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Lila Harper Helms, Staff Director
Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 22, 2026................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................ 1
Statement of Senator Rosen....................................... 3
Statement of Senator Moreno...................................... 27
Witnesses
Oscar De La Hoya, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Golden
Boy Promotions................................................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Timothy L. Shipman, President, Association of Boxing Commissions
and Combative Sports, Executive Director, Florida Athletic
Commission..................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Nico Ali Walsh, Professional Boxer............................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Nick Khan, President, World Wrestling Entertainment.............. 13
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Oscar De La Hoya by:
Hon. Jacky Rosen............................................. 37
Hon. John Fetterman.......................................... 40
Response to written questions submitted to Timothy L. Shipman by:
Democratic Senators.......................................... 42
Response to written questions submitted to Nico Ali Walsh by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 46
Hon. Jacky Rosen............................................. 46
Hon. John Fetterman.......................................... 48
Response to written questions submitted to Nick Khan by:
Hon. Jacky Rosen............................................. 49
Hon. John Fetterman.......................................... 54
RETURN TO YOUR CORNERS:
HAVE FEDERAL BOXING LAWS GONE THE
DISTANCE OR SLIPPED THE JAB?
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2026
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz,
Chairman of the Committee Chairman, presiding.
Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Young, Moreno, Sheehy,
Rosen, Klobuchar, Fetterman, and Blunt Rochester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
The Chairman. Good morning. The Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation will come to order.
For generations, boxing has been a part of the rhythm of
American life. It lived in neighborhood gyms, in Friday night
fight cards, in radios and television sets, in stories passed
down from one generation to the next. Fathers watched fights
with their sons. Kids grew up knowing names like Joe Louis,
Sugar Ray Robinson, Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, and Mike
Tyson. Boxing has never been just about titles and purses. It's
about discipline, preparation, and willingness to step into the
ring and answer the bell. That's why the movie Rocky still
endures. Rocky tells a story that Americans have always
understood, instinctively, that hard work and perseverance
matters, that sometimes a fair shot is enough to change
everything.
Now, Rocky is fiction, but it lasts because it never felt
fake to Americans. It strikes a nerve with us because it
captured something real. The fighter that nobody believed in,
the long odds, the early mornings, the raw effort, not to
mention raw eggs and chicken coop chases, but above all, it is
the refusal to quit that stands the test of time. As Mike Tyson
is famous for saying, ``Everyone has a plan until they get
punched in the face.'' That's one reason boxing has always
occupied a special place in our national imagination. It's not
just about the outcome; it's about the courage to step in the
ring and fight.
Congress recognized the importance of this American pastime
30 years ago when it passed the Professional Boxing Safety Act,
and later, the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act. Those laws were
meant to protect fighters, to promote fairness, and to address
real abuses that had taken root in boxing. They were meant to
set basic guardrails without remaking the sport from
Washington. But with every change comes tradeoffs. That
framework has helped to guard against certain abuses and
preserve some level of competition within the sport. At the
same time, it has contributed to a system that is overly
complex, with multiple sanctioning body, competing interests,
and recurring challenges in organizing major fights.
Views on this structure differ. Some see it as a necessary
feature of a system that protects independence and competition.
Others see it as a source of fragmentation that makes boxing
harder to navigate for fighters and fans alike. This complexity
shows up in ways that fans recognize highly anticipated fights
are delayed or never materialize due to promotional disputes.
In some weight classes, multiple fighters are recognized
simultaneously as champions, making it harder to follow the
sport and harder to determine who truly is the best. The
broader landscape has shifted as well. Mixed martial arts has
grown up rapidly over the past 2 decades, delivering more
consistent matchups and drawing larger audiences, while
boxing's biggest viewership is concentrated on just a handful
of marquee fights.
Three decades after Congress first acted, we have an
opportunity to reflect on the specific ways the Federal
framework may be doing more harm than good. These laws
undoubtedly helped to improve inconsistent health and safety
standards for fighters, and a lack of transparency in contracts
and rankings. However, those laws have also locked in place an
arrangement that makes boxing harder for fans to follow.
Against this backdrop, the House of Representatives
recently passed the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act
with overwhelming bipartisan support. The bill creates a
pathway for a unified league-style structure to exist alongside
the current system. It introduces the concept of a unified
boxing organization or UBO, because the world needed more
acronyms, which would operate much like a traditional sports
league where a centralized entity employs athletes while still
allowing the traditional model to continue as well.
After having spoken to numerous stakeholders across boxing
and combat sports, it's clear that there are persistent
challenges in the current model. Challenges that fighters,
promoters and fans alike recognize, even if they differ on the
cause and the cure. With that in mind, I expect to soon
introduce a Senate version of the House-passed Ali Revival Act.
We need more predictable pathways for matchmaking and
simplified rankings. I believe allowing for a more unified
structure to take hold could help the sport compete more
effectively against other combat sport competitors. I have no
doubt that throughout the legislative process there are going
to be changes to the bill. There will be amendments to address
real concerns and to make sure we design a system that operates
in the best interest of everyone; the fighters, the sport, and
the fans.
Today, the Committee has gathered a group of witnesses who
have lived this to help create a final product that is a win
for fans and boxers alike. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses and to a conversation that helps us take a clear look
at the issues, and moves us forward thoughtfully while keeping
Congress in its proper corner.
With that I recognize Ranking Member Rosen.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Rosen. Well, good morning, everyone, and thank you,
Chairman Cruz, for holding this really important hearing. I
want to welcome our guests here today, and I thank them in
advance for their insight and their testimony as we work to
craft something that will work for everyone.
And before I get into my remarks, I'm going to take a point
of personal privilege because my in-laws first date was to the
fights, as my mother-in-law used to say. As her first date we
saw my father-in-law, but they went to a boxing match. They
were married 62 years. They always loved the fights. They
always went, and so I just remember them today. They were big
fans their entire life. And so, they're no longer with us, but
maybe they're sitting on my shoulder today. My father-in-law
for sure.
Anyway, it has been over two decades since the Commerce
Committee has held a hearing to discuss the boxing industry.
That was for the rise of mixed martial arts and other combat
sports, before the proliferation of viewing options and
streaming services, and before scientific research on the
impact of head trauma in sports has on the progression of
disease like CTE. So, suffice it to say, we're long overdue to
examine the state of boxing in America.
Again, I want to thank this panel of witnesses for being
here to testify on such an important part of our sports and
entertainment economy, particularly in Nevada. And I'm
interested to hear what each of you has to say on the
challenges boxing as a sport is facing today, and what
legislative solutions we should really consider.
Boxing has a long-storied history in America. My hometown
of Las Vegas, it has been and remains, I won't do any
imitations, the undisputed capital, right, of the combat sports
of the world. The biggest fights take place there; the largest
purses are paid. We're proud home of the UFC, and this past
week we hosted WrestleMania. We've been the site of countless
legendary boxing matches from the infamous Tyson versus
Holyfield fight in 1997, and the highly anticipated Mayweather
versus Pacquiao bout in 2015, the highest grossing event in all
boxing history. Las Vegas has seen it all.
In the 19th century, when most states had outlawed prize
fighting, Nevada welcomed the sport. In the mid-20th century,
the growing entertainment industry in Las Vegas invested in
building an ecosystem that supported boxing, as boxing bouts
drove fans and support for tourism industry in our state. That
remains true today. Just last September, the Canelo versus
Crawford fight at Allegiant Stadium drew over 70,000 fans,
became the most watched men's championship boxing match of this
century. So far, so far, right?
Over 90 percent of those attending the fight were
nonlocals, and they came to Las Vegas specifically for this
fight, which drove over $300 million of economic impact for Las
Vegas. So, today, when people around the world picture a
championship fight, they picture Allegiant Stadium, MGM Grand
Garden Arena, or T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas. But that also
means that any significant changes to the boxing industry would
have profound impacts on Las Vegas; its venues, its promoters,
the boxers, workers living there.
So, when Congress first passed legislation regulating
boxing nearly 30 years ago, it did so with a clear purpose of
establishing health and safety protections for boxers. Four
years later, Congress passed the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform
Act, also known as the Ali Act, to address the anti-competitive
and exploitive practices rampant then in the industry. Since
then, multiple bills have been introduced in an attempt to
improve boxing and combat sports, although none have passed.
Now, in 2026, boxing has the potential to once again
captivate people across the country and around the world. The
Canelo versus Crawford fight--excuse me, is proof of that. But
with so much entertainment competing for so many eyes and so
many dollars, few would argue that boxing isn't due for some
kind of change that will revitalize the sport and bring it back
to its former glory. The question really is for us how to best
go about creating opportunities for expansion while still
protecting the core of boxing, the boxers themselves. So that's
what we have to do.
So, I'm interested to hear what you all have to say today,
how we can improve boxing as a whole, because anytime Congress
weighs in on the structure of a sport, it is critical we
understand the potential impacts, and how changing incentives
can end up just changing an entire sports landscape. Boxing is
the only sport in America that is federally regulated to this
degree, and we owe it to the sport, to the athletes, to their
trainers, to everyone in the ecosystem and their fans to get
the regulations right. So, thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. I'd now like to introduce our
witnesses for today. Ladies and gentlemen, on my left, wearing
a blue pinstripe suit and a light blue shirt, he is an 11-time
world champion across six divisions. He holds a professional
record of 39 wins and 6 losses with 30 wins by knockout. In
1992, he captured Olympic gold and earned his nickname, ``The
Golden Boy.'' Now a major promoter at Golden Boy Promotions,
weighing in at 133 and 34 pounds----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Our first witness is the Pride of East LA,
Mr. Oscar De La Hoya. We have a really quiet crowd today.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. Also on my left is the Executive Director of
the Florida Athletic Commission, and the President of the
Association of Boxing Commissioners, representing 56 regulatory
commissions across the United States. His background includes
21 years of honorable service in the United States Marine
Corps--there we go--and 20 years as a combat sports regulator.
For his contributions to combat sports, he was introduced into
the Florida Boxing Hall of Fame, and the Florida MMA Hall of
Fame. We welcome to the Committee, Mr. Tim Shipman.
Senator Rosen. All right, we are going to clap for
everyone.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. On my right is a boxer out of Las Vegas,
Nevada. He holds a professional record of 13 wins, two losses
and one draw with five wins by knockout. He comes off a
unanimous decision victory in his most recent bout in December.
He is the grandson of the legendary boxer, Muhammad Ali.
Weighing in at 159.6 pounds, we welcome Mr. Nico Ali Walsh.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. And, finally, in the right corner of the
panel, our final witness today is a successful businessman with
extensive experience in combat sports. Formerly the co-head of
television at Creative Artists Agency, where he represented the
biggest names and entities in sports media, and now the
President of World Wrestling Entertainment and a promoter of
Zuffa Boxing, we welcome to this committee, Mr. Nick Khan.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. And now, if you can touch gloves, and Mr. De
La Hoya, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF OSCAR DE LA HOYA, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, GOLDEN BOY PROMOTIONS
Mr. De La Hoya. Members of the Committee, thank you very
much for this opportunity today. My name is Oscar De La Hoya,
I'm a U.S. Olympic gold medalist, a six-division, 11-time world
champion, and now run Golden Boy Promotions.
I care deeply about boxing, and more importantly, about the
fighters who step into the ring and risk their lives for our
entertainment. I'm here because I strongly believe the proposed
changes to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act take us in the
wrong direction. Today, you will hear many different
perspectives, some that may want to discredit the decades-long
work the sports stakeholders have already done to create a safe
sport that puts fighters first, and creates a free marketplace
for fighters to negotiate the best deals for their families and
for their personal legacies.
I grew up in East LA with very little. Boxing was my way
out. When I won the Olympic Gold at 18 years old, I had
promoters coming at me from every direction. My family and I
didn't have access to legal advice. I signed the first contract
put in front of me without fully understanding it. It didn't
take long to realize I had been taken advantage of. That
experience is not unique. Many fighters enter this sport young,
trusting, and without resources, and once they are locked into
the wrong deal, it is very difficult to get out. That is
exactly why the Ali Act exists. I had the opportunity to work
with Senator John McCain on this. As a national hero, a
prisoner of war, and someone who loved boxing, as a former
Golden Gloves fighter, he understood the risks fighters take
and the need to protect them.
The Ali Act reflects that commitment to fairness and to
protecting fighters from being taken advantage of. Passed in
2000, the Ali Act addresses real problems including conflicts
of interest, lack of transparency, and the exploitation of
fighters. It creates a system designed to protect fighters and
preserve a fair open marketplace. Those protections still
matter today. This principle change of the proposed amendment
allows a promoter to create an entity that serves as both
promoter and governing body, a so-called ``unified boxing
organization.'' This mirrors the existing MMA model, and
creates a closed system controlling rankings, titles, and
access to opportunity.
Under this structure, as long as the UBO complies with its
own internal rules, it would not violate the Muhammad Ali
Boxing Reform Act. Meanwhile, traditional promoters like myself
would still be required to comply with full financial
disclosures and reporting requirements. In other words, one
system operates under transparency and accountability, while
the UBOs do not. This is a fundamental shift in power that, if
changed, would put corporate profits first, fighters second.
We should be clear about who benefits from this. These
changes align directly with what Zuffa Boxing and its
leadership at TKO Group holdings have already said. They intend
to build in boxing a model similar to the UFC, and we already
know what that model looks like, and it does not work for the
fighters. The UFC and its parent company agreed to a $375
million antitrust settlement after fighters accused them of
suppressing wages and restricting competition.
At the same time, Zuffa Boxing is fully funded by the
Saudis. We've already seen how that kind of funding reshaped
another sport through LIV Golf. We should be honest about what
is happening here. That was sports washing, a clear effort to
use sports to reshape reputation. Now, players who were drawn
in by the money are trying to come back to the PGA Tour since
the league will lose $5 billion in funding. This should serve
as a warning.
Transparency is just as critical. In current Zuffa
contracts, fighters are locked into rigid earnings structures
with little to no ability to negotiate. The promoter controls
all major revenue streams, including media rights, ticket
sales, and sponsorships, while fighters are limited to
guaranteed purses and discretionary bonuses, with only narrow
participation in upside revenue. As an independent contractor,
fighters won't have leverage when one system controls all
opportunities. Under current law, fighters already have the
right to see the financials behind every event they headline,
giving them a fair opportunity to negotiate their compensation.
I also want to address safety. The proposed changes suggest
improved protections, but boxing already has strong safeguards
in place and existing protections, including health insurance
for injuries and life insurance for fighters' families.
Commissions and promoters ensure fighters are medically cleared
and covered, and cover related costs. If this proposal is truly
about protecting fighters, why are MMA athletes not included at
all? They compete in a similar dangerous sport, yet, they are
completely excluded. That raises serious concerns about whether
it's truly about protection, or about restructuring control of
boxing.
Fighters deserve real protection and real opportunity, not
have to fight the system as well. If this bill passes, fighters
will have fewer choices, less leverage, and less control over
their careers. And when that happens, it will not be the sport
that failed them. It will be us.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. De La Hoya follows:]
Prepared Statement of Oscar De La Hoya
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the
Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
My name is Oscar De La Hoya. I am a U.S. Olympic Gold Medalist, a
six-division, 11-time world champion, and now run Golden Boy
Promotions. I care deeply about boxing, and more importantly, about the
fighters who step into the ring and risk their lives for our
entertainment.
I'm here as a former fighter because I strongly believe the
proposed changes to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act take us in the
wrong direction. Today, you will hear many different perspectives, some
that may want to discredit the decades long work the sport's
stakeholders have already done to create a safe sport that puts
fighters first and creates a free marketplace for fighters to negotiate
the best deals for their families and their personal legacy.
I grew up in East Los Angeles with very little. Boxing was my way
out. When I won my gold medal at 18, I had promoters coming at me from
every direction. My family and I didn't have access to legal advice,
and I signed the first contract put in front of me without fully
understanding it. It didn't take long to realize I had been taken
advantage of. That experience is not unique. Many fighters enter this
sport young, trusting, and without resources, and once they are locked
into the wrong deal, it is very difficult to get out. That is exactly
why the Ali Act exists.
I had the opportunity to work with Senator John McCain on this. As
a national hero, a prisoner of war, and someone who loved boxing as a
former Golden Gloves fighter, he understood the risks fighters take and
the need to protect them. The Ali Act reflects that commitment to
fairness and to protecting fighters from being taken advantage of.
Passed in 2000, the Ali Act addresses real problems including
conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, and the exploitation of
fighters. It creates a system designed to protect fighters and preserve
a fair, open marketplace. Those protections still matter today.
The principal change of the proposed amendment allows a promoter to
create an entity that serves as both promoter and governing body, a so-
called ``Unified Boxing Organization.'' This mirrors the existing MMA
model and creates a closed system controlling rankings, titles, and
access to opportunity.
Under this structure, as long as the UBO complies with its own
internal rules, it would not violate the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform
Act. Meanwhile, traditional promoters, like myself, would still be
required to comply with full financial disclosure and reporting
requirements.
In other words, one system operates under transparency and
accountability, while the UBOs do not. This is a fundamental shift in
power that if changed would put corporate profits first, fighters
second. We should be clear about who benefits from this.
These changes align directly with what Zuffa Boxing and its
leadership at TKO Group Holdings have already said they intend to build
in boxing, a model similar to the UFC. And we already know what that
model looks like and it does not work for fighters. The UFC and its
parent company agreed to a $375 million antitrust settlement after
fighters accused them of suppressing wages and restricting competition.
At the same time, Zuffa boxing is fully funded by Saudi Arabia.
We've already seen how that kind of funding reshaped another sport
through LIV Golf. We should be honest about what is happening here.
That was sportswashing, a clear effort to use sports to reshape
reputations. Now, players who were drawn in by the money are trying to
come back to the PGA Tour since the league will lose $5 Billion in
Saudi-funding. This should serve as a warning.
Transparency is just as critical. In current Zuffa contracts,
fighters are locked into rigid earning structures with little to no
ability to negotiate. Zuffa controls all major revenue streams
including media rights, ticket sales, and sponsorships, while fighters
are limited to guaranteed purses and discretionary bonuses, with only
narrow participation in upside revenue. As independent contractors,
fighters won't have leverage when one system controls all
opportunities. Under current law, fighters already have the right to
see the financials behind the events they headline, giving them a fair
opportunity to negotiate their compensation.
I also want to address safety. The proposed changes suggest
improved protections, but boxing already has strong safeguards in place
and existing protections, including health insurance for injuries and
life insurance for fighters' families. Commissions and promoters ensure
fighters are medically cleared and cover related medical costs.
If this proposal is truly about protecting fighters, why are MMA
athletes not included at all? They compete in a similarly dangerous
sport, yet they are completely excluded.
That raises serious concerns about whether this is truly about
protection or about restructuring control of boxing. Fighters deserve
to come first, shareholder profits second.
Fighters deserve real protection and real opportunity--not have to
fight the system as well.
If this bill passes, fighters will have fewer choices, less
leverage, and less control over their careers.
And when that happens, it will not be the sport that failed them.
It will be us.
Thank you for your time. I am happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. De La Hoya. Mr. Shipman.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY SHIPMAN, PRESIDENT,
ASSOCIATION OF BOXING COMMISSIONS AND
COMBATIVE SPORTS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
FLORIDA ATHLETIC COMMISSION
Mr. Shipman. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman. I can't
override that great introduction that you gave to me, so, I'll
start with my testimony, and thank you very much. My testimony
today reflects these experiences and is intended to provide
information regarding the implementation and potential impacts
of the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, along with
information about the current state of boxing regulation.
The Florida Athletic Commission is responsible for
regulating professional boxing, kickboxing, and mixed martial
arts within the state. Florida remains one of the most active
combat sports markets in the Nation, consistently ranking among
the top five in all combative sports, and top three for boxing.
The state has volumes of hosting major national and
international promotions. Just as importantly, we pride
ourselves on being a leader in the fighter health and safety.
Florida maintains significant medical requirements and
oversight standards, including mandatory ringside physicians at
all events, robust profile medicals, and strong post-bout
monitoring procedures. These safety measures have produced
real-world results. For example, during an event last year, a
fighter collapsed in the ring. Because Florida requires a
ringside physician to be present and immediately available, and
not simply on call, the doctor was able to initiate lifesaving
care within seconds. The fighter survived because of safeguards
Florida has put into place. This is precisely why strong
medical standards matter.
The legislation before you proposes significant updates to
the Federal framework governing professional boxing, including
provisions related to fighter safety, compensation,
organizational structure, and Federal and State coordination.
My testimony today will focus on how these changes may function
in practice, and their potential impact at the State level.
Beginning with safety, the bill includes several
enhancements that align with, and in some cases, exceed
Florida's already high standards. These include medical testing
protocols, minimum insurance coverage, and additional anti-
doping measures. The legislation establishes national minimum
standards for fighter compensation, medical care, drug testing,
and insurance coverage. These provisions may promote greater
uniformity across jurisdictions, and when implemented, will
introduce additional operational and financial considerations
for both commissions and promoters.
With respect to the implementation, each state will need to
update rules, procedures, and administrative frameworks to
reflect the bill's requirements. In Florida, we estimate an
implementation timeline of approximately 3 to 6 months,
depending on the timing and clarity of the final Federal
guidance. Additionally, the bill introduces structural reforms,
most notably, the creation of a unified boxing organization.
These entities are intended to expand pathways for fighters to
compete, improve compensation, increase access to medical care,
and promote greater transparency across the sport. UBOs may
also offer more consistent access to training opportunities.
Ultimately, UBOs are designated to enhance fighters' ability to
seed while reshaping the traditional framework of professional
boxing.
From a regulatory perspective, this represents a
substantial shift. States will require clear guidance on how
UBOs integrate with existing licensing, event approval, and
oversight systems. Effectively coordination between Federal
standards and State regulatory authorities will remain
essential to prevent duplication and avoid conflict and
requirements. Ultimately, the overall impact of this
legislation will depend on its final structure, the extent of
Federal guidance, and level of coordination with State
regulatory bodies. Adequate time, clarity, and flexibility for
states are essential for a smooth and effective transition.
In closing, Florida stands ready to work with Federal and
State partners to implement any enacted requirements in a
manner that supports effective oversight, and promotes the
health, and safety, and welfare of all participants. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shipman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy L. Shipman, Executive Director, Florida
Athletic Commission
For the record, my name is Timothy Shipman, and I serve as
Executive Director of the Florida Athletic Commission within the
Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. I also
serve as President of the Association of Boxing Commissions and
Combative Sports, representing 56 regulatory bodies across the United
States. My background includes 21 years of honorable Service in the
United States Marine Corps and 20 years working in combative sports as
a regulator, holding positions as Inspector, Chief Inspector,
Timekeeper, Coordinator, Assistant Executive Director and now Director
of the Florida Athletic Commission. My testimony today reflects these
experiences and is intended to provide information regarding the
implementation and potential impacts of the Muhammad Ali American
Boxing Revival Act along with information about the current state of
boxing regulation.
The Florida Athletic Commission is responsible for regulating
professional boxing, kickboxing, and mixed martial arts within the
state. Florida remains one of the most active combative sports markets
in the nation, consistently ranking among the top states for event
volume and hosting major national and international promotions. Just as
importantly, we pride ourselves on being a leader in fighter health and
safety. Florida maintains significant medical requirements and
oversight standards, including mandatory ringside physicians at all
events, robust pre-fight medicals, and strong post-bout monitoring
procedures.
These safety measures have produced real-world results. For
example, during an event last year, a fighter collapsed in the ring
after the final bell. Because Florida requires a ringside physician to
be present and immediately available, and not simply on call, the
doctor was able to initiate lifesaving care within seconds. The fighter
survived because of safeguards Florida has put in place. This is
precisely why strong medical standards matter. The legislation before
you proposes significant updates to the Federal framework governing
professional boxing, including provisions related to fighter safety,
compensation, organizational structure, and federal-state coordination.
My testimony today will focus on how these changes may function in
practice and their potential impact at the state level.
Beginning with safety, the bill includes several enhancements that
align with and, in some cases, exceed Florida's already high standards.
These include medical testing protocols, minimum insurance coverage,
and additional anti-doping measures. The legislation establishes
national minimum standards for fighter compensation, medical care, drug
testing, and insurance coverage. These provisions may promote greater
uniformity across jurisdictions and when implementing will introduce
additional operational and financial considerations for both
commissions and promoters.
With respect to implementation, each state will need to update
rules, procedures, and administrative frameworks to reflect the bill's
requirements. In Florida, we estimate an implementation timeline of
approximately three-to-six months, depending on the timing and clarity
of the final Federal guidance.
Additionally, the bill introduces structural reforms, most notably
the creation of Unified Boxing Organizations (UBOs). These entities are
intended to expand pathways for fighters to compete, improve
compensation, increase access to medical care, and promote greater
transparency across the sport. UBOs may also offer more consistent
access to training opportunities. Ultimately, UBOs are designed to
enhance fighters' ability to succeed while reshaping the traditional
framework of professional boxing. From a regulatory perspective, this
represents a substantial shift. States will require clear guidance on
how UBOs integrate with existing licensing, event approval, and
oversight systems. Effective coordination between Federal standards and
state regulatory authorities will remain essential to prevent
duplication and avoid conflicting requirements.
Ultimately, the overall impact of this legislation will depend on
its final structure, the extent of Federal guidance, and the level of
coordination with state regulatory bodies. Adequate time, clarity, and
flexibility for states are essential for a smooth and effective
transition. In closing, Florida stands ready to work with Federal and
state partners to implement any enacted requirements in a manner that
supports effective oversight and promotes the health and welfare of
participants.
If you have any questions or need any further information, don't
hesitate to get in touch with the Florida Athletic Commission at (850)
488-8500 or e-mail me directly: [email protected]
Sincerely,
Timothy L. Shipman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Walsh.
STATEMENT OF NICO ALI WALSH, PROFESSIONAL BOXER
Mr. Walsh. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Rosen, and members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today. My name is Niko Ali Walsh, I'm a professional
boxer, and the grandson of Muhammad Ali. I'm here as someone
whose name is directly tied to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform
Act, not just as a fighter affected by it, but as part of the
legacy that law represents.
To build on Mr. De La Hoya's statements, fighters are
labeled independent contractors. As a result, people say
fighters will have options, that we can just go elsewhere. But
when the same company controls who you fight, how you're
promoted, and whether fans ever see you, it's not much of a
choice. When one system controls access, choice becomes
theoretical, not real. The Ali Act was built on a simple
principle: The people controlling fighters should not also
control the entire marketplace those fighters depend on. That
separation exists to prevent conflicts of interest and
exploitation.
The new Muhammad Ali Boxing Revival Act would undermine
that principle. By allowing one entity to operate across
promotion, management, and matchmaking, it removes
independence. When that happens, you fight who you're told to
fight or you don't fight at all. At that point, real choice
disappears and so does negotiation. This type of centralized
system is already seen in mixed martial arts, particularly in
the UFC, where a single organization controls promotion,
matchmaking, and fighter contracts. In that model, fighters
typically receive under 20 percent of the revenue compared to
boxing, where fighters can earn up to 80 percent.
The newly proposed Revival Act pushes that centralized
model onto boxing behind the claim that boxing is broken.
Boxing is not broken. If it were, UFC champions at the height
of their careers would not be actively targeting boxing fights
because of the fair pay. That movement is rarely seen in
reverse due to the UFC's centralized pay structure. Boxing has
never been perfect, but one of its strengths has always been
competition. Multiple promoters competing for fighters creates
leverage and fair market value. When that competition is
consolidated to one system, leverage disappears.
This isn't abstract. I'm living it. Fighters understand
that speaking up can come with severe professional
consequences. That reality creates silence, and that silence is
part of the system. I've personally benefited from the
protections that exist today. After one of my fights, I was
notified that my opponent tested positive for performance
enhancing drugs. That fight was ruled a no contest. That
process; testing, enforcement, and oversight, worked and it
protected me. In another fight, I suffered a severe shoulder
injury in the ring that required surgery shortly after. The
current system ensured I received immediate medical attention
and proper care throughout my recovery. These are real examples
of the system working to protect fighters. That's the point.
Protection should be strengthened, especially around health and
safety, but not used as justification to restructure the sport
in a way that removes power from fighters.
The bill that the House has passed should not be adopted.
We could protect fighters more effectively than we do today
without concentrating control over them. If this bill is passed
in its current form, it should not have my grandfather's name
on it as it would betray the principles that his Act was
created to protect. He fought for dignity outside the ring.
This is about dignity inside it. Fighters should not have to
choose between their careers and their rights.
Fifty-five years ago, this year, my grandfather's name
appeared on these grounds, before this government, and he took
a stand for what he believed in. He did it knowing there would
be consequences. He did it knowing it could cost him
everything, and this country, at its best, recognized the
principle behind that stand. Today I'm here, decades later, in
that same spirit, not as a symbol, but as a fighter living
through the reality of this system. This moment is not about
the past. It's about whether we continue to stand on those same
principles now, and I believe we will.
Thank you, guys, for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walsh follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nico Ali Walsh
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the
Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Nico Ali Walsh. I am a professional boxer and the
grandson of Muhammad Ali. I'm here as someone whose name is directly
tied to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, not just as a fighter
affected by it, but as part of the legacy that law represents.
To build on Mr. De La Hoya's statements, fighters are labeled
independent contractors.
As a result, people say fighters will have options; that we can
just go elsewhere. But when the same company controls who you fight,
how you're promoted, and whether fans ever see you, it's not much of a
choice. When one system controls access, ``choice'' becomes
theoretical, not real.
The Ali Act was built on a simple principle: the people controlling
fighters should not also control the entire marketplace those fighters
depend on. That separation exists to prevent conflicts of interest and
exploitation. These are the firewall provisions in the current Act.
The new Muhammad Ali Boxing Revival Act would undermine that
principle. By allowing one entity to operate across promotion,
management, and matchmaking, it removes independence and replaces an
open market with a controlled structure.
When that happens, negotiation changes. Fighters are no longer
dealing with competing opportunities; they are dealing with a system
that controls access, structure, and terms. If fighters cannot clearly
see how value is created and distributed, they cannot negotiate on
equal ground.
This type of centralized system is already seen in mixed martial
arts, particularly in the UFC, where a single organization controls
promotion, matchmaking, and fighter contracts. In that model, fighters
typically receive under 20 percent of the revenue, compared to boxing,
where fighters can earn up to 80 percent.
Prizefighting has always been rooted in open competition for a
purse. The newly proposed Revival Act is entertainment--centrally
controlled--and presented as athletic competition behind the claim that
boxing is ``broken.''
Boxing is not broken. If it were, UFC champions, at the height of
their careers, would not be actively targeting boxing fights because of
the fair pay. That movement is rarely seen in reverse due to the UFC's
centralized pay structure.
Boxing has never been perfect, but one of its strengths has always
been competition. Multiple promoters competing for fighters creates
leverage, opportunity, and fair market value. When that competition is
replaced by consolidation, leverage disappears.
And once fighters lose leverage, they do not get it back, because
every contract, every negotiation, and every career decision is shaped
by that structure moving forward.
This isn't abstract. I'm living it. Fighters understand that
speaking up can come with severe professional consequences. That
reality creates silence long before anything is ever said.
I've personally benefited from the protections that exist today.
After one of my fights, I was notified that my opponent tested
positive for performance-enhancing drugs. That fight was ruled a no
contest. That process, testing, enforcement, and oversight worked; and
it protected me.
In another fight, I suffered a severe shoulder injury in the ring
that required surgery shortly after. The current system ensured I
received immediate medical attention and proper care throughout my
recovery.
These are real examples of the system working to protect fighters.
That's the point; protections should be strengthened, especially
around health and safety, but not used as justification to restructure
the sport in a way that removes power from fighters.
The bill that the House has passed should not be adopted. We can
protect fighters more effectively than we do today without
concentrating control over them.
If this bill is passed in its current form, it should not have my
grandfather's name on it, as it would no longer reflect the principles
that his Act was created to protect.
He fought for dignity outside the ring. This is about dignity
inside it. Fighters should not have to choose between their careers and
their rights.
55 years ago this year, my grandfather stood in the Supreme Court,
before this government, and took a stand for what he believed in. He
did it knowing there would be consequences. He did it knowing it could
cost him everything.
And this country, at its best, recognized the principle behind that
stand.
Today, I'm here decades later, in that same spirit, not as a
symbol, but as a fighter living through the reality of this system.
This moment is not about the past; it's about whether we continue
to stand on those same principles now.
And I believe we will.
Thank you for your time.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Khan, you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF NICK KHAN, PRESIDENT,
WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT
Mr. Khan. Chairman Cruz, Senator Rosen, members of the
Committee, it's a privilege to appear before you today. My name
is Nick Khan. I'm President of WWE. I helped to run Zuffa
Boxing, and I'm a board member of our parent company, TKO Group
Holdings. I'm also a lifelong fan of boxing, which makes the
current state of the sport all the more difficult to witness.
When Congress created the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act in
2000, it diagnosed a serious problem with the sport. This
committee now has the opportunity to remedy that problem and
restore one of the great American sporting institutions. It may
sound odd to some people in this room, but there was a time not
long ago when boxing in America was bigger than football and
basketball.
Fifty years ago, when Rocky came out, during the 1976
bicentennial, boxing was the most culturally dominant sport in
America. The greatest, Muhammad Ali, fought four times that
year, an unheard-of pace today. Two years prior, Ali knocked
out George Foreman in the Rumble in the Jungle, which was
broadcast to over 700 million people worldwide. 1976 was also
the year Sugar Ray Leonard won gold in Montreal. A mere 4 years
later, in 1980, Sugar Ray Leonard earned $8 million for a
single fight. The average NFL salary in 1980 was $80,000.
Talent follows money. The best athletes in America chose boxing
then.
The 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympics perfectly encapsulates
boxing before its precipitous decline. Nine Americans won gold
medals in boxing in 1984. In stark contrast, the U.S. has not
won an Olympic gold medal in men's boxing in over 20 years. In
fact, it's only won one male gold in boxing in 30 years since
the 1996 Olympic Games.
Again, Congress diagnosed this problem 26 years ago. Almost
every major American sport has a league that sets rules,
enforces standards, develops talent, and creates the conditions
for stars to emerge. Boxing has never had that structure.
Instead, it has a patchwork of sanctioning bodies whose
business model is charging boxers money for the right to be
called champions. Today, the WBC, a sanctioning body, alone,
recognizes 163 champions across 18 weight classes. To state the
obvious, there should simply be 18 champions across 18 weight
classes. But the more champions, the more fees to the
sanctioning bodies. And those fees come directly out of the
fighters' purses, typically 3 percent from both champion and
challenger.
The Muhammad Ali Boxing Revival Act is built on a simple
premise: Give boxers the freedom to choose a better system. The
Act as it currently stands would remain in place. The system as
it currently stands would remain in place. This is an or
option. Create the framework for unified boxing organizations,
otherwise known as UBOs, that can do what major sports do:
Promote competition, develop talent, enforce consistent
standards across one roof.
For boxers, this bill delivers concrete protections that
are long overdue. First, minimum pay of $200 per round, a floor
that exceeds the minimum in 49 states, and equals that of the
highest, California. Second, mandatory injury insurance of
$50,000 per bout at no cost to the boxer. Today, thousands of
professional boxers compete with no insurance at all. Under the
UBO structure, if it is passed, that we would do. The health
insurance would kick in when training camp starts, not just on
the night of the fight. So when a fighter goes into camp 8 or
12 weeks before, if there's an injury in that camp, that is
covered. Many fighters fight injured on fight night because,
again, there is no insurance until the night of the fight.
Third, a six-year cap on promotional contracts comparable
to rookie contracts in baseball and football, giving boxers a
genuine path to free agency. Fourth, standardized medical
protocols for every boxer; annual brain MRIs, cardiac testing,
brain health testing. The UFC is at the forefront of brain
health testing with its partnership with the Cleveland Clinic.
Anyone can form a UBO. Any existing boxing promoter,
anyone, as long as they're willing to meet those boxer
protection standards that I just articulated. It's for safety
and fair treatment of the boxers. If that disqualifies you from
wanting to form a UBO, the problem is not this bill. As you
know well, a few bills passed with overwhelming bipartisan
support. This one did through the House, incorporating multiple
changes.
Some of the sanctioning bodies oppose this bill. That's
because it threatens their dominance over the sport. As you
know, in 2028, the Olympics returned to LA, the same city where
those nine Americans won boxing gold in 1984. If this committee
acts now, there's an actual chance that American boxing will be
prepared to meet the moment. Otherwise, we will find ourselves
spectators in our own stadium.
To ensure this doesn't happen, we are committing $1 million
to organizations that build pathways from amateur boxing to the
professional ranks. That starts with the Police Athletic
Leagues, which has introduced generations of Americans youth to
this sport, including a young Cassius Clay. It's an
unconditional commitment because rebuilding boxing starts in
the local communities and gyms, and it has to start now.
I'm grateful for your time. I'm grateful for this
committee's commitment, and I welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Khan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nick Khan, President, WWE; Senior Executive,
Zuffa Boxing and Board Member, TKO Group Holdings
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and distinguished Members
of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about
the state of boxing.
My name is Nick Khan. I serve as President of WWE, help run Zuffa
Boxing, and I am a board member of our parent company, TKO Group
Holdings. I am also a lifelong fan of boxing, which makes the current
state of the sport all the more difficult to witness.
I am here because I believe this Committee can help accomplish
something historic: revive what was, for generations, a beloved
American institution, a sport once dominated by American athletes at
both the amateur and professional levels, by supporting the Muhammad
Ali American Boxing Revival Act.
The Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act is a direct response
to a problem Congress itself identified a quarter century ago, a
problem that has, unfortunately, become worse, not better.
My testimony today focuses on three key areas:
First, boxing's storied history. Before we can restore boxing's
status as an iconic American sport, it is important to recall what it
once was, for many of us, in our own lifetimes.
Second, what went wrong with the sport. Again, a decline Congress
anticipated 26 years ago when it last passed the original Ali Act.
Third, a new solution. The Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act
can help revive one of America's great sports institutions in the name
of one of America's great sports and civil rights icons. This
legislation would provide boxers with better health and safety
protections, greater compensation, and the freedom to choose their own
career path. It would also benefit the professional boxing ecosystem
and local communities by encouraging and incentivizing new promotions
to produce more events in the United States.
PART I: WHAT BOXING WAS--THE SPORT AMERICA BUILT
Fifty years ago, during America's Bicentennial in 1976, boxing was
already at the center of American culture, and the engine behind it was
the Olympics. For generations, the Olympics were where boxing champions
were made, where the public first fell in love with the athletes, and
where the sport's economic power was born. Cassius Clay won gold in
Rome in 1960. Joe Frazier won gold in Tokyo in 1964. George Foreman won
gold in Mexico City in 1968. The 1976 Montreal team produced Sugar Ray
Leonard, Leon Spinks, Michael Spinks, and Howard Davis.
Sugar Ray Leonard was a household name before he threw his first
professional punch. The Olympics pipeline minted stars.
Those stars made boxing the most culturally and economically
dominant sport in America. Ali's fights were national events: 300
million people watched the ``Fight of the Century'' in 1971; 700
million watched the ``Thrilla in Manila'' in 1975. In 1980, Sugar Ray
Leonard earned $8 million for a single fight--more than any baseball,
football, or basketball player made that entire season. In 1988, Mike
Tyson earned more in purses than the entire rosters of the Los Angeles
Lakers and the Boston Celtics combined. Talent follows money. The best
athletes in America chose boxing because boxing rewarded them best. And
boxing rewarded them best because the Olympic pipeline kept delivering
talent that the public wanted to see.
Consider what that Olympics boxing pipeline produced from 1984-
2004:
1984: Nine American Olympic gold medalists, including
Pernell Whitaker and Meldrick Taylor, with Evander Holyfield
taking home the bronze.
1988: Roy Jones gets robbed of the gold. Riddick Bowe
medals. Ray Mercer takes home the heavyweight gold medal.
1992: The Golden Boy Oscar De La Hoya wins gold.
1996: The Atlanta games. David Reid wins gold. Floyd
Mayweather goes home with a bronze medal.
2000: No American boxer wins gold.
2004: Andre Ward brings home the gold.
Alarmingly, the United States has not won a men's Olympic boxing
gold medal in 22 years. If our championship pipeline is not rebuilt,
we'll find ourselves spectators in our own stadium in Los Angeles at
the Summer Olympics in 2028.
PART II: WHAT BOXING HAS BECOME--A SPORT IN MANAGED DECLINE
The Numbers Tell the Story
The contrast between boxing's past and present is not a matter of
nostalgia. It is quantifiable, measurable, and stark.
Consider the 1984 Olympic team that I just referenced. American
boxers won a record nine gold medals at the Los Angeles Games that
year, with most of those athletes becoming huge stars as professionals
competing on cable and network television. A mere twenty years later,
at the 2004 Athens Games, an American male won his last gold medal in
boxing--a time before the iPhone was invented. By comparison,
Uzbekistan won five gold medals at the Paris Summer Olympics in 2024.
My great respect to Uzbekistan--a country of 36 million people--but
something has gone terribly wrong in American boxing that has dried up
our previously prolific Olympic talent pipeline.
The media picture is equally sobering. HBO was synonymous with
boxing for decades. From its first fight broadcast in 1973--George
Foreman versus Joe Frazier, a seismic bout that launched the network's
sports identity--through the early 2000s, HBO made boxing cinematic and
essential. In 2018, HBO ended its boxing coverage entirely.
NBCUniversal followed three years later, airing its final bout in 2021.
In 2022, Fox went dark on boxing as well. Showtime did the same the
following year. And in the summer of 2025, ESPN let its regularly
scheduled boxing contract expire, closing the book on more than eighty
years of boxing on American broadcast and cable television.
As the boxing writer Dan Rafael put it in 2025, ``There will be no
regularly scheduled boxing on linear TV in the U.S. for the first time
essentially since the 1940s when TV became widely accessible. Shame on
the stewards of the sport who let it happen.''
Today, boxing in the United States exists almost entirely on an
expensive, not widely known paid streaming service that also offers
pay-per-view fights. Zuffa Boxing was fortunate, securing Paramount to
partner with us on the vision we present here today.
Prospective and casual boxing fans have no point of entry. They
disappeared years ago, along with all those boys and girls who might
have found their dream, their purpose, or perhaps even a championship
title, in the sport of boxing.
Congress Diagnosed This Problem 26 Years Ago
What is remarkable is that Congress saw this coming and said so
plainly back in 2000. The very first finding of the original Ali Act
reads:
``Professional boxing differs from other major, interstate
professional sports industries in the United States in that it
operates without any private sector association, league, or
centralized industry organization to establish uniform and
appropriate business practices and ethical standards.''
That sentence is both a diagnosis and a prophecy. Every other major
American sport--the NFL, the NBA, MLB, the NHL--has a league that sets
rules, enforces standards, manages competition, develops talent, and
creates conditions under which stars can emerge. Indeed, that is the
essence of their business. Boxing has never had such a structure.
Instead, it has experienced a proliferation of competing sanctioning
bodies--the WBC, WBO, IBF, and others--each with its own rankings, its
own titles, its own financial arrangements, and, frankly, many cases of
documented corruption. The interests of the sanctioning bodies
frequently and almost invariably conflict with the interests of boxers
and fans.
While the 2000 Ali Act identified the problem, it didn't solve it.
The law established baseline protections for boxers--important and
valuable ones--but did not create the first thing any credible sport
needs: structure. Boxing has no clear path by which a boxer can compete
for a championship, no coherent narrative for fans to follow, and no
set schedule for broadcasters or prospective advertisers to build a
trustworthy product.
The result, 26 years later, is a sport that has declined in
precisely the ways Congress foresaw. The sanctioning bodies, which
traditionally look to the promoters for funding and financial favors,
have proliferated. Boxer rankings have been manipulated--arbitrary at
best, but more often, downright crooked.
American boxer Terence Crawford beat future Hall of Famer Canelo
Alvarez last September by unanimous decision to win The Ring Magazine
championship and all four of the sanctioning body titles. He was the
unanimous 168-pound champion of the world--until the WBC unilaterally
stripped Crawford of his belt because Crawford refused to pay their
$300,000 sanctioning fee. Imagine the Los Angeles Dodgers winning the
World Series only for Major League Baseball to strip them of their
championship because the Dodgers didn't pay MLB a fee for the honor of
winning their title. That's business as usual in boxing.
The biggest fights, once watershed, cultural-defining events, have
become nearly impossible to make, as boxing's economy has only grown
more fragmented and conflicted since the original Ali Act was passed.
It took longer to make a single fight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd
Mayweather than it took for Ali and Joe Frazier to stage the greatest
trilogy in the history of sports. Fans began clamoring for Mayweather-
Pacquiao back in early 2009, but it didn't happen until May 2015, when
each man was well past his prime. What was lost in those six years? How
many fans? Unlike other sports, boxing has no mechanism to ensure that
the best fight the best. Champions who might otherwise capture the
public's imagination are often kept from each other by competing
promotional interests.
PART III: THE SOLUTION: WHAT THE MUHAMMAD ALI AMERICAN BOXING REVIVAL
ACT DOES, AND WHY IT WILL WORK
Finishing What Congress Started
The Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act is built on a simple
premise: Give boxers the freedom to choose to compete in a better
system. It creates a framework for Unified Boxing Organizations--UBOs--
to provide the functions that every other major sport takes for
granted: promotion, talent development, and the enforcement of
consistent standards.
A UBO is not a governing body. It is not a mandate. It is an
alternative, a higher-standard pathway. Boxers are free to participate
or not. Importantly, it finally addresses Finding #1 from the 2000 Ali
Act. For the first time, both boxers and fans would have the option of
a centralized organization--one that can establish uniform standards in
crucial areas including safety, anti-doping, and anti-conflict of
interest rules, and create conditions by which boxing can again thrive.
A structure that serves the consumers while protecting the athletes and
offering coherent, merit-based opportunities with the best ultimately
fighting the best.
What the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act Delivers for Boxers
Here's what this bill actually does for boxers who step into the
ring. It provides:
Minimum pay of $200 per round--a floor that exceeds the
minimum in 49 states (and equals that of California), ensuring
that boxers at every level receive baseline compensation for
putting their bodies on the line.
Mandatory injury insurance of $50,000 per bout at no cost to
the boxer. Today, thousands of professional boxers compete with
no insurance at all.
A 6-year cap on promotional contracts--roughly comparable in
duration with rookie contracts in Major League Baseball, the
NFL, and the NBA--that would end the practice of binding boxers
to promoters for their entire careers and give them a genuine
path to free agency.
The right for boxers to contact other promoters in the final
30 days of a contract: a right that exists on paper under the
current system but has rarely been granted to most.
Anti-benching protection: $2,000 compensation for boxers who
go six months without a scheduled bout. This closes one of the
most abused loopholes in the sport: the widespread practice of
signing boxers only to keep them inactive, thereby preventing
them from fighting for other promoters.
Standardized pre-fight medical clearances: annual physical,
dilated eye exam, EKG, HIV and hepatitis antibody panels, and
annual brain MRI--with enhanced neurological protocols for
boxers age 40 and older. These are standards every boxer
deserves. Currently, they vary dramatically by state.
Drug testing for all title bouts and random testing covering
at least 50 percent of other bouts, with mandatory public
disclosure of test results and sanctions.
Annual Association of Boxing Commission report cards grading
each state boxing commission on compliance--bringing
accountability to a regulatory patchwork that has long operated
in the dark.
Additionally, the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act does not
just benefit boxers. It has been endorsed by the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters and America's largest arena operators,
including Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. and MGM Resorts
International, because they recognize the economic benefits that
marquee professional boxing events can bring to their communities.
Moderate to large-scale boxing events can be local economic engines
for host communities. Local workers are employed in functions including
event operations, hospitality, and security. In addition, neighboring
businesses, including restaurants, bars, and hotels, see spikes in
revenue due to the increase in consumer spending from local fans and
out-of-town visitors.
By bringing more boxing cards to venues nationwide, communities
around the country can share in these economic benefits.
A Word on the UFC, Competition, and How Sports Get Built
We are excited about the prospect of an alternative system that
will give fans and boxers more choice and greater opportunity. Anyone
can start a UBO, and no one will have a special advantage. In the case
of MMA, it was illegal or unregulated in many states just 20 years ago
until the UFC embraced regulation and created an infrastructure. The
UFC worked state by state, painstakingly helping to build the
foundation of a sport: establishing safety standards, licensing
requirements, uniform rules, athletic commission oversight, and
consistent enforcement of those standards across jurisdictions. It took
years. It was not glamorous. But the beneficiaries of that effort are
broad; they include the fans, the athletes, and the multiplicity of
professional MMA leagues that now exist in the United States and around
the world.
The Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act does not seek to
eliminate competition in boxing; rather, it seeks to create the
conditions under which genuine competition can flourish. The UBO
framework is open to any qualifying promoter. Multiple UBOs can exist.
Promoters including Golden Boy, Top Rank, and MVPW could each form a
UBO. Any organization willing to meet the boxer-protection standards in
this bill is eligible. This is not a bill written for a single company.
It is written for a sport.
The few critics of this bill seem to be the beneficiaries of
boxing's current, conflicted, and fragmented structure--promoters and
sanctioning bodies whose revenue depends on the dysfunction that the
Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act would remedy. Their opposition
is understandable. But their interests are not those of the boxers or
the fans.
On the Sanctioning Bodies
The sanctioning bodies--the WBC and the IBF in particular--oppose
this bill. Their opposition is easy to understand, as the Muhammad Ali
American Boxing Revival Act threatens their dominance over the sport.
Their model to put it plainly, is charging boxers for the right to be
recognized as champions. The WBC currently counts 163 champions across
18 weight classes in the men's divisions alone. Consider this: Muhammad
Ali was the Heavyweight Champion of the World, not the WBC interim
emeritus champion of the world. Marvin Hagler was the Middleweight
Champion of the World, not the WBC champion in recess. These
organizations exist, in their current form, to sell recognition. Boxers
have to pay to play. They do not develop talent, they do not build the
sport, and they do not bear any of the costs when a boxer is injured.
They simply issue belts and collect fees as a percentage of the boxer's
purse--typically 3 percent each from both champion and challenger.
Those fees are not then used to improve the sport, but instead to
solely benefit the sanctioning bodies.
One stark example: For the Canelo vs. Crawford fight referenced
earlier, the WBC, which purports to be a non-profit entity, insisted on
a spacious hotel suite for its President at, ultimately, the cost of
the boxers. The WBC also purchased more than $263,000 of tickets to
that fight as evidenced by documents submitted with this testimony.
By contrast, WWE Superstar John Cena has granted more wishes than
any other human ever for Make-A-Wish, an outstanding non-profit. For a
two-night WrestleMania event just this past weekend at Allegiant
Stadium in Las Vegas, the same exact venue where the WBC purchased
$263,000 in tickets for Canelo vs. Crawford, Make-A-Wish spent just
$2,500 on tickets.
And if there were any doubt about the self-interest of the
sanctioning bodies, they put that to rest just over a month ago when
the IBF sanctioning body stripped the belt of the universally
recognized cruiserweight champion of the world, Jai Opetaia, not for
anything he did in the ring, but because the IBF President felt his
organization had been slighted at a press conference. These are the so-
called stewards of the sport who oppose reform.
This is not a new problem. It's the same problem. Now the Muhammad
Ali American Boxing Revival Act is a chance to finish what the Ali Act
started.
The Moment Is Now
In 2028, the Olympic Games will return to Los Angeles, a storied
boxing city that has produced generations of great champions and where
Americans won those record nine gold medals in 1984.
In most healthy sports, the professional league and the national
governing body work together to produce excellence at every level. The
NBA has USA Basketball. The NHL has USA Hockey. Professional leagues
should invest in young talent, as the resulting pipeline will produce
stars who one day will fill their arenas. In turn, those stars inspire
the next generation to train harder and dream bigger. It is a virtuous
cycle, and boxing is one of the only major American sports that has
never had one. We are hopeful that the UBO framework the Muhammad Ali
American Boxing Revival Act creates will re-invigorate amateur boxing
even as it affords new opportunities to professional boxers.
I was drawn to this sport by the same things that made it great:
the individual drama, the history, the improbable journeys of boxers
who started with nothing and exceeded their wildest dreams through
sheer courage, talent, and discipline. I so vividly recall being 10
years old and watching the 1984 Olympic team, captivated by boxers I
knew by their first names--Meldrick, Evander, Pernell. It made me proud
of my country. I am the child of immigrants. In many ways, boxing was
the agent of my family's assimilation, something I could talk to my
grandfather and the kids at my school about. Boxing became for me what
it had been to generations before mine--an essential part of the
American experience. With your support, we can restore that common
touchstone for boxers, communities, and fans across America.
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the
Committee: I am grateful for your time and for this Committee's
commitment to this issue. I am ready to work with you and your
colleagues to ensure that the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act
reaches the President's desk. I welcome your questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Khan,
WWE, Zuffa Boxing, and
Board Member of TKO Group Holdings
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, to each of the witnesses. And I'll
say at the outset, there are hearings that are sometimes
designed to drive a point. There are hearings where we are
genuinely seeking the input of experts, and I would put this
hearing in the latter category. Mr. Khan is right; this bill
passed overwhelmingly in the House. That's unusual for a bill
to get that wide bipartisan support from those on the far left
and the far right. They all came together, and I think they
came together because there is a widespread perception there's
a problem, and a problem that could beneficially be addressed
and be addressed by Congress.
One illustration of the problem. Right now, the LA Dodgers
are the World Series champions. Nobody disagrees with that
proposition. The Seattle Seahawks are the Super Bowl champions.
Again, nobody disagrees with that proposition. If Ranking
Member Cantwell were here, she would certainly be interrupting
and gloating about that fact right now.
Senator Rosen. I could do that for her.
The Chairman. If I'm a new fan trying to get into boxing,
we have four experts in the sport right now, can anyone tell me
who is the current middleweight champion?
Mr. Khan. I can try, Senator, if you like.
The Chairman. Sure.
Mr. Khan. So, the answer is there is no middleweight
champion because there are at least four different people with
these sanctioning organizations who say they are the
middleweight champion. The WBA has Eris Landy Lara, the WBC has
Carlos Adames, the IBF title is vacant, the WBO has Janibek
Alimkhanuly, and there are interim champions underneath. So in
terms of who is the middleweight champion, by definition, there
is no middleweight champion. There's confusion and chaos
compared to when you and I were younger. Marvin Hagler was the
middleweight champion. Now, the answer to that question does
not exist.
The Chairman. I want to ask the remaining witnesses, is
that a problem? Is that something that that could and should be
improved?
Mr. De La Hoya. Mr. Niko mentioned confusion back
Muhammad--I'm sorry, when Sugar Ray Leonard was a world
champion, so was Marvelous Marvin Hagler, who held the world
title as well. Thomas Hearns held a world title as well, and
the great Roberto Duran also held a world title. I don't
believe that confusion comes from having multiple world
champions. I believe confusion comes from--or the fights not
taking place comes from the actual fighter himself. If a
fighter does not want to fight, we cannot force the fighter to
fight.
There has been many examples where, for instance, say,
Floyd Mayweather, you know, he protects his O because he has an
agenda to protect his record, and therefore, he doesn't fight
certain fighters, but that's the individual fighter. I strongly
believe that fights are being made. The big major fights are
being made, like the one coming up in Cinco de Mayo with
Benavidez and Zurdo, the one fight we did with Ryan Garcia and
Tank Davis, which was highly, highly successful. So, confusion,
there is no confusion, and I go back to being here for the
fighter, to protect the fighter. What's in place now? The
Muhammad Ali Act protects the fighter, and that's why we're
here.
The Chairman. Now, Mr. Khan described various health and
safety requirements of the bill. Is it your assessment those
are good, positive, beneficial?
Mr. De La Hoya. Boxing already has those safeties in place.
You know, we have the ambulances, we have the doctors. We have
everything in place to make sure that the fighter is protected.
Me, as a former fighter and now a promoter, I've seen it
firsthand. I've promoted thousands of fights, and we've never
had an issue with safety.
The Chairman. You mentioned in your opening statement a
desire for greater transparency. Can you elaborate on that?
What transparency do you believe is lacking in the current bill
and what would make it better?
Mr. Shipman. Well, transparency has--since the bill passed,
the Muhammad Ali Bill passed, transparency has been in place.
In today's boxing system and business, the fighter makes the
majority of the amounts of moneys. In the system they want to
implement, TKO, and with the UBO, it'll be the other way
around. I think transparency is, obviously, very important to
the fighter. The laws that are in place are important to the
fighters to protect the fighter.
Mr. Khan. Chairman Cruz, may I offer one add-on to that,
please?
The Chairman. Sure.
Mr. Khan. In terms of health and safety of boxers, in the
UFC when it was purchased 30 years ago, in that 30 years, there
has not been one death of a UFC fighter. In the last 30 years
in boxing, there have been 63 deaths that have occurred within
a week of a fighter's fight, deaths compared to zero in the
UFC.
The Chairman. Wow.
Mr. Khan. In terms of the state of the sport now, it's not
just the confusion of these sanctioning bodies. So, Senator
Rosen mentioned Canelo/Crawford from this past September, a
fight that we promoted. We got Netflix to buy into the fight.
We moved with a fair deal UNLV football game out of the
football stadium, Allegiance Stadium in Las Vegas, so we could
have that fight at a football stadium. We had a significant
merchandise deal with Fanatics, all of which the fighters
participated in, all of those revenues.
If you look at it again, when you and I were younger, there
was boxing every weekend on ABC, CBS, and at times, NBC. If you
look at it now, the major media conglomerates, outside of the
deal we at Zuffa were able to get with Paramount, there's no
boxing in the history of television on any major media
conglomerate. Fox got out. ESPN got out. Showtime got out. HBO
got out. NBC got out. ABC got out. CBS got out. What was
formerly known as Spike TV got out.
The Chairman. Now, you came from the media and
entertainment world before, why did they get out?
Mr. Khan. They got out because, ultimately, there was no
return on their investment. The fights that were meant to
happen, so we mentioned--Senator Rosen mentioned Mayweather/
Pacquiao earlier happening in Las Vegas, that fight took 6
years to put together. For the Ali/Frazier trilogy, those three
fights happened over the course of 5 years. The three fights
happened starting in 1971 over the course of 3 years, compare
to it taking 6 years to make the fight that everyone wanted.
How many fans were lost in those 6 years?
The Chairman. All right. Last question, Mr. Khan. If you
were addressing an up-and-coming boxer who's watching this
hearing and trying to think, OK, would this law passing be a
good thing for me or a bad thing? What would the benefits of
allowing a UBO provide to the next generation of boxers?
Mr. Khan. This provides an additional option. So the
current state of boxing would continue to exist. If the fighter
wants to go into that, please feel free to sign with those
promoters. If you want a chance to be something bigger over a
shorter period of time on a platform, we were able to secure a
deal with Paramount, as I said, on a platform that has almost
80 million subscribers worldwide and has a network partner in
CBS, if you want that exposure, if you want trading card deals,
if you want merchandise deals, if you want video game deals of
which the fighters would all participate in financially, if you
want all of that plus some more, come this way. If you don't,
that's your choice.
Mr. De La Hoya. If I may add, please. Thank you. If I'm a
fighter, a young fighter who wants to go to a promoter, why
would I sign a contract that if I--if I am a four-round fighter
and getting paid the minimal amounts of money. If I lose that
fight under the UBO, that promoter decides how much I make. I
believe that's unfair.
The Chairman. Ranking Member Rosen.
Mr. Shipman. Chairman, may I speak, please?
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Mr. Shipman. Concerning safety of the--what is in the bill
as it stands right now, there is much needed safety
improvements in this bill that has an impact and safety on all
the fighters that participate. Not only with that safety, but
also as a recommendation, the sanctioning bodies should
actually collaboratively work with the Association of Boxing
Commission to develop a ranking system, and then kind of help
assist in ranking these fighters in one belt only. I think that
will solve a lot of the problems. However, safety in this bill
is paramount, and I thank you for having that in there because
it means a lot.
The Chairman. Thank you. Ranking Member Rosen.
Senator Rosen. Well, thank you again, Chairman Cruz. It's
really an important hearing on both sides, and that's when we
legislate, it's good for us to hear from everyone as we begin
to think about what we're going to do. But I'm really proud to
have two of the witnesses here from UNLV graduates, from Las
Vegas. They're constituents of mine in, I'll say, the great
state of Nevada. So I'm going to direct my first questions to
both of them.
So, Mr. Walsh, the first one will be for you. What do you
think that, in your eyes, you're boxing now, right, what is the
greatest challenges for the sport of boxing and the athletes?
Really, you're the one that has to execute. Everybody can train
you, you can do all the other things, but you're the one that
walks in there and has to execute on that. What are the
greatest challenges that you think you face today, and what
issues, considering that we're a legislative body, do you think
we should really consider in light of that, if you were to
maybe prioritize a few? And then my next question will be for
Mr. Khan. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh. First off, thank you for recognizing our UNLV
ties.
Senator Rosen. Yes----
Mr. Walsh. I'm very----
Senator Rosen. Go Rebels.
Mr. Walsh.--very proud. But as a professional boxer now, I
love boxing. I think the sport is in a great place. I think
we're headed toward the golden age of boxing. I understand
there are concerns with it being confusing, whether it be the
belts, the titles, who's champion. That kind of chaos and
confused--confusion, I believe, makes boxing, having fighters
fight each other to become unified and become the undisputed
champion. That's what everyone wants to see.
And Mr. Khan mentioned that it took 6 years to make the
Pacquiao/Floyd fight and my grandfather fought Joe Frazier in
multiple times in much shorter time. We absolutely agree with
that. It's--that's horrible. That's not on boxing; that's on
the fighters. And at the time, we know that Floyd Mayweather
Jr. did not want to fight Manny Pacquiao, and it was because
of, you know, protecting that O, that record. That dragged. And
of course, there's a bunch of health----
Senator Rosen. So do you think--if we're legislators
working in the health space would be a helpful thing for us
to----
Mr. Walsh. Of course, of course. No, I don't believe anyone
in boxing, no boxer, no promoter would disagree with the fact
that health and safety concerns can be added to the sport. We
can always benefit more from them, but we can do that without
stripping the fighters of their rights, which I believe is what
the Revival Act is going to do. My grandfather's original Ali
Act, the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, is an anti-monopoly
law and this new Revival Act will bring back that monopoly.
They say we have a choice, but once they control everything, we
won't have a choice.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. Mr. Khan, in the spirit of trying
to help us legislate, which is sometimes different than what
happens in the entertainment sphere, although some might--I
don't know, with the bell, you're pretty good in that. Boxing,
you know, maybe he has a--being a boxing announcer there in the
second career.
The Chairman. But if this politics thing doesn't work out,
I may be maybe putting in a job application.
Senator Rosen. There you go. But Mr. Khan, you know, as we
think again, for us as legislators, the successes of WWE and
UFC, what things do you think could be transferred when
thinking about boxing's future? We know we're going to--we
probably all agree on the health and safety. So that's
something we should--we could take on in a bipartisan way. But
let me hear from you, and like I said, Go Rebels.
Mr. Khan. Understood. So, WWE, for example, has over 100
deals with what we call our legends, our retired wrestlers. So
they receive compensation from us for years after their
retirement from the ring because of their participation in our
video games, trading card deals, merchandise deals, and action
figures and all of these other ancillary revenues.
Think about this. Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacquiao, the two
fighters of that generation, you could not buy an action figure
of them. You cannot buy a video game of them. It doesn't exist
because of this broken system. Part of the reason that
Mayweather/Pacquiao took 6 years to make, you've heard people
say, well, it's Floyd, it's Floyd. The two promoters of that
event, they simply didn't like each other. It's this local
yokel----
Senator Rosen. You can't legislate that.
Mr. Khan. Plenty of people, I'm sure we all do business
with that we may not be particularly fond of, do business and
get it done for the fighters, for the fans and to grow the
sport. In addition to that, the amateur system, if we--I talked
about the Olympic gold medalists earlier. Think of this, 1960,
Cassius Clay takes the light heavyweight gold in Rome. 1964,
Joe Frazier, heavyweight in gold in Tokyo. 1968, George
Foreman. 1976, Sugar Ray Leonard, the Spinks Brothers. 1984,
the nine Olympic male gold medalists in the LA Games. 1996,
Floyd----
Senator Rosen. 1992.
Mr. Khan. 1992, The Golden Boy takes over the world with
his performance in the ring and his personality out of the
ring. Nothing can be taken away from that. In 1996, Ray Mercer
wins the gold medal. Roy Jones gets--I'm sorry, in 1988, Roy
Jones gets robbed, Ray Mercer wins the gold. 1996, gentleman
named David Reed wins the gold. Since then, just one, one in
2004. The amateur system is something that the professionals do
not support sufficiently. That's the pipeline. We have to make
it easy for fighters. Just like we have a performance institute
for UFC, we have a performance center for WWE. If you want to
try to do one of those things, come our way and check it out.
You don't have to sign anything with us. Same thing in boxing,
grassroots system.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I yield.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Moreno.
STATEMENT OF HON. BERNIE MORENO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO
Senator Moreno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering if
there's a governing body association that represents
announcers, because if there is, and you're listening----
[Laughter.]
Senator Moreno.--our Chairman's post-career could be
something that could be interesting. Right? There you go. You
could--we could have a whole new line of business post-Senate
career.
First of all, thank you all for being here. I guess from my
perspective, I would encourage all of you to figure out a
consensus point of view, because I think what's clear from your
testimony, and from the Chairman's testimony, and our Ranking
Member's testimony is that there's an appetite to do something,
to get something done. But typically, when there's not
consensus among the industry players, it's very hard for that
to go forward. So, whatever you can do to work together to
bring us a consensus position and get something done. I think
all of you love the sport. You care about it a lot. I think
Ohioans, like a lot of people around the United States, care a
lot about boxing as well. So I would just--that would just be
my word of encouragement. For--I'll start with you, Mr. De La
Hoya. Do you feel that there's enough being done on the safety
for boxers? Is that--is there more that needs to be done there
that can be incorporated into a bill that gets passed?
Mr. De La Hoya. Yes, absolutely. And thank you for having
me speak here. Safety is always the most important for a
fighter, and I'm more than open to hear what else can we
improve for the safety of the fighter, but as we speak here
today, fighters are well taken care of. I've been in this
boxing game since I was 4 years old, and I've witnessed from
the amateur ranks, from Golden Gloves, to the Olympic Games, to
the professional level, fighters are well taken care of.
And I do want to--if I may speak on the fact that if the
UBO is formed, 10 to 15, or 20 percent of fighters are going to
go to the UBO, and the rest of the fighters are going to stay
in the current system because they want to fight for the
titles. The world titles means everything to a fighter. Since
the amateurs, fighters want to become the next Ali, the next
Chavez, the next De La Hoya. So I had to throw that in there,
but yes, safety is a priority for us in the current system.
Senator Moreno. Now, Mr. Shipman, your thoughts?
Mr. Shipman. Yes, sir. I do think that the safety
requirements and medical requirements should be by law as some
states and jurisdictions don't mandate the same type of
medicals. That need to be consistent across the board with the
development of a history of the fighter so commissions will
have the opportunity to decide if that fighter is fit to fight
in their jurisdiction for safety reasons. For that reason,
everything that's in this bill shows that medical is important
and is documented so we can make fair and right decisions.
I also think that fighters should have a choice, whether
it's a UBO or the traditional route, but the biggest thing is
no fighter jumps to the top without starting at the bottom and
developing their way up. So I do think that that will cause
some development to be done, and then the fighters can choose
however they want to make their living under what umbrella. I
don't think that the--that should have any impact on the safety
aspects, and also, fighters should have a choice.
Senator Moreno. Mr. Khan--I'm sorry, Mr. Ali. Sorry about
that. By the way, I had a poster of your grandfather in
college. Yes, I'm that old.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walsh. Well, I was going to say, Chairman Cruz, you're
welcome to come to the gym in Vegas at any time. Whether it's
announcing the sparring partners or fighting yourself. You're
welcome.
Senator Moreno. Oh, he does the second half here very well.
Mr. Walsh. OK.
Senator Rosen. He spars a lot.
Senator Moreno. Yes, he spars a lot.
Mr. Walsh. Good, good.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walsh. Yes, no, you know, I believe we're all in
agreement with when it comes to the health and safety concerns
in boxing. It can always, always be strengthened. Myself as a
fighter, I've--like I mentioned in my testimony, I've benefited
from the current state from boxing currently. I've had a major
injury in the ring that required surgery and boxing took care
of me. And same when I fought my opponent tested positive for
performance enhancing drugs, I was taken care of with that as
well. These new health concerns can be--can be added. Again,
like I said, it can be added without stripping the fighters of
their current protections.
Senator Moreno. Mr. Khan, if you could answer a different
question. What is it going to take to bring WrestleMania to
Cleveland, Ohio? We're building a brand new stadium right next
to the airport. It's the only dome stadium in cold weather
climate that will be right next to a major airport. You can
drive right across the street 2029 or 2030. Which one's better
for you to bring WrestleMania to Cleveland?
Senator Rosen. Stick with Nevada.
Mr. Khan. If----
Senator Moreno. You had SummerSlam in Cleveland, 2024, very
successful----
Mr. Khan.--it was quite successful.
Senator Moreno.--very successful.
Mr. Khan. We think for the city--if we think for WWE, and
we think for our wrestlers. If it wasn't enough that Logan Paul
pressures me on bringing WrestleMania to Ohio on a weekly
basis, now we feel the pressure from you, Senator. So we--in a
positive way.
Senator Moreno. You know, feel it as total and complete
pressure, but you can pick between 2029 and 2030. I'll leave
that decision up to you.
Mr. Khan. Thank you. Thank you. Just one thing on the
boxing front. These sanctioning bodies, there was an article in
1999 in the Los Angeles Times written by a Hall of Fame boxing
writer named Steve Springer that talked about the corruption
between the WBC at the time and Don King. George Foreman's
manager around the same time, said about the sanctioning
bodies, in the Los Angeles Times, ``They've taken so much out
of the sport, they need to be totally destroyed. Then we could
turn this sport around and take it back from the dark ages.''
The Crawford/Canelo fight, which Senator Rosen referenced,
that was for the four different super middleweight sanctioning
body belts. Terence Crawford won the fight by unanimous
decision. The WBC then stripped him of that title for refusing
to pay $300,000 fee for the honor of having that belt.
Ranking--Chairman Cruz, pardon me, said earlier about the
Los Angeles Dodgers being the World Series champions. It would
be like if Major League Baseball went to the Dodgers after they
beat the Blue Jays and said, no, we're going to take this title
away from you because you didn't pay us money. That's what it's
akin to. They are terrible for the sport. They've ruined the
sport, and between--and by the way, the last thing on Canelo/
Crawford. So WrestleMania, this past weekend, which Senator
Rosen mentioned, Make-A-Wish, WWE does a lot of work with Make-
A-Wish. John Cena, in particular, has done made more wishes
happen than any other human in the existence of Make-A-Wish.
Make-A-Wish, a nonprofit organization, they bought $2,500
of tickets. The WBC for Canelo/Crawford, they hold themselves
out as a nonprofit, they purchased $265,000 of tickets for that
event and insisted upon a suite for the President of their
company. It's a mess. It's not just health and safety. Assume
we can get--we all want more health and safety. It's about
presenting an option. And by the way, if fighters want--as Mr.
De La Hoya said, they want to fight for those belts, please
feel free. We're not saying get rid of them. We're saying keep
the Ali Act as is. Just provide this option for the UBOs, which
we think is great for the fighters.
Senator Moreno. Well, perfect. I appreciate that very much.
I did go to the Canelo fight in Las Vegas, so I helped some
economic activity. So I'll be the first to invite Senator Rosen
to WrestleMania in Cleveland, either 2029 or 2030.
Mr. De La Hoya. If I may add on the medicals. You know, if
the UBO is passed, please don't make the fighters pay for their
medicals. Make the promoters pay for their medicals. That's the
current system now, and that's what's fair to the fighter. You
know, in regards to the sanctioning bodies, yes, there is a fee
that is paid to the sanctioning bodies, but the good they do
with that money is incredible. Fighters' retirement, charities,
all that money that the fighters are paying is going directly
back to the sport, to their families, for medicals. I would
rather, as a fighter, pay that small percentage of money I'm
making out of my huge purse instead of only making 15 percent
of the profits, and the big corporate companies making the
majority of the profits. And I'm talking 85, 80 percent of the
profits, so if I'm going to pay a small fraction of those
monies to the organization that are doing so much good, I would
rather do that.
The Chairman. Thank you. And I thank the Colombian Bomber
in the yellow shorts. And you can tell why Senator Moreno was a
very, very successful car dealer because he's trying to close
the deal right here and now.
Senator Moreno. Well, I heard him say yes, he just didn't
commit to which year, by 2029, 2030.
The Chairman. OK. My suggestion----
Mr. Khan. We have Logan----
The Chairman.--do not buy the undercoat covering.
Senator Moreno. Logan--Logan Paul will follow up with you.
Mr. Khan. Thank you. Thank you. By the way, one thing on
that. WWE did shows in 45 of the contiguous states in calendar
year 2025. It's the same plan for boxing. Yes, Nevada is the
fight capital, but you have to also take it to Cleveland, and
Jacksonville, and the south and Texas. I noticed Texas is not
considered part of the south, and to Delaware, and the other
states so the fans can see it. It's why there are 32 NFL teams,
some in smaller markets, so the fans can go and claim ownership
over that team. It's the same principle in boxing that needs to
be done.
The Chairman. So, in terms of the UBO model, you know, I
have to say this, this issue reminds me of--for the last 3
years, I and others on this committee have spent a lot of time
looking at college sports, and I think college sports right now
faces a crisis. I think there is a need for Congress to act. I
hope we will get bipartisan agreement on doing so. And one of
the issues that's been under considerable discussion has been
possibly amending the Sports Broadcasting Act to allow colleges
to collectively negotiate for college football rights. And the
argument is that if they negotiate collectively, they would
extract much higher revenues, which would be more money to go
around to support the programs at schools across the country.
In this context, that seems to me a similar argument as the
argument being put forward for UBOs that the appeal to a boxer
of participating in a UBO would be greater attention, greater
notoriety, but fundamentally--and improved health and safety,
but fundamentally, a crap ton more money. That is the argument.
Am I--am I getting that right, and how would you elaborate on
that?
Mr. Khan. You nailed it. And if I may elaborate, as you
ask. So if you bifurcate the sports professionally and
collegiately, as everyone in this room knows, college football
is the number two most popular sport in the United States, yet
it generates the fifth most amount of media rights dollars.
That's because it's a bifurcated system. The product's great.
I used to say boxing is the most difficult of all the
businesses because of the chaos. Now, I say boxing and college
sports. If college sports is not cleaned up, we're going to see
the result of it being what many of you already know: Programs
will eliminate their football teams, which thereby affects
Title 9, which thereby eliminates women's sports, which thereby
affects the less revenue-generating Olympic sports. And instead
of only boxing, having had one Olympic gold medalist since--
male gold medalist since 1996, you will have many, if not all,
Olympic sports facing the same consequence.
So, yes, that Act needs to be passed. From my point of
view, having had the privilege in my prior career of
representing the Southeastern Conference and many other
entities like that, it needs to be passed for the health of the
athlete and the sports.
The Chairman. Now, let me ask Mr. De La Hoya and Mr. Walsh,
you've raised concerns about the bill. As the bill is currently
drafted, a UBO is allowed to be created as an alternative, but
no fighter is required to enter a UBO, and each fighter could
decide whether to stay with the current system or whether a
UBO. If it is right that a UBO offered a whole bunch more
money, I would think a fair number of fighters would choose,
OK, I'd rather have that more money. I guess my question is, is
that a right way to view that? And if it's simply an option for
the boxers and an option that could give them substantially
more money for their families, how is that a bad thing?
Mr. De La Hoya. Well, I mean, if creating the UBO--it's
segregation, basically. Fighters are going to want to stay in
the current system, and fighters are going to want to fight for
TKO or for Zuffa. Therefore, we will not see the very best
fighting the very best. You know, and I strongly believe--I
strongly believe that--you know, why is it--why is it that UFC
fighters currently are complaining about pay? Why is it that
the shareholders have to make most of the profits and the
fighters are having to have second jobs in order to make a
living? I strongly believe that if we keep the system the way
it is, you will have more competition. You will have the
sanctioning bodies working together to unify the titles and
create the undisputed world champion. Therefore, the sport
grows.
The Chairman. Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh. I totally agree with what Mr. De La Hoya said.
It--creating that UBO will segregate the sport and you won't
see the effects of what it will do now, but 5 years down the
line, 6, 7 years down the line, you'll begin to see how the
sport will become monopolized and people won't--people won't
have a choice anymore. Fighters like myself will not have a
choice anymore. The coercive contracts will be coming back. All
the things in the--in the Ali Act, the current Ali Act, that
protects fighters will be taken away, and you will see it down
the line. It won't be an immediate change, but like Mr. De La
Hoya said, the belts, and when it comes to the sanctioning
fees, I understand that it gets annoying having to pay X amount
of dollars just to hold a belt. But it's more than that because
that money gets funneled back to the fighters anyway.
The Chairman. Mr. Khan.
Mr. Khan. It also gets funneled back to suites for the
President of the sanctioning body, $265,000 of ticket purchases
and other things. Again, I hearken back to when we were
younger. Everyone knew the heavyweight champion was Muhammad
Ali, and then Joe Frazier, and then fast forward a little bit,
Larry Holmes, and then Mike Tyson. If I said to most Americans
today, who's the heavyweight champ? No one would know the
answer to that question. That's because of the state of the
sport and these different sanctioning bodies.
And by the way, in terms of competition, all we're asking
for is an option for fighters. We're not saying to get rid of
anything. If they like the current system, sign up with these
sanctioning bodies and promoters. If you think we're a better
option, sign up with us and see how it works out for you.
Either we'll succeed or we'll fail. We're the startup. We're
the outsider. Let's see what we can do.
The Chairman. Mr. Shipman, what is your reaction to the
arguments Mr. Khan is making?
Mr. Shipman. I concur----
The Chairman. Turn your microphone.
Mr. Shipman. I concur. I think that the fighters should
have an option. We can't predict what the future will hold.
However, I do have a concern as they were talking about,
concerning the sanctioning bodies. He is correct. There are a
lot of charges that go that in my opinion are not needed, that
are charged to the fighters. By reducing those charges and
making a change in it, then the fighters will be able to save
more money.
Also, without a prediction, I do think that from a UBO
perspective, there will be other organizations that become UBO
or developers after this if it is approved. And there's nothing
like having a choice to decide on who you want to work for, and
I think it's good.
The Chairman. Ranking Member Rosen.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. Well, I want to--I'm going to ask
everyone a question about transparency because I think that has
been a big issue, and that's something that we can certainly
look at a policy proposal for that. So, I've often heard that
one of the critical pieces of the Ali Act was--it's the
increased transparency for financial transactions and
agreements between boxers, promoters, and the sanctioning
organizations.
So, I'll start with you Mr. De La Hoya. What financial
transparency does current law require between promoters and
boxers, and how does that impact the sport? Whether not
transparent enough, or you tell me what you think?
Mr. De La Hoya. In the--in the current state, boxing is
very transparent. I've promoted thousands of fights, and we
supply financials to fighters who are headlining the--their
cards. You know, we make sure that the fighter makes the
majority of the--of the purses of the funds. If, if a UBO is
formed, there will be no transparency. There is no need for
transparency. The UBO will have to answer to shareholders, and
in this case, in this system, we answer to the fighters
directly, and we take care of our fighters.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. And Mr. Walsh, I'll move to you.
How do the financial transparency requirements, you believe in
law today, impact your ability and the ability of other
professionals to negotiate their contracts? You're still
fighting, so how do you feel that transparency requirements
help or hurt you?
Mr. Walsh. I'm very happy with the transparency that exists
in boxing today and that's due to the current Ali Act. With the
proposed Revival Act, that transparency would be gone. It--
fighters will no longer be able to see the full financials that
are behind their event, and if fighters are having a problem
currently today with any transparency, anything like that,
that's on them, and that is on their team, and their management
because legally, we are obligated now through the current Act
to see the financials. And this proposed Act is an Act made for
billionaires, not boxers. It will certainly give more money to
the shareholders, not the fighters.
Senator Rosen. So, there are--are there current provisions
in current law that limit your financial stability or ability
to negotiate fair terms? Are there things here now that are
stopping you from doing that?
Mr. Walsh. No----
Senator Rosen. No.
Mr. Walsh.--No.
Senator Rosen. So, Mr. Khan, do you believe that there are
provisions in the current law that limit boxers' financial
stability, or their ability to negotiate free fair terms in
their contracts?
Mr. Khan. So, Senator Rosen----
Senator Rosen. Yes.
Mr. Khan.--we at TKO is, you know, it's a publicly traded
company. Everything is public. Our media rights deals are
public. I mentioned just briefly in the hallway earlier, the
results of WrestleMania this past weekend, including the gate,
are public. There's nothing that we can't make public unless we
want to face government--real ramifications with the SEC, and,
potentially, DOJ. So they're made available on a quarterly
basis.
The way our media rights deals work are different than how
they were when the Muhammad Ali Act was passed at that time, at
the height of Showtime and HBO Boxing. HBO would pay a license
fee, let's say $3 million, to a promoter to put together a
fight. So that promoter would then disclose that $3 million
amount to the main event fighters and some other sources of
revenue.
When you do a multi-event, multi-year deal with, let's say,
Netflix, as WWE has done, the allocation of what money goes
where for what event, it's completely different and almost
impossible to say, well, for this event we're going to give $3
million, but the other event, we're going to give $500,000. It
doesn't work, but what does work are our public disclosures
made on a quarterly basis for which sitting on the board, I'm
responsible for as the President of WWE. I'm responsible for as
the senior business executive at Zuffa Boxing. I would be
responsible for complete operational control is with us. So
we're going to be held accountable and that's no issue for us.
Senator Rosen. So, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I have one last
question about sponsorship----
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Rosen.--for each one of our witnesses. And so
sponsorship is really important. We know that we live in a
world of media, right? That matters. So are there specific--I'm
going to ask each one of you, are there specific provisions
such as ensuring the ability to secure sponsors outside of a
UBO contract, or prohibiting certain provisions in any contract
that we could add to the Revival Act that would meaningfully
support boxers in a UBO system? If you have opinions on that,
we'll start again. Mr. De La Hoya.
Mr. De La Hoya. Yes, and let me touch once again on the
disclosures. The only problem I have with Mr. Khan's comments
is there is no disclosure for the fighters, and that's where
the problem is, and that's why we're here to fight for.
Senator Rosen. Disclosure meaning the amount they get paid?
I mean, just clarify that for us.
Mr. De La Hoya. The amount they get--the amount they get
paid, and the monies that are generated in that event.
Senator Rosen. OK. Thank you.
Mr. De La Hoya. I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?
Senator Rosen. Well, you know, I just want to be sure. Are
there any provisions, any way--any things you think. We have
the Revival Act coming from the House, and anything that we
could add to that, as we think about as legislators, that would
meaningfully support boxers in the UBO system as far as it
comes to securing sponsors or prohibiting certain provisions.
Just what would you think if we--take on it?
Mr. De La Hoya. We do have in boxing current sponsors,
which again, the majorities of the monies go directly to the
fighter, whether it's ticket sales, revenue generated by TV
platforms, pay per views, and sponsorships. The fighter sees
the majority of that money.
Senator Rosen. So we could probably may be able to add
something like that in our bill. Thank you. Mr. Shipman, would
you like to address this at all? I'm going to ask each one of
you and then the Chairman.
Mr. Shipman. Ma'am, the complication that I see concerning,
you know, doing the sponsorship from a regulatory standpoint,
the commissions do not get involved concerning sponsorship. All
of that is done as a contract negotiation between the fighters,
their managers, and I can't speak intelligently upon that. I
think that that is something that is out of our league from a
regulatory standpoint. That's all I have on that, ma'am.
Senator Rosen. Thank you.
Mr. Shipman. Thank you.
Senator Rosen. Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh. So, I, I don't know if you've seen the Zuffa
Boxing events, but if you have seen the events, it, from my
perspective, looks very plain, it looks very corporate. And in
current boxing, you have the freedom to have those
sponsorships, unlike in Zuffa, where you're forced to wear
their trunks, or you're forced to not have certain amount of
sponsors or whatever their rules may be in their contract.
But that's what makes boxing important to me. And as a
fighter, I know that having those sponsorships gives the
fighters more money. It's only for the fighters. And if the new
Revival Act was truly for the fighters, to put more money in
the fighters' pockets, they're moving that same UFC model over
to boxing. You can see it through their events already. And if
that model were truly for the fighters, you wouldn't see the
$375 million antitrust lawsuit that's going from the--that the
UFC had to settle. You wouldn't see former UFC fighters
complaining about pay. You wouldn't see current UFC fighters
begging for raises in their pay. If that--if that model truly
worked, and if it was truly for the fighters, you wouldn't be
hearing so much about money from these UFC fighters.
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Mr. Walsh. Mr. Khan.
Mr. Khan. Senator Rosen, number one, in terms of working
together to try to get the same bipartisan support that we had
in the House, of course we want to hear any and all ideas that
can work in terms of sponsorship dollars. There was a comment
made about that the fighters wouldn't see the revenue. As you
know, with the publicly traded company, the whole world sees
the revenue. It's disclosed to the public.
So the sponsorship dollars for UFC, WWE have been
significant. The fighters participate in that. Ranking--I'm
sorry, Chairman Cruz was gracious enough to give part of my
resume as the former co-head of television at CAA in
representing leagues and broadcasters and talent. Never did I
meet someone who said, ``I'm making too much money. Don't tell
anybody.'' Everyone wants more money, and I understand that. So
if we can generate more money, it means more money to the
fighters. If given the opportunity for a UBO, assume the
sponsorship in boxing as it currently stands is as horrific as
the other elements of boxing; no media major--no major media
conglomerate, no video game, no trading cards, nothing. So the
sponsorship is as barren as that. If we do our jobs right as
the startup and get sponsorship dollars in, the fighters
participate, it's more money for them.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate all of you coming
before the Monster Energy Senate Commerce Committee----
[Laughter.]
Senator Rosen. --a lot of hearings this morning. You're
competing with a lot of hearings.
The Chairman. I want to thank each of the witnesses. I
think this was a very productive hearing, and this was helpful.
As I mentioned in my opening, I'm going to be introducing the
Senate version of the Ali Revival Act. I do think there's a
need for Congress to act here, and I think if there is a
possibility to generate significantly more revenue for the
sport that will benefit, in my judgment, the boxers and
everyone participating. I also think enhancing health and
safety is a worthwhile endeavor.
And I think the point that there's no doubt you think back
to when we were kids and boxing enjoyed a much more prominent
place in American culture and society. The champions of the
world dominated the news and entertainment in a way that that
they don't today, and I do think the dearth of Olympic gold
medals--I wish we saw new Oscar De La Hoya's every 4 years.
That would be--that would be good for America and good for
boxing.
But as I said, I fully expect in the Senate that the
version of the bill that the Senate takes up will be different
from what the House passed, and so I want to extend a personal
invitation to each of the four of you and to any other
stakeholders if you have suggestions for modifications that
would improve the bill. I think on both sides, Democrat and
Republican, we're interested in hearing those suggestions. Mr.
De La Hoya, you had a suggestion about who pays for health care
that I thought was a helpful suggestion. And so that is an open
invitation I hope you all will go back and actually think
about. My objective here will be a win-win. That is a win for
the sport, and for the fighters, and for the fans, and for
everyone involved. If we can achieve that, that will be a good
day's work.
Senators will have until the close of business on April 29
to submit questions for the record. The witnesses will have
until the close of business on May 13 to respond to those
questions.
This concludes today's hearing. The Committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jacky Rosen to
Oscar De La Hoya
Question 1. ENFORCEMENT: In 2003, a GAO report found Federal
enforcement of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 was severely
limited. It explicitly stated that DOJ had not prosecuted cases under
the Act because it had received no referrals from Federal law
enforcement and it prioritizes felony violations, rather than
misdemeanors, which violations under the Act were.
a. Mr. De La Hoya, should Congress consider increasing penalties
for violations of boxing law to deter violations?
Answer. The challenge historically has not necessarily been the
lack of laws, but rather the lack of consistent enforcement, oversight
and willingness to report. Instead of focusing solely on increasing
penalties, I believe Congress should prioritize creating clearer
referral pathways between state athletic commissions and Federal law
enforcement, improving coordination among regulators, and providing
greater resources for oversight. Fighters benefit most when the law is
clear, enforceable, and consistently applied across the industry.
Question 2. UBO DOMINANCE:
a. Mr. De La Hoya Some critics of the proposed legislation have
raised concerns regarding the elimination of smaller non-UBO
sanctioning bodies and promoters. Under this bill, how would we ensure
a fair playing field for smaller non-UBO sanctioning organizations and
promoters?
Answer. This is one of my core concerns with the Muhammad Ali
American Boxing Revival Act as currently drafted. While I understand
the intent to create greater accountability through the proposed UBO
framework, the legislation risks consolidating too much power in the
hands of a small number of large entities at the expense of independent
promoters and smaller sanctioning bodies that have long played a
legitimate and important role in the sport.
Boxing has historically operated through a competitive ecosystem of
promoters, sanctioning organizations, broadcasters, and athletic
commissions. While that system is not perfect, competition within the
marketplace has helped create opportunities for fighters and has
prevented any single entity from simultaneously controlling rankings,
championships, and promotional access.
To ensure a fair and competitive landscape, Congress should
preserve the role of independent promoters and sanctioning
organizations while strengthening transparency and conflict-of-interest
protections across the industry. Smaller promoters are often
responsible for identifying and developing young talent, building
regional markets, and creating pathways for fighters early in their
careers. Any framework that significantly limits their ability to
compete could ultimately reduce opportunities for athletes entering the
sport.
Congress should also consider incorporating clear anti-monopoly
safeguards to ensure that any UBO cannot use its sanctioning authority
to unfairly favor affiliated promotional interests. In addition, the
legislation should establish objective and attainable standards for UBO
certification, along with meaningful grievance and review mechanisms
that allow non-UBO entities to challenge potentially anti-competitive
conduct. Finally, I would encourage the Committee to carefully examine
whether the current structure of the bill could unintentionally
recreate the very conflicts of interest between sanctioning and
promotion that the original Ali Act was designed to prevent.
Question 3. MEDIA DEALS: In the past, broadcasters would pay a
specific license fee for particular matches. However, sports today,
including boxing, are now signing multi-year media rights deals with a
variety of media companies beyond traditional broadcasting companies.
a. Mr. De La Hoya, should Congress consider updating disclosure
requirements for promoters to reflect this new landscape? Should UBOs
also be subject to updated disclosure requirements?
Answer. I would welcome updating disclosure agreements to reflect
the new landscape. In the past, a broadcaster paid a one-time license
fee for a specific fight. Today, we are dealing with multi-year, multi-
fight streaming deals with platforms like Paramount+, Amazon, DAZN, and
ESPN+ that fundamentally change the economics of boxing. I support
updating the Ali Act's financial disclosure requirements to encompass
these modern media rights agreements in their entirety, covering all
platforms and contract terms. UBOs should absolutely be subject to the
same or more rigorous disclosure requirements given the outsized power
they would exercise under the proposed legislation.
b. Mr. De La Hoya, beyond transparency related to media rights
deals, should Congress consider additional transparency requirements,
such as requirements that mirror those that a publicly company must
disclose?
Answer. The Ali Act already requires promoters to disclose certain
financial information to fighters, but those requirements have not kept
pace with the complexity of today's deals. I strongly support
modernizing these requirements.
Question 4. TRANSPARENCY ON RANKINGS & MATCHES: Mr. De La Hoya,
should Congress consider requiring public disclosure about how UBOs and
sanctioning organizations determine rankings, match determinations,
titles and title bouts? Are there other ways to provide more clarity
and transparency into the decisions made by sanctioning organizations,
UBOs, promoters, and boxers themselves related to how bouts and event
cards are determined?
Answer. Firstly, today's major boxing sanctioning bodies, including
the World Boxing Association, World Boxing Council, International
Boxing Federation, and World Boxing Organization, already maintain
systems intended to provide transparency around rankings, title
eligibility, mandatory challengers, and championship bouts through
publicly published rankings, ratings committees, mandatory defense
rules, purse bid procedures, and written championship regulations.
These organizations also issue official rulings and maintain appeals
processes to explain or govern title decisions, eliminators, and
mandatory obligations. While the system is still frequently criticized
for inconsistencies and subjectivity, these mechanisms are designed to
provide fighters, promoters, media, and fans with a visible framework
for how championship opportunities are determined. I welcome increased
disclosure regarding matchmaking criteria and financial interests that
could help improve accountability across the industry and confidence in
the sport and reduce perceptions of favoritism or conflicts of
interest. At the same time, boxing is not always linear. Injuries,
promotional agreements, fighter availability, television
considerations, and market demand all influence matchmaking decisions.
Any transparency framework should preserve the flexibility needed to
make competitive and compelling fights.
If a UBO is going to receive the benefits of Federal recognition
and operate with the same legitimacy as the current framework
established under the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, it should be
required to meet comparable transparency and disclosure standards. That
would likely include publicly publishing rankings criteria, mandatory
challenger procedures, championship rules, medical and safety
protocols, and written explanations for title decisions or ranking
changes in an open forum. A UBO should also be required to disclose
financial relationships, sanctioning fees, conflicts of interest, and
bout agreements in a manner similar to the protections currently
intended under the Ali Act, while maintaining independent oversight, a
formal appeals process, and clear reporting mechanisms that allow
fighters to confidentially report misconduct, coercion, retaliation, or
potential abuses without fear of jeopardizing their careers.
Question 5. INTERNATIONAL FIGHTS: While many bouts happen in the
U.S., boxing has always been an international sport. However, courts
have found that the current Ali Act only applies to boxing matches held
in the U.S.
a. Mr. De La Hoya, as we consider additional health and safety
benefits for boxers, what can Congress do to enhance protections for
boxers and ensure they understand the limits of U.S. law?
Answer. Congress should mandate that promoters provide fighters
with plain-language written notice in the fighter's primary language
explaining which protections apply to bouts held outside the United
States and which do not. Many fighters, particularly those from lower-
income backgrounds or non-English-speaking countries, simply do not
know that U.S. law may not follow them overseas.
b. Mr. De La Hoya, should Congress consider requiring UBOs to have
consistent protections for athletes regardless of where the fight is
taking place?
Answer. Yes. If a UBO is going to receive the benefits of Federal
recognition and the market power that comes with it, it should also be
required to guarantee fighters consistent health, safety, and financial
protections in every jurisdiction where it operates. A fighter signed
to a U.S.-regulated entity should not lose those protections simply
because a bout is staged in Riyadh or Dubai instead of Las Vegas.
c. Mr. De La Hoya, with more foreign money being dedicated to the
sport, I'm also concerned more fights may take place overseas with
little to no rules to preserve the integrity of bouts. What can
Congress do to incentivize fights in the U.S. and prevent against
fights in countries without protections against fixed or unfair fights?
Answer. The influx of foreign capital into boxing, particularly
from Gulf states, is one of the most significant shifts I have seen in
my career. However, the United States remains one of the strongest
regulatory environments in combat sports because of its established
state athletic commission system and longstanding oversight mechanisms.
Congress can help preserve that leadership position by supporting
strong regulatory standards, encouraging transparency, and creating
incentives for promoters, broadcasters, and event operators to continue
investing in U.S.-based events. One potential approach could include
targeted tax incentives for hosting major boxing events domestically,
recognizing the significant economic impact these events can have on
local communities through event and video production, tourism,
hospitality, job creation, and related business activity.
Question 6. CONTRACTS:
a. Mr. De La Hoya, how can Congress ensure boxers are protected
from retaliation if they choose to end a contract with a promoter or
UBO?
Answer. Fighters should never fear retaliation for exercising their
contractual rights. Congress can help protect athletes by strengthening
anti-retaliation provisions, ensuring access to independent legal
review, and preserving clear dispute resolution mechanisms.
b. Mr. De La Hoya, how have the contract requirements and
protections against coercive contract sections under current law
protected athletes? Are there still remaining gaps and should Congress
consider additional provisions to adequately protect boxers and ensure
fair contracts?
Answer. The Ali Act's protections against coercive contracts and
undisclosed conflicts have been important safeguards for fighters. The
transparency requirements have helped fighters better understand the
financial structure of their events and have reduced some of the abuses
that existed previously. Since the passage of the Ali Act, the industry
has evolved toward greater accountability and professionalism for
fighters and other stakeholders. While the system is not perfect and
gaps still remain, particularly for younger fighters entering the sport
with limited legal or financial knowledge, Congress should consider
measures that improve fighter education and access to independent legal
counsel.
c. Mr. De La Hoya, the current version of the Muhammad Ali American
Boxing Revival Act caps contract lengths to six years. How long is the
average boxing career and based on that information, should Congress
consider lowering the contract cap? What would be the impact on boxers'
ability to negotiate by allowing multi-year contracts?
Answer. Based on my experience, the average professional boxing
career, from a fighter's professional debut to retirement, typically
spans approximately five to fifteen years for those who reach the
highest levels of the sport. However, a fighter's peak earning years
are often concentrated within a much shorter window, frequently four to
seven years. A six-year contract cap could therefore encompass the
majority of a fighter's prime earning potential, potentially locking
athletes into terms negotiated before their market value is fully
established. I would encourage Congress to consider a shorter cap, with
the ability for fighters to negotiate subsequent contracts once they
have established their value in the marketplace. Such an approach would
better protect fighters while still preserving the ability of promoters
and other stakeholders to make reasonable long-term investments in
developing talent.
d. Mr. De La Hoya, should Congress consider requiring shorter
contract lengths for newer boxers (i.e., a ``rookie'' year contract)?
Answer. Congress could consider additional protections for newer
fighters, including shorter initial agreements or enhanced review
requirements. Younger fighters often lack experience and bargaining
power, making early-career protections particularly important. Congress
should also keep in mind that newer boxers are still developing in
their first six years, and aren't very profitable as they build their
careers.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Fetterman to
Oscar De La Hoya
Question 1. You fought professionally before and after the
Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 (``PBSA'') was signed into law.
a. Do you believe fighters have benefited from the PBSA's
protections and standards?
Answer. Yes, without question. I turned professional in 1992 and
fought both before and after the PBSA was enacted in 1996. The
difference was tangible. Before the Act, there was no consistent
national standard for medical testing. A fighter could lose a bout in
one state under circumstances that would have been flagged in another,
and no one shared records across state lines. Managers and promoters
moved fighters to jurisdictions with weaker oversight. The PBSA's
requirement of minimum health and safety standards, along with its
establishment of a national registry, made the sport meaningfully
safer. Fighters' lives have been protected as a result.
b. Do you believe fighters could benefit from building on PBSA
standards with respect to medical evaluations, minimum health and/or
life insurance requirements, and other safety standards?
Answer. There is always room to improve fighter safety, including
stronger medical evaluations, better insurance protections, and long-
term health safeguards. Medicine has advanced significantly since 1996.
We now have much better tools for identifying traumatic brain injury,
chronic traumatic encephalopathy risk factors, and cardiovascular
vulnerabilities. The PBSA's baseline standards should be updated to
reflect current medical science. Additionally, safety standards vary
from state to state and greater consistency across the different
athletic commissions would be helpful.
c. What do you believe is the intended purpose of creating an
entirely different standard for medical evaluations, minimum health
and/or life insurance, and other safety standards for unified boxing
organizations (UBOs) as in the House-passed Muhammad Ali American
Boxing Revival Act (``Revival Act'')?
Answer. That is a question I would respectfully urge the Committee
to press the bill's proponents to answer directly and on the record.
From my perspective, creating a dual standard, one for UBOs and another
for the broader sport, risks creating a system in which the strongest
fighters, who are most likely to compete under UBO auspices, receive
enhanced protections while other fighters are left behind. If the goal
is to improve safety across professional boxing, the standards should
apply uniformly. I am concerned that a bifurcated system could also be
used as a competitive tool, with UBO medical standards used to attract
or exclude fighters for commercial rather than safety reasons.
Moreover, current Zuffa contracts pass these medical costs on to the
fighters. So, the fighters carry the burden of their own health and
wellness.
Question 2. You fought professionally before and after the Muhammad
Ali Boxing Reform (``Ali Act'') was signed into law in 2000. Given your
experiences, can you specifically describe:
a. How a promoter directly controlling a title and ranking system
in boxing, or any combat sport, could create a conflict of interest
that is detrimental to the fighter and provide examples if you have
any?
Answer. One of the concerns the Ali Act sought to address was the
conflict that can arise when too much control over rankings, titles,
and promotion is concentrated in the hands of the same individuals or
entities. When a promoter also has influence over championship
opportunities or rankings, fighters may feel pressured to accept
unfavorable terms to access major fights or title opportunities.
Before the Ali Act, I experienced firsthand how much leverage
promoters could hold over the economic structure of major fights. For
example, during my fight with Felix Trinidad, promoters and associated
business interests exercised significant control over the revenues and
negotiations surrounding the event. Fighters often had limited
visibility into the full financial picture and limited leverage to
challenge the structure of those deals. Essentially, I only made a
small share of total monies received for the historic fight. The Ali
Act helped move the sport toward greater accountability by separating
promotional interests from championship control and requiring greater
financial disclosure.
b. What a coercive contract looked like, prior to the Ali Act being
signed into law?
Answer. Before the Ali Act, coercive contracts were rampant, and I
experienced their consequences personally. A typical problematic
contract would include: an initial term of three or four years,
followed by multiple promotional option periods that the promoter, not
the fighter, could exercise unilaterally, effectively extending the
relationship indefinitely; broad exclusivity clauses that prevented a
fighter from seeking other promotional opportunities even during
periods of inactivity; ancillary rights grabs covering a fighter's
name, image, and likeness for commercial purposes well beyond the
contract term; and financial penalties for breach that were so severe
as to make termination practically impossible. Fighters, often young
men with no business background and limited legal representation,
signed these agreements without fully understanding what they were
giving up.
c. How the transparency requirements under the Ali Act benefit
fighters today?
Answer. The Ali Act's requirement that promoters disclose the
amounts of all fees, charges, and remunerations paid or to be paid to a
promoter in connection with a boxing match, including from broadcasters
and other sources, has fundamentally changed the information
environment for fighters. Before that requirement, fighters often had
no idea how much money the promoter was making from their fight. That
information asymmetry was routinely exploited. Today, a fighter or
their advisor can see the full financial picture and negotiate
accordingly. The transparency requirements have given fighters and
their teams the tools to be genuine business partners rather than just
labor.
Question 3. During the hearing, in response to the Chairman's
question on ``confusion'' and ``chaos'' in the sport of boxing, you
referenced Floyd Mayweather's interest in protecting his record. For
those who may not follow boxing closely, can you further explain what
you meant by that statement?
Answer. My point during the hearing was that boxing is unique
because individual legacy and undefeated records often influence
business decisions, matchmaking, and career strategy. Fighters
sometimes become more selective because a loss can dramatically impact
marketability, earning potential, and public perception. That dynamic
contributes to some of the frustration fans feel regarding delays in
major fights, but it is also a reflection of the economic structure of
modern boxing.
Question 4. The Revival Act contains a provision that limits a
proposed UBOs promotional contract with a fighter to six years.
a. Given your experience as a fighter, and as a promoter, how long
is the average career for a boxer?
Answer. The average professional boxing career varies considerably
by weight class and individual circumstance. For fighters who reach
elite levels, the career from first professional bout to final fight
typically spans five to fifteen years, though the competitive peak
where a fighter is in genuine title contention and earning at the
highest levels is often concentrated in a five to eight year window.
Many fighters have shorter careers due to injury, performance decline,
or financial pressures that force them to continue fighting beyond
their prime. The variability makes it particularly important that early
contracts not overcommit a fighter before they know their own
trajectory.
b. Do you believe that a six-year limit is sufficient to ensure
fighters are able to make the best long-term decisions for their
careers?
Answer. Certain states already impose limits on the length of
promotional contracts. For example, California generally limits boxer-
promoter contracts to five years, while New York has historically
imposed shorter limitations in certain circumstances. A six-year limit
may help ensure fighters periodically regain leverage and reassess
their options as their careers evolve. However, Congress should also
recognize that developing fighters often requires substantial long-term
financial investment from promoters before any return is realized.
Question 5. Can you describe what financial information is made
available to a fighter and when that information becomes available to a
fighter under the Ali Act?
a. Can you describe why this information is valuable to a fighter?
Answer. Under the Ali Act, a promoter is required to disclose to a
fighter, in writing, all fees, charges, and compensation the promoter
has received or expects to receive in connection with a bout, including
revenue from television and broadcast rights, ticket sales,
sponsorships, merchandising, and other related sources. Fighters are
also entitled to receive copies of contracts related to the bout
involving the promoter, as well as a full accounting of any deductions
made from the fighter's compensation. These disclosures are generally
made available once the promoter has received, or has entered into an
agreement to receive, the applicable revenues. This transparency helps
fighters better understand whether they are being compensated fairly
relative to the revenues generated by the event and provides valuable
information they can use to negotiate future fights and promoter
contracts based on their market value.
b. Would quarterly financial disclosures from a publicly traded UBO
hold the same value to a fighter as financial information required to
be disclosed under the Ali Act?
Answer. Not at all, and this distinction is critical. The Ali Act's
financial disclosure requirement is bout-specific and forward-looking:
a fighter receives information about the specific fight they are
participating in almost immediately. Quarterly disclosures from a
publicly traded UBO are aggregate, historical, and general, useful for
understanding the overall financial health of the organization but not
for evaluating whether a specific purse offer is fair considering the
revenues that specific event generated. These are complementary forms
of transparency, not substitutes. Replacing the Ali Act's targeted
disclosures with public company reporting would leave fighters without
the specific, actionable information they need at the moment it matters
most when they are negotiating their next fight.
Question 6. Do you believe that the formation of a union for all
boxers, or all combat sports athletes would benefit the health, safety,
and fair compensation of the athletes?
Answer. Fighters would likely benefit from stronger collective
representation regarding health, safety, pension protections, and long-
term support. However, boxing is uniquely complex because fighters
operate as independent contractors across multiple promoters,
broadcasters, commissions, and countries. Any effort to create a union
or association would need to account for the decentralized and
international nature of combat sports while still preserving fighter
independence and opportunity.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Democratic Senators to
Timothy L. Shipman
Subject: ENFORCEMENT: In 2003, a GAO report found Federal
enforcement of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 was severely
limited. It explicitly stated that DOJ had not prosecuted cases under
the Act because it had received no referrals from Federal law
enforcement and it prioritizes felony violations, rather than
misdemeanors, which violations under the Act were.
Question. Mr. Shipman, how do we improve enforcement of current law
and ensure any changes to the law are enforceable?
Answer. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) findings
highlight a longstanding structural gap between the intent and the
practical enforcement of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act and the
Professional Boxing Safety Act, codified at 15 U.S. Code Chapter 89.
Chapter 89 establishes important national standards to protect the
health, safety, and economic rights of professional boxers, including
boxer registration and recordkeeping (Sec. 6305), medical safeguards
and suspension recognition (Sec. 6304-6306), financial disclosures
(Sec. 6307), and prohibitions on conflicts of interest (Sec. 6308) .
However, enforcement of these provisions has been significantly limited
in practice.
As identified by the GAO, there is no clearly designated Federal
entity responsible for investigating or enforcing violations of these
statutes. While the statute authorizes the Attorney General to pursue
injunctions and criminal penalties, those penalties are generally
limited to misdemeanor level offenses up to one year imprisonment or
fines which contribute to low Federal enforcement priority. The
Department of Justice has not pursued cases under the Act, in part
because it has not received referrals from Federal law enforcement and
because these violations do not align with typical prosecutorial
priorities.
Additionally, the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC), while
serving an important coordinating role, has no statutory enforcement
authority. Its mission is to promote uniformity, communication, and
adherence to laws not to investigate or prosecute violations. It also
lacks the financial resources and legal authority necessary to take
enforcement action or make formal referrals.
In practice, enforcement has largely defaulted to tribal and state
athletic commissions, resulting in inconsistent application across
jurisdictions. Many disputes, particularly those involving financial
disclosures and conflicts of interest, are addressed through private
civil litigation rather than coordinated public enforcement. This
creates a fragmented and reactive system that relies heavily on
individual actors rather than structured oversight.
To improve enforcement of current law and ensure that any
amendments are enforceable, several actions should be considered:
First, recommend Congress designate or establish a Federal
enforcement authority with clear responsibility for investigating
violations of Chapter 89 and coordinating with the Department of
Justice. Without a defined enforcement body, statutory requirements
remain largely self-executing.
Second, a formal referral mechanism should be established between
tribal and state athletic commissions, the ABC, and Federal law
enforcement. This would allow patterns of misconduct, particularly
those involving interstate activity to be elevated and addressed
consistently at the Federal level.
Third, recommend Congress strengthen the penalty structure within
the statute. Elevating certain willful or repeated violations
especially those involving fraud, nondisclosure, coercive contractual
practices, or serious safety risks to felony level offenses would
better align with DOJ enforcement priorities and improve deterrence.
Fourth, it is important to provide Federal support and incentives
for state level enforcement, recognizing that tribal and state
commissions are the primary implementers of the law. Grant funding,
shared investigative resources, and minimum national enforcement
standards would promote greater uniformity.
Finally, any legislative changes should include dedicated funding
and clear implementation guidance, ensuring that enforcement authority
is matched with the resources necessary to carry out congressional
intent.
These reforms would produce meaningful, practical benefits across
the industry:
For fighters, stronger enforcement would transform existing
protections into real safeguards. Consistent oversight would
improve health and safety compliance, ensure more reliable
medical suspensions and recordkeeping, and reduce the risk of
exploitation through undisclosed financial arrangements or
conflicts of interest. Stronger penalties and Federal
involvement would also deter coercive practices and ranking
manipulation, giving fighters a fairer opportunity to compete
and earn.
For promoters, clearer and more consistent enforcement would
create a more predictable regulatory environment across states.
Promoters who operate in compliance would benefit from a level
playing field, where competitors are held to the same standards
and cannot gain advantage through regulatory gaps. Increased
credibility in rankings and sanctioning decisions would also
strengthen event marketing and consumer confidence.
For sanctioning organizations, the introduction of
structured oversight particularly through licensing would
enhance legitimacy and transparency. While it would impose
accountability, it would also distinguish credible
organizations from less reputable actors, improving trust among
fighters, promoters, regulators, and the public. A more uniform
system would reduce disputes and provide clearer operational
expectations.
In summary, improving enforcement will require not only statutory
changes, but also the establishment of clear authority, coordinated
referral pathways, meaningful penalties, and adequate resources.
Aligning these elements will ensure that the protections established
under 15 U.S. Code Chapter 89 are consistently and effectively
enforced, rather than relying on fragmented tribal and state action or
private civil litigation.
On the enforcement side, one of the most practical and immediately
effective steps Congress could take is to require the Association of
Boxing Commissions to license sanctioning organizations including
Unified Boxing Organizations (UBO's), should the legislation pass
Senate. Right now, there is virtually no direct oversight of these
entities no licensing framework, no auditing mechanism, and no clear
authority to revoke their ability to operate.
If the ABC were granted the authority to license sanctioning bodies
and, critically, the power to suspend or revoke those licenses for
serious or repeated violations you would introduce real enforcement
authority without creating an entirely new Federal bureaucracy. This
approach leverages an existing organization whose mission already
includes promoting uniform standards and enforcement consistency.
That single reform would give tribal and state commissions a clear
mechanism to push back against problematic practices such as ranking
manipulation, unfair bout selection, and conflicts of interest. It
would also create a centralized accountability structure that currently
does not exist, while reinforcing the broader benefits to fighters,
promoters, and sanctioning organizations through increased fairness,
consistency, and credibility across the sport.
While broader Federal enforcement reforms remain important,
licensing sanctioning organizations through the ABC represents a
practical, targeted starting point that could significantly strengthen
oversight while preserving the tribal and state based regulatory
framework.
Finally, the emphasis on funding and implementation guidance
reflects an understanding that statutory reform alone is insufficient.
The failure of past enforcement efforts was not due to lack of law, but
lack of execution. Pairing authority with resources is what makes this
set of recommendations credible.
Overall, these proposals are not overly expansive they are
targeted, structural fixes that address known gaps. If implemented
thoughtfully, they would move the system from fragmented and reactive
to coordinated and enforceable, which is consistent with the original
intent of 15 U.S. Code Chapter 89.
Subject: MEDIA DEALS: In the past, broadcasters would pay a
specific license fee for particular matches. However, sports today,
including boxing, are now signing multi-year media rights deals with a
variety of media companies beyond traditional broadcasting companies.
Question. Mr. Shipman, beyond transparency related to media rights
deals, should Congress consider additional transparency requirements,
such as requirements hat mirror those that a publicly company must
disclose?
Answer. While increased transparency is generally a worthwhile
objective, I believe applying public company style disclosure
requirements to boxing media rights agreements would be difficult to
implement and, in many cases, would not meaningfully advance the core
regulatory goals of the sport.
Under current Federal law, including the Professional Boxing Safety
Act, the primary focus of regulation is on fighter safety, integrity of
competition, and conflict-of-interest protections, not the oversight of
commercial media agreements. Tribal and State Boxing Commissions are
structured around that same mission. Our responsibilities are focused
on licensing, medical oversight, bout approval, and enforcement, not
the review of complex, multi-year media contracts.
As a practical matter, most commissions are small agencies without
the staff or expertise to analyze sophisticated broadcast or streaming
agreements. Expanding disclosure requirements to mirror those of public
companies would create significant administrative burdens and raise
legitimate concerns about the handling of proprietary business
information, including trade secrets, and or commercially sensitive
information.
That said, I do recognize that Congress may have an interest in
understanding how evolving media rights structures could impact broader
issues such as fighter compensation, market dynamics, and potential
conflicts of interest. If Congress chooses to explore additional
transparency in this area, I will respectfully suggest that any
approach be targeted and narrowly tailored, rather than a one-size-
fits-all mandate.
For example, Congress could consider:
Focusing only on larger, multi-year media rights agreements,
where the potential market impact is greatest.
Allowing for confidential or non-public reporting mechanisms
to protect sensitive business terms.
Placing any new reporting responsibility at the Federal
level or through a centralized entity, rather than tribal and
state commissions.
It is also important to recognize that the industry today includes
a wide spectrum from major national broadcast deals to smaller,
localized streaming arrangements. Any regulatory framework must be
flexible enough to account for that diversity.
Many states already address their financial interest in events
through statutorily capped broadcast assessments. California caps it at
$35,000, Florida at $40,000, and New York at $50,000. Once that cap is
paid, the state has received its fair share. At that point, requiring
promoters to turn over the actual contract serves no real regulatory
purpose.
In summary, while there may be room for targeted, carefully
designed transparency measures, I do not believe tribal and state
boxing commissions should be responsible for reviewing media rights
agreements, nor do I believe broad public company style disclosure
requirements would be practical or effective in this context. Any
changes should be narrowly focused, clearly defined, and aligned with
the existing regulatory mission of protecting fighters and maintaining
the integrity of the sport.
Subject: TRANSPARENCY ON RANKINGS & MATCHES: Mr. Shipman, should
Congress consider requiring public disclosure about how UBOs and
sanctioning organizations determine rankings, match determinations,
titles and title bouts? Are there other ways to provide more clarity
and transparency into the decisions made by sanctioning organizations,
UBOs, promoters, and boxers themselves related to how bouts and event
cards are determined?
Answer. I recommend Congress require sanctioning bodies to be much
more transparent about how they determine rankings and choose title
bouts. While the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 established an
important Federal framework to protect the health and safety of boxers
and to address certain conflicts of interest, it does not directly
regulate the processes by which rankings are developed, or title
opportunities are awarded. As a result, many of the most consequential
decisions affecting a boxer's career remain largely opaque and are not
subject to consistent oversight.
To address this gap, Congress may wish to consider establishing a
Federal registration or licensing requirement for sanctioning
organizations that operate within the United States. Under such a
framework, sanctioning bodies would be required, as a condition of
licensure, to adopt and publicly disclose standardized ranking
criteria, maintain written policies governing title eligibility and
mandatory challengers, and provide clear explanations for deviations
from those policies. Failure to comply with these requirements could
result in graduated enforcement actions, including civil penalties,
suspension of the organization's authority to sanction title bouts, or
revocation of its license.
In addition, Congress could require periodic reporting and
certification to ensure ongoing compliance. For example, sanctioning
organizations could be required to submit annual disclosures outlining
their ranking methodologies, and any exceptions granted in title bout
determinations. These disclosures would provide regulators, athletes,
and the public with greater visibility into decision making processes
and help deter practices that undermine competitive integrity.
Importantly, to the extent that certain sanctioning organizations
currently provide annual filings or make rankings publicly available
whether through regulatory submissions or publication on organizational
websites those practices should be formalized and applied uniformly
across the industry. All sanctioning bodies and UBOs should be held to
consistent disclosure standards, including regular submission or
publication of rankings. Establishing and enforcing this uniform
requirement would help level the playing field and ensure transparency
is not selectively applied.
The Association of Boxing Commission whose mission includes
promoting uniformity and improved standards across jurisdictions, could
assist in developing baseline guidelines or model standards for
rankings and bout selection. While the ABC does not currently exercise
direct regulatory authority over sanctioning organizations, it can
serve an important role in reviewing and mediating disputes,
particularly if supported by Federal authority to ensure consistency
and enforceability.
The Committee may also wish to examine the relationship between
promoters and sanctioning organizations. Although Federal law addresses
certain conflicts of interest involving regulators, it does not fully
encompass the financial and business relationships that can influence
rankings and bout selection. Congress could require disclosure of
sanctioning fees, promotional agreements, and other financial
arrangements tied to rankings or title opportunities. Where undisclosed
or improper relationships are identified, enforcement provisions should
authorize meaningful penalties, including fines and potential
disqualification of bouts from recognition.
It is also important to acknowledge that boxing operates at the
intersection of sport and entertainment. Matchmaking decisions are
often influenced by fan interest and market demand, which can benefit
the sport. However, once a fighter has legitimately earned a number one
contender position, there should be enforceable protections to ensure
that opportunity is not bypassed without clear, documented
justification. Congress could consider requiring that any deviation
from mandatory challenger status be formally documented, subject to
review, and, where appropriate, appealable.
Finally, Congress may wish to expand mechanisms for independent
review. Current law provides for appeals to the Association of Boxing
Commissions in limited circumstances, such as the review of
suspensions. A broader appeals framework potentially tied to the
proposed licensing system could allow fighters to challenge ranking
decisions, title stripping, or denied opportunities before an
independent body, with the ABC playing a central role in review and
mediation under Federal authority.
In conclusion, while it may not be possible to eliminate all
subjectivity from rankings and matchmaking, Congress has the ability to
impose meaningful transparency and accountability through enforceable
standards. A combination of disclosure requirements, licensing
authority, and clear penalties for non-compliance would significantly
strengthen the integrity of the sport and better protect professional
boxers.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Nico Ali Walsh
Your grandfather, Muhammad Ali, was not only a great American boxer
but a great leader. He advocated for boxers' rights and safety. He
spoke out against wrongs when others could not or would not.
Question 1. As a professional boxer yourself, what do you think it
is important for this Committee to understand about the current state
of boxing and the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act of 2026
(Revival Act)?
Answer. Boxing is a sport that has been on the forefront of civil
rights in the United States. Just a few leading examples include:
Jack Johnson broke the color barrier in 1908, the first
Black man to win the World Heavyweight Championship.
Joe Louis, after defeating the German Max Schmeling in 1938
in a blow to Hitler's white supremacy, used his influence to
desegregation the U.S. Army when he joined after the start of
World War II.
Of course, my grandfather Muhammad Ali was stripped of his
title for not fighting in the Vietnam War, but won his rights
and freedom in the U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark win for
the rights of Conscientious Objectors. For his work on civil
rights, he became and remains a huge worldwide icon for the
rights of people of races and religions.
So boxing has a unique role in American society. It is a sport and
cultural phenomenon that must be preserved from being dominated solely
by the commercial interests of one $40 billion company.
Boxers are people who are typically the poor and disadvantaged, who
deserve the protections that Muhammad Ali fought for, and which are
embodied in the Act named for him and passed in the year 2000.
That Act is designed to protect boxers from being exploited as in
the past. This proposed law would create an exception that would lead
to the exploitation of those athletes.
Question 2. What do you think your grandfather, the namesake of the
original Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, would think of the Revival
Act?
Answer. Muhammad Ali would strongly object to the Act. He saw how
other boxers were exploited by promoters, and fought for the original
Act to prevent that exploitation.
He would never agree that the so-called ``Revival Act'' should
create an exception to have a promoter control championships and
boxers' rankings, a huge conflict of interest that would prevent a
boxer from earning what he or she deserves when they risk their health,
and their lives, in the ring.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jacky Rosen to
Nico Ali Walsh
Question 1. ENFORCEMENT: In 2003, a GAO report found Federal
enforcement of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 was severely
limited. It explicitly stated that DOJ had not prosecuted cases under
the Act because it had received no referrals from Federal law
enforcement and it prioritizes felony violations, rather than
misdemeanors, which violations under the Act were.
a. Mr. Walsh, should Congress consider increasing penalties for
violations of boxing law to deter violations?
Answer. Absolutely. The current Act limits penalties to
misdemeanors, meaning, imprisonment for not more than 1 year or fined
not more than $20,000, or both. Making violations a felony would
increase incentives for authorities to prosecute these crimes, as well
as to deter violations.
Question 2. PROTECTING BOXERS: Each state has different rules about
protections for boxers, including health, safety, and minimum wages.
These rules are meant to protect all boxers, not just the ones fighting
for championship titles.
a. Mr. Walsh, how can Congress protect all professional boxers, not
just the ones who make it to the very top? Should Congress consider
creating a national commission to establish uniform standards or does
the current state by state commission model adequately protect boxers?
Answer. The Ali Act's protections are currently limited to boxers
who are in matches of 10 rounds or more, so yes, it should apply to all
boxers, and to mixed martial arts fighters as well.
The key is uniformity of standards, whether to be enforced by
states or a possible Federal commission. One concern about a Federal
commission is the possibility for it to be dominated by political
interests. The so-called Revival Act is a good example.
Why? Because it is being strongly pushed by President Trump based
on his friendship with Dana White, head of the UFC, and his Secretary
of Education, Linda McMahon, former President of WWE. Both are part of
TKO Group (NYSE: TKO), a $40 billion company that is moving into boxing
under a brand called Zuffa.
The ``Revival Act'' would permit Zuffa to establish its own
Championships, and have one man--Dana White--determine who and who does
not fight for the titles. It would create a dangerous monopoly in
boxing as he did in Mixed Martial Arts (``MMA'') with the UFC.
Proving why that model is bad for fighters, in October 2024, UFC
made a $375 million settlement of a class action lawsuit against UFC
for anticompetitive practices that caused mixed martial arts (MMA)
fighters to earn significantly less than they should have been paid.
Yet, Trump is hosting a UFC show on the White House lawn next month to
celebrate the 250th Independence Day. How is this good for fighters
being exploited?
So, great care should be taken to stop the ``Revival Act'' from
giving a sweetheart deal to the President's supporters, and from
Federal boxing regulation becoming corrupted to benefit the Friends of
Trump?
In any event, the Ali Act should be improved to strengthen
uniformity of safety, medical, and economic protections for all boxers,
with strengthened enforcement by state commissions and the DOJ.
b. Mr. Walsh, should Congress consider requiring minimum health and
accidental death insurance levels adjust to inflation and allow
athletes to be protected at escalating levels in the years to come?
Answer. Absolutely. A law passed in the Year 2000, without updates
for inflation and current and future economic realities, is outdated.
Again, most boxers are less educated, from working class and poor
backgrounds, using the sport to fight their way to a better life. Few
people risk their lives as a profession unless they have to, to feed
their families. Fighters deserve increasingly better insurance
protections.
Question 3. INTERNATIONAL FIGHTS: While many bouts happen in the
U.S., boxing has always been an international sport. However, courts
have found that the current Ali Act only applies to boxing matches held
in the U.S.
a. Mr. Walsh, as we consider additional health and safety benefits
for boxers, what can Congress do to enhance protections for boxers and
ensure they understand the limits of U.S. law?
Answer. In reality, countries around the world have followed the
U.S. system, not permitting promoters to control boxing championships
and boxers' ratings and title opportunities. The biggest problem is
that if the U.S. law is weakened by creating the exceptions in the so-
called ``American Boxing Revival Act'', the USA will lose its influence
on the world stage, with other countries seeing the way to permit
conflicts of interest to benefit their own countries, fracturing the
sport at its core.
b. Mr. Walsh, what can Congress do to prevent boxers from being
forced to fight in foreign countries, where laws don't require adequate
health and safety protections?
Answer. The Ali Act should be strengthened by including a new
provision that says that any promoter licensed by any U.S. state,
territory, or tribal nation must provide the same standards for boxers'
protection if they stage events, directly or indirectly through third
parties, in any location in the USA or elsewhere.
c. Mr. Walsh, should Congress consider requiring UBOs to have
consistent protections for athletes regardless of where the fight is
taking place?
Answer. Perhaps the biggest problem with the indirectly so-called
``Revival Act'' is that it exempts UBOs from having to comply with all
the requirements that other boxing promoters must follow. A UBO would
be both a promoter and a championship/ratings organization, so, rather
than being exempt, should have to follow the Ali Act laws applicable to
both promoters and sanctioning organizations--not have an exception to
both.
d. Mr. Walsh, with more foreign money being dedicated to the sport,
I'm also concerned more fights may take place overseas with little to
no rules to preserve the integrity of bouts. What can Congress do to
incentivize fights in the U.S. and prevent against fights in countries
without protections against fixed or unfair fights?
Answer. This is a great question, because Dana White and TKO's
boxing venture has been financed to date by/through Sela Sport--a Saudi
Arabian company owned by the government. (https://www.spa.gov.sa/
N2276063, https://www.sportingnews.
com/us/boxing/news/saudi-arabia-boxing-takeover-riyadh-season/
be3baac4cde37a
ea73de1044).
In fact, after financing many World Championships, some in the USA
but mostly in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia--megafights that would in prior
years have been held in Las Vegas or other USA venues--it has just very
recently been revealed that the Saudi entities will no longer fund any
shows outside of that country. This means that Dana White's boxing
partner would be moving all shows out of the USA.
Question 4. CONTRACTS:
a. Mr. Walsh, how can Congress ensure boxers are protected from
retaliation if they choose to end a contract with a promoter or UBO?
Answer. Any change that permits a UBO should limit the term of
contracts for boxers who sign with the UBO, such as making them no
longer than one year, and prevent giving the UBO unlimited future
options.
Its sponsor wants the UBO to have many exceptions to the current
law, so in return, they need to give boxers the right every 12 months
whether to stay in that closed system, or again become free agents in
the open marketplace of boxing.
Also, the UBO should not have the right to control the name, image,
and likeness of boxers beyond the term of the contract (TKO affiliate
WWE almost always creates images and names for their wrestlers that are
owned forever by the company and not the athlete, which is wrong, and
should not be permitted in boxing).
b. Mr. Walsh, how have the contract requirements and protections
against coercive contract sections under current law protected
athletes? Are there still remaining gaps and should Congress consider
additional provisions to adequately protect boxers and ensure fair
contracts?
Answer. Current boxing shows the boxers benefitting from an
estimated 80 percent of the economic benefit of boxing, with promoters
having the remaining 20 percent gain and often losses from the sport.
UFC is the opposite, with fighters being paid a fixed amount of less
than 20 percent, while the promotion makes hundreds of millions from
exploited fighters who unknowingly signed contracts taking away their
rights.
The best thing that Congress can do today is not to permit
exceptions to the Ali Act, and keep negotiating power in the fighting
hands of the boxers, not billion-dollar corporations.
c. Mr. Walsh, the current version of the Muhammad Ali American
Boxing Revival Act caps contract lengths to six years. How long is the
average boxing career and based on that information, should Congress
consider lowering the contract cap? What would be the impact on boxers'
ability to negotiate by allowing multi-year contracts?
Answer. Boxing is a free market sport, so data on career length is
limited, but the prime age of boxers is from 22 to 34.
Having said that, six years is a very long time for any athlete,
but the current free market system seems to be working generally. For
boxers in a UBO, however, they will no longer be in an open free market
system. Therefore, as noted above, UBO contracts should be confined to
one year maximum.
d. Mr. Walsh, should Congress consider requiring shorter contract
lengths for newer boxers (i.e., a ``rookie'' year contract)?
Answer. Young boxers often need time to become stars, which
requires investment losses. I would be concerned that promoters would
not want to invest in young boxers without the protection of a longer-
term contract. So I would not be in favor of a different standard; I
prefer uniform standards across the board protecting all fighters.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Fetterman to
Nico Ali Walsh
Question 1. Do you believe fighters could benefit from Congress
building on Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 (``PBSA'') standards
with respect to medical evaluations, minimum health and/or life
insurance requirements, and other safety standards? Yes, of course.
a. What do you believe is the intended purpose of creating an
entirely different standard for medical evaluations, minimum health
and/or life insurance, and other safety standards for unified boxing
organizations (UBOs) as in the House-passed Muhammad Ali American
Boxing Revival Act (``Revival Act'')?
Answer. I think the different stated standards for UBOs are a
distraction, as many of those standards already exist in industry
practices, and are a smoke screen to cover the ways in which UBOs will
be bad in the long run.
My strong opinion is that if we want to increase medical, safety,
and insurance standards, they should be strengthened uniformly across
all professional boxing.
Question 2. The Revival Act limits a proposed UBO's promotional
contract to six years. Do you believe this limit is sufficient to
ensure fighters are able to leverage fair market value for their
talents?
Answer. As stated above, boxers in a UBO should have contracts
limited to 12 months, after which they can decide whether to stay in
the closed system, or become free agents back in the open, free market
system that exists outside the UBO.
Question 3. Can you explain what a ``coercive contract'' could look
like if the Revival Act were to be signed into law as currently
drafted?
Answer. The Ali Act defines a coercive contract essentially as one
that requires a boxer to sign a contract with a certain promoter in
order to get a championship opportunity or to fight against another
boxer under contract to that same promoter.
By definition, therefore, since a UBO as a closed league will have
boxers fighting only against other boxers in that promotion, UBO
contracts would be coercive under the current definition. So the
``Revival Act'' is totally intended to permit a certain promoter to
require boxers to sign what today are recognized as coercive and
against public policy.
Question 4. As an active fighter, do you believe there is
sufficient competition in the sport of boxing for you to get fair
market value for your talent as a fighter?
Answer. Yes, very much. Today's system has many independent
promoters and several world championship organizations, creating
multiple opportunities for boxers to benefit greatly. Top boxers have
often been in the top 5 of all athletes in terms of earnings in their
best years.
Question 5. Do you believe that if protections from the original
Ali Act were to be expanded to include other combat sports athletes
like mixed martial arts, it would lead to better pay and improved
working conditions for those fighters? What evidence do you have to
support your claim?
Answer. Absolutely no doubt about it. One of the best examples is
former UFC fighter Francis Ngannou, who quit the UFC as its then-
current Heavyweight Champion because they rejected his requests to the
UFC to provide health insurance for all its fighters and to allow its
athletes to have their own sponsorship deals. (https://www.bbc.com/
sport/mixed-martial-arts/64311715).
Again, boxers like Floyd Mayweather Jr. have made purses for a
single bout of $250 million-$300 million, while UFC fighters had to sue
to get a $375 million settlement, spread among 1,088 claims, with a
projected average payout of only $230,792, with a median of $85,949.
Citations: https://sports.yahoo.com/mma/article/ufc-fighters-are-
finally-getting-their-money-antitrust-payouts-explained-from-highest-
earners-to-next-steps-1705379
59.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
https://www.totalprosports.com/boxing/which-floyd-mayweathers-
opponent-fetched-him-the-biggest-payday-mcgregor-pacquaio-canelo-or-
others/
The facts are clear; the TKO/UFC model is bad for fighters, while
boxing under the current Ali Act permits boxers to make more money
under better working conditions with more freedom.
Question 6. Regardless of whether a version of the Revival Act is
signed into law, do you believe that formation of a union for all
boxers, or all combat sport athletes, would be beneficial to the
health, safety, and fair compensation of the athletes?
Answer. Players' unions have worked in all U.S. sports leagues,
such as the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL. It seems clear that it would be
great for fighters to have collective representation as in other
sports.
Question 7. Do you believe the House-passed Revival Act as
currently drafted should carry the name of your grandfather, Muhammad
Ali?
Answer. I said it before and I will say it again:
If this bill is passed in its current form, it should not have my
grandfather's name on it, as it would no longer reflect the principles
that his Act was created to protect. He fought for dignity outside the
ring. This is about dignity inside it. Fighters should not have to
choose between their careers and their rights.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jacky Rosen to
Nick Khan
Question 1. ENFORCEMENT: In 2003, a GAO report found Federal
enforcement of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 was severely
limited. It explicitly stated that DOJ had not prosecuted cases under
the Act because it had received no referrals from Federal law
enforcement and it prioritizes felony violations, rather than
misdemeanors, which violations under the Act were.
a. Mr. Khan, should Congress consider increasing penalties for
violations of boxing law to deter violations?
Answer. The challenges facing boxing are not related to the
enforcement of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996. The real
problems relate to deeper structural issues within the sport--
particularly fragmentation and the lack of uniform rules--which led to
collusion and self-dealing among promoters, managers, and sanctioning
bodies.
The July 21, 2003, GAO letter transmitting its report to Chairman
John McCain cited in your question observes that:
Congress has recognized that boxing is the only major
professional sport in the United States without a central
regulatory authority that establishes and enforces uniform
rules, business practices, and ethical standards. There is no
other major professional sport in which the rules and
regulations--and their enforcement--vary so widely. As a
result, the sport has been plagued with reports of permanent
and sometimes fatal injuries, the economic exploitation of
boxers, and corruption.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman, Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate, ``Issues Related to
the Protection of Boxers' Health, Safety, and Economic Interests'' GAO-
03-699 (July 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commentator explained:
Boxing's decline can also be attributed to the inconsistent and
fragmented nature of its promotional efforts. Unlike major team
sports with centralized leagues and promotional strategies,
boxing is characterized by a myriad of competing promoters,
governing bodies, and weight divisions. This fragmentation
often leads to scheduling conflicts, diluted talent pools, and
confusion among fans. The lack of a cohesive structure and
unified approach to promotion has made it challenging to
sustain long-term interest and build storylines that engage the
audience. Moreover, the prevalence of various boxing
organizations with multiple champions in each weight class has
diluted the significance of title fights, reducing their appeal
to casual fans.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Nicholas P. Carlone, ``The Decline of Boxing in the USA: A
Comprehensive Analysis,'' Medium (May 13, 2023).
What was true and obvious when the GAO issued its 2003 report is
unfortunately still true in 2026. The Muhammad Ali American Boxing
Revival Act (MAABRA) addresses these structural problems that the
Federal government and boxing fans have long recognized. The creation
of alternative Unified Boxing Organizations (UBOs) will foster greater
competition to entrenched incumbents, provide greater choice and merit-
based pathways to boxers, and create a consistent framework upon which
to revive the sport. Importantly, MAABRA requires UBOs to pay boxers a
minimum of $200 per round, as negotiated in the House, to ensure that
smaller UBOs are not priced out of the market.
Ultimately, reviving boxing requires modernization. Creating
credible alternative structures--UBOs--offers the most effective way to
introduce competition, drive innovation, and confront systemic
challenges that existing law fails to fully address
2. UBO DOMINANCE:
a. Mr. Khan, some critics of the proposed legislation have raised
concerns regarding the elimination of smaller non-UBO sanctioning
bodies and promoters. Under this bill, how would we ensure a fair
playing field for smaller non-UBO sanctioning organizations and
promoters?
Answer. We do not interpret MAABRA to have a negative impact on
sanctioning bodies or promoters regardless of their size. Under the
legislation, UBOs complement the current system to increase competition
and choice for boxers and will exist in parallel to sanctioning bodies.
MAABRA does not eliminate sanctioning bodies or promoters. Sanctioning
bodies and promoters will still operate and compete in the marketplace
so long as they follow applicable Federal and state law.
The criticism emanates from the boxing industry's largest, not
smallest, promoters and sanctioning bodies, including the Mexico City-
based World Boxing Council (WBC). It should be of little surprise that
incumbents oppose competition, because the current system
disproportionately benefits them. Boxing today is highly concentrated,
with four major sanctioning bodies exerting significant control over
rankings, titles, and championship opportunities, while small
sanctioning bodies have not meaningfully thrived or disrupted this
structure. As a result, the current system is not a model of vibrant
competition, but rather one in which a small number of entrenched large
entities dominate key aspects of the marketplace, often to the
detriment of boxers.
There have been several examples over the past year, where
sanctioning bodies have shown a disturbing pattern of deciding titles
for non-boxing reasons. In March 2026, the International Boxing
Federation (IBF) stripped Jai Opetaia of its cruiserweight world title,
after he sought to fight Brandon Glanton under the banner of Zuffa
Boxing.\3\ Although Opetaia's team sought approval for the fight, IBF
denied their request arguing that it did not recognize fights organized
outside the other large sanctioning bodies.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Sheldan Keay, ``IBF makes final decision on stripping Jai
Opetaia of world title,'' Boxing News (March 23, 2026).
\4\ ``Jai Opetaia officially stripped of IBF title,'' Boxing
Showtimes (March 24, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2025, the WBC took similar action against one of the
sport's biggest stars, Terence Crawford. Crawford defeated Canelo
Alvarez to become the undisputed, undefeated, super-middleweight
champion. Shortly after the victory, the WBC announced it was stripping
Crawford of his championship belt for failing to pay mandatory
sanctioning fees.\5\ According to the WBC, Crawford owed roughly
$300,000, even after they reduced the standard fee from 3 percent to
0.6 percent of his reported purse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ James Dielhenn, ``WBC strips Terence Crawford, who responds in
fiery video post,'' ESPN.com (Dec. 3, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another high-profile stripping occurred in September 2025, when the
IBF removed Oleksandr Usyk's heavyweight title because of the
sanctioning body's mandatory defense requirement. Usyk was the
undisputed heavyweight champion, but after a fight with Tyson Fury, the
pair's fight contract called for an immediate rematch. The Usyk-Fury
contract conflicted with IBF's requirement that the champion (Usyk)
face their own determined challenger. When Usyk could not meet the
IBF's deadline to defend the title, the sanctioning body vacated the
belt and replaced Usyk with another boxer.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Usyk Stripped of IBF Crown in Bombshell Ruling as Fury
Rematch Looms,'' BritBrief (Aug. 9, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken together, these cases illustrate a consistent pattern in
modern boxing: a small number of sanctioning bodies control the fate of
boxers based on conduct unrelated to competition.
Question 3. MEDIA DEALS: In the past, broadcasters would pay a
specific license fee for particular matches. However, sports today,
including boxing, are now signing multi-year media rights deals with a
variety of media companies beyond traditional broadcasting companies.
a. Mr. Khan, should Congress consider updating disclosure
requirements for promoters to reflect this new landscape? Should UBOs
also be subject to updated disclosure requirements?
b. Mr. Khan, beyond transparency related to media rights deals,
should Congress consider additional transparency requirements, such as
requirements that mirror those that a publicly company must disclose?
Answer. We appreciate that Senators have raised questions about how
the Ali Act's disclosure requirements apply to UBOs. Those provisions
were designed specifically for the one-and-done sanctioning body model
covering a single fight, not the UBO model which is focused on the
long-term promotion of the boxer and the sport. But without
understanding how information from private contractual and commercially
sensitive agreements will be used and for what purposes, it is
difficult to give affirmative support for updated disclosure
requirements.
We believe however the UBO model provides more transparency and
disclosure to boxers about their compensation, compared to the current
sanctioning body model. The UBO system provides boxers with clarity and
transparency because they negotiate and sign a contract that sets forth
their guaranteed purse and any other financial incentives. Boxers know
exactly what they will make when they step into the ring. Therefore,
additional requirements in this regard are not necessary. Oscar de la
Hoya, who opposes MAABRA, conceded in his written testimony that mixed
martial artists know and understand their compensation when they sign a
contract and before they step into the Octagon.
The current compensation paradigm that relies on contingent pay
does not apply to the UBO system and does not help boxers earn more. To
be successful, a UBO will have to deliver a consistent experience to
broadcasters and fans. Broadcast, promotional and other rights are not
tied to one particular event which makes assigning revenue on an event-
by-event basis impractical and arbitrary. Boxers' compensation in the
UBO system will not be linked to any particular event, but the success
of the UBO and the sport over time. Even if a single UBO event does not
achieve economic success, the system does not penalize boxers. Their
compensation is guaranteed and does not depend on the performance of
any one event. Rather, it is driven by the longer-term success of the
enterprise to which they are contributing their talent.
Question 4. TRANSPARENCY ON RANKINGS & MATCHES: Mr. Khan, should
Congress consider requiring public disclosure about how UBOs and
sanctioning organizations determine rankings, match determinations,
titles and title bouts? Are there other ways to provide more clarity
and transparency into the decisions made by sanctioning organizations,
UBOs, promoters, and boxers themselves related to how bouts and event
cards are determined?
Answer. Competition provides the public with confidence about
rankings, match determinations and title bouts. There is no doubt the
current boxing system fails, in part, because of the overwhelming
failure to match boxers during their prime. I covered this manifest
failure in my testimony. The sport has repeatedly failed to deliver the
matchups fans most want to see, especially when both boxers are at
their peak. Instead of consistently pitting the best against the best
at the right moment--which a centralized organization like UBOs will
do--the current system is shaped by various competitors with different
business considerations and therefore it delays or derails such
contests.
Congress identified this failure more than 26 years ago. The Ali
Act's first legislative finding identifies the structural problem:
``Professional boxing differs from other major, interstate professional
sports industries in the United States in that it operates without any
private sector association, league, or centralized industry
organization to establish uniform and appropriate business practices
and ethical standards.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, P.L. 106-210, Sec. 2(1) (May
26, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because there is no centralized industry organization, such as a
UBO, matchmaking among competing promoters is extremely difficult,
complex and slow, and takes into consideration opaque rankings, which
are often self-serving, from the sanctioning bodies. These improper and
arbitrary rankings established by the sanctioning bodies have
contributed to declining viewership and have coincided with the
withdrawal of major media companies from boxing broadcasts in the U.S.
HBO was synonymous with boxing since 1973, when it aired the George
Foreman versus Joe Frazier fight, a seismic bout that launched the
network's sports identity. HBO made boxing cinematic and essential. In
2018, HBO ended its boxing coverage entirely. NBCUniversal followed
three years later, airing its final bout in 2021. In 2022, FOX went
dark on boxing as well. Showtime did the same the following year. In
the summer of 2025, ESPN's regularly scheduled boxing contract expired,
closing the book on more than eighty years of boxing on linear and
cable television in the U.S. As the boxing writer Dan Rafael put it in
2025, ``There will be no regularly scheduled boxing on linear TV in the
U.S. for the first time essentially since the 1940s when TV became
widely accessible. Shame on the stewards of the sport who let it
happen.'' \8\ The erosion of boxing's U.S. television presence should
have incentivized sanctioning bodies to reform flawed ranking systems
to promote more compelling matchups for fans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Phil Jay, ``Boxing Wiped from U.S. Broadcast TV After 80-Year
Run,'' World Boxing News (July 27, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even when there is public demand for a specific matchup, competing
business interests prevent agreements from coming together for years--
if they happen at all. UBOs will not have these impediments. By
comparison, the UFC does not rank its fighters, instead rankings are
done by a panel of media members. Information about athlete rankings
can be found at https://www.ufc.com/rankings. UFC has every incentive
to put on fights fans want to see. Matchmaking decisions are a priority
for our leadership, because we know they are scrutinized by athletes,
media and fans, which has a direct impact on the value of the UFC's
brand and TKO as a public company.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ TKO Group Holding's leadership explained and defended UFC's
matchmaking during a recent earnings call with media and investors. See
``TKO Group Holdings, Inc. (TKO) Q1 2026 Earnings Call Transcript,''
SeekingAlpha.com (May 6, 2026).
Question 5. INTERNATIONAL FIGHTS: While many bouts happen in the
U.S., boxing has always been an international sport. However, courts
have found that the current Ali Act only applies to boxing matches held
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the U.S.
a. Mr. Khan, should Congress consider requiring UBOs to have
consistent protections for athletes regardless of where the fight is
taking place?
b. Mr. Khan, with more foreign money being dedicated to the sport,
I'm also concerned more fights may take place overseas with little to
no rules to preserve the integrity of bouts. What can Congress do to
incentivize fights in the U.S. and prevent against fights in countries
without protections against fixed or unfair fights?
Answer. To be clear, MAABRA will result in an increased number of
professional boxing matches held in the United States. Under MAABRA,
boxers who compete with a UBO will do so under unified rules, pursuant
to which boxers will enjoy the highest level of protection, pay,
benefits, and will participate in an accountable system with integrity,
regardless of where the match takes place. Furthermore, MAABRA
prohibits UBOs from participating in jurisdictions without proper
regulation either by a boxing commission or tribal organization. While
we do not have an opinion about whether or how to apply MAABRA's reach
extraterritorially, such a rule may incentivize other nations to
attempt the same with regard to their businesses. Notably, the two
British-based boxing promoters who have publicly opposed MAABRA operate
largely outside the reach of the Ali Act, as more than 90 percent of
their yearly bouts are staged outside the U.S.
6. CONTRACTS:
a. Mr. Khan, the current version of the Muhammad Ali American
Boxing Revival Act caps contract lengths to six years. How long is the
average boxing career and based on that information, should Congress
consider lowering the contract cap? What would be the impact on boxers'
ability to negotiate by allowing multi-year contracts?
Answer. Estimates vary, but an average professional boxing career
lasts around eight to twelve years, with some estimates suggesting it's
closer to 17 years.\10\ In contrast, the average career in other
professional sports leagues are shorter. The typical NFL player's
career lasts approximately 3.3 years, with variation by position but
generally remaining under four years.\11\ Given these comparisons, we
believe MAABRA strikes the right balance with a six-year cap on
contract length, considering the average length of a boxer's average
career. Furthermore, MAABRA guarantees boxers the right to negotiate
new contract terms--either within or outside the UBO model--upon the
conclusion of their agreement, giving them the flexibility to secure
terms aligned with their career stage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Mike Colon, ``Average Career Span Pro-Boxer--Interesting Facts
You Want to Know,'' Fighter Gear Guide (no date).
\11\ ``Average career length of selected positions among active
players in the National Football League as of September 2025,''
Statista.com (Feb. 26, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. CURRENT LAW:
a. Mr. Khan, what are the top three most impactful components of
the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act that your organization
believes is missing from current law?
Answer. MAABRA represents a significant attempt to address
structural issues which impede boxing's growth.
First, the Act authorizes a new system which would exist in
parallel to the current sanctioning body model. MAABRA specifically
addresses concerns that Congress raised 26 years ago, namely the lack
of a centralized industry organization to operate a unified governance
model. MAABRA allows for the implementation of UBOs, marking a
fundamental structural innovation in the sport. This stands in contrast
to the current arrangement, in which multiple competing promoters and
sanctioning bodies work under fragmented rules and conflicting business
objectives, which has resulted in inconsistent rankings, incoherent
champions (e.g., multiple champions within the same weight category),
and delayed fights from happening, all of which is a disservice to
boxers and fans.
Second, the Act establishes standardized economic rules governing
boxers' pay and contractual relationships. For example, MAABRA
introduces minimum per-round pay of $200, and places limits on the
length of contracts with boxers, as negotiated by the House, to ensure
smaller UBOs are not priced out of the market. It also expands boxers'
mobility by enabling them to negotiate with other promoters at the
conclusion of their contracts. Together, these provisions aim to create
a more uniform framework for compensation and contractual dealings
across the industry.
Third, the legislation expands health, safety, and insurance
protections for boxers. It requires more consistent medical standards,
including regular testing such as neurological exams and other
screenings, drug testing, and mandates baseline injury insurance
coverage.
Taken together, MAABRA's reforms reflect a shift toward a more
structured and nationally standardized system. Its three most
significant changes--creating unified organizational frameworks,
establishing baseline pay and contract protections, and strengthening
health and safety requirements--will provide boxers more protection,
choice and opportunity.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Fetterman to
Nick Khan
Question 1. In describing the six-year cap on promotional contracts
for boxers as included in the House-passed Muhammad Ali American Boxing
Revival Act (``Revival Act''), you compared this limit to rookie
contracts in other professional sports. However, America's most popular
sports leagues--the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL--players are represented by
unions that negotiate collective bargaining agreements. There is no
organized union for boxers, or any combat sport athletes for that
matter, and there is no provision in the Revival Act that guarantees
collective bargaining for boxers, despite borrowing frameworks for
contract limits from sports leagues which are unionized.
a. Without their fighters being under the jurisdiction of the
Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act (``Ali Act'') how can Zuffa Boxing, or
any other proposed unified boxing organization (UBO), guarantee that
fighters will receive fair compensation and a fair venue to address
grievances, if they have no ability to collectively bargain side by
side with other fighters?
Answer. First, boxers are not unionized because they are
independent contractors not employees, as Oscar de la Hoya himself
testified during the hearing on April 22, 2026. Federal law preserves
independent-contractor status through common-law and economic-reality
tests applied under statutes like the National Labor Relations Act, the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Internal Revenue Code--each of which
explicitly distinguishes independent contractors from employees.
Second, most states including Pennsylvania, do not impose a
specific statutory maximum for personal services agreements. In
California, which hosts the highest number of boxing events per year in
the U.S., contracts for professional services are limited to seven
years. Oscar de la Hoya relied on that law in a lawsuit against his
former promoter, Top Rank, to argue their contract was
unenforceable.\12\ MAABRA proposes a shorter cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Mike Coppinger, ``Explained: The legal battle between Ryan
Garcia, Golden Boy,'' ESPN.com (Sept. 13, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, estimates vary, but an average professional boxing career
lasts around eight to twelve years, with some estimates suggesting it's
closer to 17 years.\13\ In contrast, the average career in other
professional sports leagues are shorter. The typical NFL player's
career lasts approximately 3.3 years, with variation by position but
generally remaining under four years.\14\ Given these comparisons, we
believe MAABRA strikes the right balance with a six-year cap on
contract length, considering the average length of a boxer's average
career.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Mike Colon, ``Average Career Span Pro-Boxer--Interesting Facts
You Want to Know,'' Fighter Gear Guide (no date).
\14\ ``Average career length of selected positions among active
players in the National Football League as of September 2025,''
Statista.com (Feb. 26, 2026).
Question 2. On January 28, 2026, The Guardian reported secondhand
details regarding a contract offered to a fighter by Zuffa Boxing\15\.
Will you provide copies of the ten most recent contracts which Zuffa's
fighters have signed, with all personally identifiable information
removed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2026/jan/28/zuffa-boxing-
contract-dana-white-reform
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEE BELOW ANSWER.
Question 3. Has Zuffa Boxing ever entered into a contract with a
fighter which contained language that:
a. States in solid capital letters: ``ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND TESTS SHALL BE PAID BY FIGHTER.''?
b. Requires a fighter to relinquish their right to sue Zuffa Boxing
in state or Federal court and require that any grievance claim be
subject to binding arbitration in Clark County, Nevada?
c. Requires a fighter to relinquish their right to join a class-
action lawsuit against Zuffa Boxing?
d. Requires a fighter's contract to be automatically extended in
the event that fighter is a Zuffa Boxing champion at the end of their
contract?
e. Allows Zuffa Boxing to terminate a contract with a fighter if
that fighter loses a fight?
f. Allows Zuffa Boxing to terminate a contract with a fighter if
that fighter refuses to fight two opponents in succession?
g. Allows Zuffa Boxing to remove a fight guaranteed to the fighter,
in the event the fighter claims they are injured or disabled?
h. Allows Zuffa Boxing to take out life insurance policies on their
fighters and be named as the beneficiary of said life insurance policy?
i. Sets cap of 30 percent of net revenue or 15 percent of gross
revenue for merchandise or event merchandise that goes to the fighter?
j. Does not guarantee payment to a fighter with an undercard fight
if the main event is cancelled or postponed?
k. Does not guarantee payment immediately after a fight is over?
l. Does not provide a minimum purse for a fighter if they lose a
fight?
m. Does not guarantee sharing of event specific revenue generated
by an event which that fighter participates in?
Answers for 2 and 3. The Guardian article is not accurate in many
respects. As you point out, the article relies on secondhand
information. It is also worth observing that journalistic standards and
practices differ between U.K. and U.S. publications, particularly with
respect to anonymous sourcing and verification requirements. The
article appears to rely on anonymous sources without corroboration, and
while such issues can arise in any publication, they are evident here
making it per se inaccurate.
Zuffa Boxing's contracts with boxers are fully compliant with
Federal and state laws. Contract terms are negotiated with each boxer.
Boxers are often represented by managers and/or lawyers during those
negotiations. Zuffa Boxing pays for its boxers' medical exams and
tests. Boxers will receive the guaranteed amounts set forth in their
contracts--whether they win or lose, whether the event generates
revenue or not--immediately after the fight. Boxers do not bear the
financial risks of an event and know exactly what they are making when
they step into the ring. Currently, Zuffa Boxing operates in compliance
with the Professional Boxing Safety Act and the Muhammad Ali Boxing
Reform Act (together 15 USC Sec. 6301 et seq.). If Congress enacts
MAABRA, Zuffa Boxing will comply with the new rules applicable to UBOs.
Question 4. You described the September 13, 2025, fight between
Canelo Alvarez and Terrence Crawford as a successful fight, given that
boxing fans could view the fight on Netflix, and merchandising deals
that fighters received proceeds from.
a. Was this fight organized within the rules of the Ali Act?
Answer. Yes, the Ali Act applied to the Canelo v. Crawford fight.
This was a one-off ``super fight'' (billed as ``once-in-a-lifetime''
fight) within the current sanctioning organization model. To be clear,
if Congress enacts MAABRA, super fights will continue to take place and
be successful under the current system, as well as the UBO model, as
both will continue to exist in parallel.
[all]