Professional Boxing: Issues Related to the Protection of Boxers'
Health, Safety, and Economic Interests (21-JUL-03, GAO-03-699).
The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 established minimum
health and safety standards for professional boxing and provided
for limited federal oversight by the Department of Justice and
the Federal Trade Commission. In 2000, the Muhammad Ali Boxing
Reform Act amended the act to better protect boxers' economic
well-being and enhance the integrity of the sport. However,
reports of problems continue, including permanent and sometimes
fatal injuries, economic exploitation, and corruption. GAO was
asked to (1) identify fundamental elements considered important
to protect professional boxers and enhance the integrity of the
sport; (2) assess the extent to which provisions of the
Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, as amended (the act),
cover these elements and determine whether selected state and
tribal boxing commissions have documentation indicating
compliance with the act's provisions; (3) determine whether
selected states and tribes have provisions that cover additional
elements; and (4) identify federal actions taken under the act.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-03-699
ACCNO: A07617
TITLE: Professional Boxing: Issues Related to the Protection of
Boxers' Health, Safety, and Economic Interests
DATE: 07/21/2003
SUBJECT: Federal legislation
Occupational safety
Regulatory agencies
Sports
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-699
A
Letter
July 21, 2003 The Honorable John McCain Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation United States Senate Dear Mr. Chairman:
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. The Association of
Boxing Commissions, a 15- year- old nonprofit organization representing 46
state and 8 tribal boxing commissions located throughout the United
States, 1 promotes uniform health and safety provisions for professional
boxing, but has no enforcement authority over its members, and its
effectiveness in regulating boxing depends on mutual cooperation.
In 1996, because the states and tribes, which are primarily responsible
for establishing provisions to regulate professional boxing, were not
uniformly protecting the health and safety of professional boxers,
Congress enacted the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996. This act
established minimum health and safety standards and licensing provisions,
along with enforcement responsibilities and penalties for violations. In
2000, Congress amended the 1996 act by passing the Muhammad Ali Boxing
Reform Act, which established provisions to protect boxers from economic
exploitation and to enhance the integrity of the sport.
1 These commissions are state or tribal organizations that are responsible
for regulating professional boxing within their jurisdictions, including
implementing and enforcing federal and state or tribal provisions related
to boxing.
The 1996 act, as amended (the act), authorizes the Department of Justice
to investigate and prosecute violations of the law and it provides for
state and civil remedies as well as federal criminal prosecution. Within
the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is
responsible for investigating violations of the law. Generally, the U. S.
Attorneys are responsible for prosecuting violations of laws. The act
further provides that organizations sanctioning boxing matches 2 annually
provide certain information to the Federal Trade Commission or otherwise
make such information available to the public through the Internet. The
Federal Trade
Commission is required to make the information provided to it available to
the public.
This report responds to your request that we review current efforts to
protect the health, safety, and economic well- being of professional
boxers and to enhance the integrity of the sport. As agreed with your
office, we addressed the following questions: What fundamental elements
are considered important to address major
health and safety, economic, and integrity problems facing professional
boxing?
To what extent do the act*s provisions cover these elements, and to what
extent do selected state and tribal boxing commissions have documentation
indicating compliance with the act*s provisions?
To what extent have the selected states and tribes adopted provisions
that cover fundamental elements that are not covered in the act? What
actions have the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade
Commission taken under the act? To identify the fundamental elements that
are considered important to address major health and safety, economic, and
integrity problems facing professional boxing, we reviewed congressional
testimony and studies on professional boxing conducted by a task force of
the National Association
of Attorneys General, the Department of Health and Human Services, and 2
Sanctioning organizations are private entities that designate the champion
and rank challengers for each weight class. These organizations are
required to identify their rating officials and to annually disclose their
criteria and policies for rating boxers, as well as their sanctioning
fees, by- laws, and procedures for appealing ratings.
the Department of Labor. From these sources, which documented problems in
the boxing industry and recommended actions to address them, we identified
major problems facing the sport and consolidated the recommendations into
15 fundamental elements that are considered important in helping to
provide an adequate level of health, safety, and economic protection to
boxers and enhance the integrity of the sport. We discussed these elements
with the Association of Boxing Commissions, which agreed that the elements
could help provide the desired protection
and enhancement. To assess the extent to which the act covers the elements
we identified, we analyzed the act*s provisions and determined how many
address the fundamental elements, either fully or partially. To assess the
extent to which selected state and tribal boxing commissions have
documented their compliance with the act*s provisions, we selected 8 3 of
the 46 state boxing commissions and 2 4 of the 8 tribal boxing commissions
for review. These 10
commissions accounted for 383, or 49 percent, of the 777 professional
boxing events held in the United States in 2001. (See app. I for a listing
of the professional boxing events held by state and tribal commissions in
2001.) At 2 state (Indiana and Michigan) and the 2 tribal (Miccosukee and
Mohegan Sun) commissions, we reviewed the case files for all professional
boxing events held in 2001, the most recent year for which we could obtain
complete information, and at the remaining commissions, we randomly
selected a sample of case files for review. From our reviews of these case
files, we determined the extent to which each of the 8 state and 2 tribal
boxing commissions had documentation indicating compliance in 2001
with provisions in the act that related to the fundamental elements. We
did not independently verify that the provisions were met. Our findings
for these 10 commissions cannot be generalized to all 46 state and 8
tribal boxing commissions.
To assess the extent to which selected states and tribes have provisions
that cover fundamental elements in addition to those covered in the act,
we reviewed the boxing provisions of the eight states and two tribes and
identified fundamental elements that do not appear in the act. We
confirmed with the boxing commissions of these states and tribes that they
agreed with our analysis of their provisions. We did not assess the extent
to
3 California, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania,
and Texas. 4 The Mohegan Sun (Connecticut) and Miccosukee (Florida)
tribes.
which the states and tribes had implemented or enforced the provisions
that cover the additional fundamental elements. To determine what actions
the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade
Commission have taken under the act, we asked Justice officials whether
they had initiated any civil enforcement proceedings or criminal
prosecutions of potential violators of the act in the eight states and two
tribal jurisdictions covered by our review. We also reviewed the
department*s central case management system for possible cases prosecuted
during fiscal years 1996 through 2002. To determine whether the
sanctioning organizations were making the information they are required to
provide available to the public, we reviewed the Internet Web sites of 14
sanctioning organizations to see whether the required information was
posted. We conducted our review from September 2002 through July 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix
V provides further details about our objectives, scope, and methodology.
Results in Brief From our review of congressional testimonies and national
studies dating
from 1994 through 2002, we identified 15 fundamental elements that are
considered important to protect boxers* health, safety, and economic
wellbeing and enhance the integrity of the sport. Six of these elements
address health and safety issues, four establish economic protections for
boxers, and five would help prevent corruption.
The act*s provisions cover 10 of the fundamental elements that we
identified* 1 fully and 9 partially. For example, one provision fully
covers the element requiring evaluations of medical information on boxers
and assessments of the risks involved in allowing them to fight before
each match, but only partially covers the element requiring prefight and
postfight medical examinations, including neurological testing. (The
provision requires prefight examinations, but not postfight examinations
or neurological testing.) The 8 state and 2 tribal boxing commissions that
we reviewed varied in the extent to which they had documentation
indicating compliance with the act*s 10 provisions. All 10 commissions had
documentation indicating compliance at least 75 percent of the time for 3
provisions* those requiring prefight medical exams, disclosure of purses
and payments, and registration of boxers* but only 2 commissions had
documentation at least 75 percent of the time for the provision
prohibiting
conflicts of interest. The commissions* documentation for the remaining 6
provisions varied within this range. When asked why they did not document
their compliance with particular provisions, the commissions often did not
provide a reason, but when they did, they generally identified conflicts
between state and federal law, said they were unaware of the federal
provision, or said they thought documentation was not needed. The eight
states and two tribes that we reviewed vary in the extent to which
they have adopted provisions that cover health and safety, economic, and
integrity elements in addition to those covered by the act*s provisions.
Each of these states and tribes has some provisions that cover additional
elements. The number of additional elements enacted by an individual state
or tribe ranges from 10 (California) to 4 (Missouri). All 10 states and
tribes have enacted the element requiring uniform boxing and scoring
rules, but California was the only state that enacted 3 additional
elements* for monitoring injuries sustained during training, suspending
boxers for debilitating training injuries, and providing pension plans for
boxers. The primary reason provided by the states and tribes for not
enacting elements in addition to those covered by the act was that the
elements would be too costly to implement.
Federal action under the act has been limited. According to the Department
of Justice, it has not exercised its authority to prosecute cases because
no cases have been referred to it by federal law enforcement authorities.
The department said there were no records of cases brought by the U. S.
Attorneys* offices under the federal boxing legislation during fiscal
years 1996 through 2002 and that no referrals from law enforcement
agencies were made. Justice officials also said violations of the boxing
statutes are misdemeanors and the department generally applies its
resources to prosecuting felonies. The Association of Boxing Commissions,
in commenting on a draft of this report, said it had made two referrals to
U. S. Attorneys* offices, which were not prosecuted. The association said
one
referral was dismissed because the issue was subsequently resolved and the
association had not received a response to the other referral. The Federal
Trade Commission*s responsibility under the act is limited to making the
information it receives from sanctioning organizations available to the
public. The commission said it periodically checks the various sanctioning
organizations* Web sites to assess whether the required information has
been made available to the public. Our review of the Web sites of 14
sanctioning organizations found that this information was posted on the
Internet. Legislation was recently introduced to significantly amend the
act by, among other things, creating a new organization within
the Department of Labor that would provide oversight and enforcement of
the federal boxing laws. This new federal organization is intended to
facilitate more uniform enforcement of federal requirements aimed at
enhancing boxers* health, safety, and economic interests as well as the
integrity of the sport.
The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission had only
technical comments on our draft report. In commenting on our report, the
president of the Association of Boxing Commissions said much needs to be
done to achieve uniformity in the regulation of boxing. Some of the states
and tribes who commented on our report would welcome federal involvement
while others said they are concerned about the costs of implementing any
new measures. Some also noted that no federal agency is enforcing the
existing federal laws protecting professional boxers.
Fundamental Elements According to our review of congressional testimonies
5 and national studies
on professional boxing dating from 1994 through 2002, 6 15 fundamental
Considered Important
elements are considered important in helping address the sport*s major to
Address Health and
problems. Six elements could help to protect the health and safety of
Safety and Economic professional boxers, four could help to protect their
economic interests,
Problems Facing and five could help to correct problems affecting the
integrity of the sport.
Professional Boxing The six elements that could help to protect the health
and safety of boxers
would provide medical examinations, including neurological testing;
monitoring of training injuries; assessments of medical risks;
health and life insurance; the presence of appropriate medical
personnel and equipment; and enforcement of suspensions for injuries.
5 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee
on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce, and Tourism: Hearing on the Federal
Regulation of Boxing (Washington, D. C.: May 22, 2002); Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Testimony on Boxing and Federal
Laws (Washington, D. C.: May 23, 2001); Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation: Hearing on Reform of Professional Boxing
Industry (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 22, 1999); Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, Hearing on Professional Boxing (Washington,
D. C.: May 22, 1997); House Economic and Educational Opportunities
Committee Workforce
Protections Subcommittee and the House Committee on Commerce Subcommittee
on Commerce Trade and Hazardous Materials, The Professional Boxing
Corporation Act of 1995 (Washington, D. C.: June 11, 1996); Senate
Committee on Commerce, Hearing on Health and Safety of Professional Boxing
(Washington, D. C.: Jan. 20, 1994).
6 National Association of Attorneys General Boxing Task Force, Office of
New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, May 2000; Department of
Health and Human Services,
Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996: National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health Report to Congress, Study on Health,
Safety, and Equipment Standards for Boxing (Washington, D. C.: June 1,
1998); and Department of Labor, Pension Plans for Professional Boxers: A
Study Prepared by the Segal Company for the Secretary of Labor as Mandated
by Congress (Washington, D. C.: December 1997).
According to the testimonies and studies, these elements are important
because, although the overall rate of injury is lower in professional
boxing than in many other sports, the risk of severe or permanent brain
injury is greater. Neurological testing may be needed to detect such
injury. Furthermore, because injuries may occur during training and
sparring as
well as during boxing events, monitoring during training was recommended,
and health and life insurance may be needed before and after as well as
during events. In some instances, the treatment a fighter
receives in the initial minutes after an injury determines whether the
fighter recovers or sustains permanent damage or death. Having an
ambulance and qualified medical personnel on- site, rather than on call,
can be critical. Enforcement of suspensions imposed by boxing commissions
in other states is important to prevent injured boxers from trying to
fight outside the states in which they are registered before their
injuries have healed.
The four elements that could help to protect boxers* economic interests
would
require pension plans for boxers, require full disclosure of purses
and payments, require minimum uniform contractual terms between boxers
and
promoters, and prohibit conflicts of interest. Without a union to
represent their economic interests, boxers have often been exploited, and
although the sport has generated enormous wealth for others, many
professional boxers have been left penniless. Comprehensive pension plans
for boxers are almost nonexistent, and boxers have sometimes been left to
pay trainers out of their share of the fight purse when the financial
responsibilities of promoters and managers were not disclosed in advance.
Conflicts of interest between promoters and managers and long- term
contracts with promoters have also disadvantaged boxers.
The 5 elements that could help to correct problems affecting the integrity
of the sport would
require registration and training for judges, referees, and others;
prevent sanctioning organizations from exercising undue influence in the
selection of judges;
establish uniform boxing and scoring rules; require reviews of
sanctioning organizations* rankings of boxers; and require knowledge of
the sport for commission officials. Reports of unqualified officials,
last- minute changes in the procedures for selecting judges, nonstandard
boxing and scoring rules, fraudulent rankings that have resulted in injury
and even death for weaker boxers, and political appointments to boxing
commissions have undermined the integrity of the sport.
Table 1 sets forth the 15 elements we identified. For more detailed
information on the problems discussed in the testimonies and studies and
the recommendations made to address these problems, see appendix II.
Table 1: Fundamental Elements Considered Important to Address Major
Problems Facing Professional Boxing Health and safety Economic protection
Integrity of the sport
1. Conduct prefight and postfight medical 7. Require pension plans for
boxers. 11. Require registration and training for examinations, including
neurological testing. boxers, trainers, managers, promoters, physicians,
and other ring officials. 2. Monitor injuries sustained during gym
8. Require full and open disclosure of all 12. Ensure that sanctioning
organizations training (e. g., sparring) before events. purses and costs
of bouts, breaking out do not influence the selection of judges. amounts
paid to promoters, sanctioning bodies, judges, trainers, boxers, and
others.
3. Evaluate medical information on boxers 9. Prohibit conflicts of
interest for boxers,
13. Require uniform boxing and scoring and assess the risks involved
before promoters, managers, judges, referees,
rules for events, such as the championship allowing a boxer to fight.
state boxing commission representatives, rules of the Association of
Boxing and sanctioning organization Commissions (ABC). representatives.
4. Ensure the presence of appropriate 10. Require minimum uniform
contractual 14. Require standards for rating boxers, medical personnel and
equipment during terms between boxers and promoters. considering their
records of wins and losses, and after each match and require the filing
weight differentials, caliber of opponents,
of postfight medical reports. and number of past fights. 5. Require health
and life insurance for
15. Require officials serving on boxing boxers before, during, and after
each match. commissions to have knowledge of professional boxing. 6. Honor
other states* suspensions of boxers; monitor training injuries in real
time, and suspend boxers who sustain debilitating training injuries.
Source: GAO. Note: Our identification of the fundamental elements is based
on the congressional testimonies and national studies that we reviewed.
Some of these elements have multiple effects and may be related to more
than one category (e. g., health and safety, economic protection, or
integrity of the sport). For example, the element prohibiting conflicts of
interest not only affects the economic interests of boxers but may also be
related to the integrity of the sport.
The Act*s Provisions The act*s provisions fully or partially cover 10 of
the elements that we
Fully or Partially Cover identified as important to address the health and
safety, economic, and
integrity problems facing professional boxing. Our analysis shows that one
10 Fundamental
of the act*s provisions fully covers the element that requires evaluations
of Elements, and Selected medical information on boxers and assessments of
the risks involved in
Commissions Varied in allowing them to fight before each match. The act*s
provisions partially
cover 9 elements. For example, one provision partially covers the element
the Extent to Which
requiring medical examinations, including neurological testing, before and
They Had
after a fight. (The provision requires prefight, but not postfight,
examinations and no neurological testing.) Another provision partially
Documentation
covers the element requiring the presence of medical personnel and
Indicating Compliance
equipment at fights and the filing of postfight medical reports. (It
requires the presence of medical personnel and equipment, but not the
filing of postfight medical reports.) Table 2 sets forth our analysis of
the extent to
which the act*s provisions cover the fundamental elements we identified.
Table 2: Extent to Which the Act*s Provisions Cover Fundamental Elements
to Help Address Major Problems in Professional Boxing
Extent to which the act covers the Act*s provision Fundamental element
element
Health and safety
Require prefight medical examinations. Conduct prefight and postfight
medical Partially* the act*s provision does not examinations, including
neurological testing. require a postfight medical examination or
any neurological testing. Evaluate medical information on boxers and
Evaluate medical information on boxers and Fully assess the risks involved
before allowing a
assess the risks involved before allowing a boxer to fight.
boxer to fight. Ensure the presence of appropriate medical Ensure the
presence of appropriate medical Partially* the act*s provision does not
personnel and equipment during and after
personnel and equipment during and after require the filing of postfight
medical reports. each match.
each match and require the filing of postfight reports.
Require health insurance for boxers during Require health and life
insurance for boxers Partially* the act*s provision does not each match.
before, during, and after each match. require health insurance for boxers
before
and after each match, and it does not require life insurance.
Honor other states* suspensions of boxers. Honor other states* suspensions
of boxers, Partially* the act*s provision does not monitor training
injuries in real time, and
require states to monitor training injuries in suspend boxers who sustain
debilitating real time or suspend boxers who sustain training injuries.
debilitating training injuries.
(Continued From Previous Page)
Extent to which the act covers the Act*s provision Fundamental element
element
Economic protection
Require full and open disclosure of all Require full and open disclosure
of all
Partially* the act*s provision does not purses and costs of bouts,
breaking out
purses and costs of bouts, breaking out require such disclosure for boxers
and amounts paid to promoters and judges.
amounts paid to promoters, judges, trainers, trainers. boxers, and others.
Prohibit conflicts of interest for promoters Prohibit conflicts of
interest for boxers,
Partially* the act*s provision does not and commission representatives.
promoters, managers, judges, referees,
prohibit conflicts of interest for judges and state boxing commission
representatives,
referees. and sanctioning organization representatives.
Recommend minimum uniform contractual Require minimum uniform contractual
terms Partially* the act*s provision establishes terms between boxers and
promoters. between boxers and promoters. guidelines for, but does not
require such
terms.
Integrity of the sport
Require registration for boxers and Require registration and training for
boxers,
Partially* the act*s provision does not certification and approval for
ring officials. trainers, managers, promoters, physicians,
require registration for trainers, managers, and other ring officials.
promoters or physicians, and it does not require training for any parties.
Recommend standards for rating boxers, Require standards for rating
boxers,
Partially* the act*s provision establishes considering their records of
wins and losses, considering their records of wins and losses,
guidelines for, but does not require, such weight differentials, caliber
of opponents, weight differentials, caliber of opponents, standards. and
number of past fights.
and number of past fights. Source: GAO.
On March 13, 2003, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation approved S. 275, a bill that would further amend the act.
If enacted, the proposed legislation would expand the act*s coverage of
four fundamental elements* those dealing with the evaluation of medical
information, minimum contractual terms, the selection of judges, and
reviews of rankings. In addition, the proposed legislation would establish
the United States Boxing Administration (USBA) within the Department of
Labor and empower it to consider other fundamental elements in
addressing professional boxers* health, safety, and other concerns. USBA
would be responsible for providing oversight, administering the federal
boxing laws, and issuing minimum standards to protect the health, safety,
and general interests of professional boxers. Its responsibilities would
also include licensing boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning
organizations and maintaining a registry of medical records and medical
suspension information on all boxers. USBA would also be authorized to
conduct investigations and to suspend or revoke licenses for misconduct
after providing notice and hearing.
Selected Boxing The 8 state and 2 tribal boxing commissions that we
reviewed varied in the
Commissions* extent to which they had documentation indicating compliance
with the 10
Documentation of provisions of the act related to the fundamental elements
we identified.
Compliance Varied The act does not require the commissions to document
their compliance.
However, because documentation constituted the only verifiable evidence of
compliance, we reviewed all available documentation in the commissions*
event files, including pre- and post- fight medical examination check
sheets, insurance coverage forms, copies of contracts between boxers and
promoters, event sheets identifying boxers* registration
numbers, promoters* revenue reports to commissions, and statements of
independence signed by ring officials.
All 10 commissions had documentation indicating compliance at least 75
percent of the time for three provisions* those that require prefight
medical examinations, disclosure of amounts paid to promoters, and
registration of boxers* but only 2 commissions had documentation at least
75 percent of the time for the provision prohibiting conflicts of
interest. (See fig. 1.) Five of the commissions said they usually complied
with this provision but did not document their compliance. The 10
commissions* documentation for the remaining six provisions varied within
this range. (See table 4 in app. 3 for the results of our analysis of the
commissions*
documentation.) When asked why they did not always document their
compliance with the provisions, the commissions often did not provide a
reason, but when they did, they generally pointed to privacy or liability
concerns, said they were unaware of the federal provisions, or said they
thought documentation was not needed. For details on the reasons the
commissions provided for not documenting compliance, see appendix III.
Figure 1: Selected Boxing Commissions* Documentation of Compliance with
the Act*s Provisions Related to 10 Fundamental Elements
Note: The figure represents the number of commissions that had
documentation indicating compliance at least 75 percent to 100 percent of
the time for the respective provisions.
Selected States and The eight states and two tribes that we reviewed vary
in the extent to which
Tribes Vary in the their provisions cover health and safety and economic
elements in addition
to those covered in the act. Each of these states and tribes has some
Extent to Which Their
provisions that cover additional fundamental elements or portions of
Provisions Cover
fundamental elements. The number of such provisions enacted by an
Additional individual Commission ranges from 10 (California) to 4
(Missouri). All 10 states and tribes have provisions fully covering the
additional element that
Fundamental Elements requires uniform boxing and scoring rules, and eight
states or tribes have
provisions fully covering the additional element that requires the filing
of postfight medical reports. California was the only state with
provisions fully covering 3 other additional elements* for monitoring
injuries sustained during training, enforcing suspensions for debilitating
training injuries, and providing pension plans for boxers. Four states or
tribes have provisions that go beyond the act in requiring postfight
medical examinations, but none of these states or tribes requires
neurological
testing. Similarly, three states or tribes have provisions that go beyond
the act in requiring that boxers be provided with health insurance before
and after, as well as during, each match, but none of these states or
tribes requires life insurance. Figure 2 summarizes the results of our
analysis. The primary reason provided by the states and tribes for not
having provisions covering additional elements was that the provisions
would be too costly to implement. For more details, see appendix IV.
Figure 2: Extent to Which State and Tribal Provisions Cover Additional
Fundamental Elements
Federal Action under Actions taken by the Department of Justice under the
act have been
the Act Has Been limited. Justice officials said the department does not
prosecute cases
unless they are referred to it by federal law enforcement agencies. There
Limited
were no records of cases brought by U. S. Attorneys under the federal
boxing legislation during fiscal years 1996 through 2002, and there were
no referrals from law enforcement agencies. Because the act provides for
state and civil remedies in addition to federal criminal prosecution,
Justice officials said that cases could be referred to state authorities
rather than to U. S. Attorneys. Furthermore, the officials said,
violations of the act are misdemeanors, and U. S. Attorneys generally
pursue only felony cases,
although they would prosecute a misdemeanor if circumstances warranted. 7
In commenting on a draft of this report, the president of ABC said that
ABC
had made two referrals to U. S. Attorneys* offices. The first, made in
October 2002, concerned the World Boxing Association*s ratings of a boxer.
According to the ABC president, the referral was dismissed because the
World Boxing Association provided the U. S. Attorney with a copy of its
rating criteria and the boxers were well known. The ABC president said
that the other referral, made to the Arkansas U. S. Attorney in 2001,
reported that professional boxing was occurring in bars without the
supervision of the Arkansas boxing commission. The ABC president said that
ABC had not received a response to the referral and the case had not been
prosecuted.
The Federal Trade Commission*s (FTC) responsibility under the act is
limited to making available to the public the information it receives from
sanctioning organizations. FTC has no responsibility for enforcing
compliance or verifying the accuracy of the information. 8 FTC officials
said they periodically check the sanctioning organizations* Web sites to
assess whether the required information has been made available to the
public and has found the Web sites to be adequate. Our review of the Web
sites of
7 Our report focuses on enforcement of the Professional Boxing Safety Act
only. Criminal violations under the act are punishable only as
misdemeanors. When violations of the act are also violations of other
criminal statutes, prosecution of the felony may overshadow punishment of
the misdemeanor. 8 Sanctioning organizations are required to identify
their rating officials and to annually
disclose their criteria and policies for rating boxers, as well as their
sanctioning fees, bylaws, and procedures for appealing ratings. They can
send this information to FTC or post it on the Internet.
14 sanctioning organizations found that this information was posted on the
Internet. FTC officials also said they had not received any consumer
complaints related to the boxing industry.
In February 2003, legislation was introduced in the Senate that would
amend the act by, among other things, creating a new organization within
the Department of Labor to provide oversight and enforcement of the
federal boxing laws. The purpose of this new federal organization is to
facilitate more uniform enforcement of federal requirements designed to
enhance boxers* health, safety, and economic interests as well as the
integrity of the sport. This organization would have the authority to
issue regulations, including requirements for documentation; to monitor
and oversee the commissions* compliance with the existing federal
protections
for professional boxers; and to establish additional protections, if
necessary. Concluding
Although our review was limited to eight state and two tribal boxing
Observations
commissions, the uneven documentation of compliance we found with the
act*s provisions to protect the health, safety, and economic well- being
of professional boxers does not provide adequate assurance that
professional boxers are receiving the minimum protections established in
federal law. Without complete and accurate information on the extent to
which the act
is being enforced and without a federal agency to proactively ensure
nationwide compliance, there is little assurance of compliance. While the
Justice Department has the authority to prosecute violations of the act,
it focuses its limited resources on prosecuting felonies, is not
responsible for monitoring compliance, and would prosecute a case only if
it received a referral from a federal law enforcement agency. Since 1996,
it has received no referrals from federal law enforcement agencies and
pursued no cases
of violation of the act. If enacted, the legislation would create a new
organization within the Department of Labor that could address this gap in
the oversight and enforcement of the federal boxing laws.
Agency Comments and We requested comments on a draft of this report from
the Department of
Our Evaluation Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Association
of Boxing
Commissions (ABC). The Department of Justice*s GAO liaison and the Federal
Trade Commission*s GAO liaison and Office of General Counsel provided only
oral technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The
president of ABC provided written comments, which are
reproduced in appendix VI. We also provided the boxing commissions of the
eight states and two tribes that we reviewed with the opportunity to
review and comment on the facts in the report that related to their
operations. We received written comments from the Missouri, Miccosukee,
Mohegan Sun, Pennsylvania and Texas boxing commissions; these comments
appear in appendixes VII through XI. As of July 16, 2003, we had received
no comments from the California, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, and Nevada
boxing commissions.
In his written comments, provided on June 30, 2003, the president of ABC
said that while ABC has had some successes, much work needs to be done to
achieve uniformity in the regulation of boxing. He said that feedback from
ABC*s membership on federal involvement in regulating professional boxing
is mixed: many members regard such involvement as intervention, while
others welcome it. He also said that some members believe that making
certain types of testing (e. g., neurological testing) mandatory
would have a negative impact on their jurisdictions because of the cost.
According to the president, ABC is frustrated with the lack of enforcement
of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996. He said that violations of
the act occur frequently, yet no government agency has been willing to
enforce
the current laws. The president said that he hopes the members can use the
act*s 10 provisions as a starting point for standardizing the regulation
of boxing. The Administrator of the Missouri Office of Athletics, who is
also the
president of ABC, provided written comments on the portion of a draft of
this report applicable to Missouri on June 30, 2003 (see app. VII). While
noting that the Missouri Office of Athletics encourages the standardized
regulation of boxing, he said he also recognizes that any actions taken
will have an economic impact on the sport that will have to be considered.
In addition, he questioned who would enforce any new federal boxing
provisions and stated the current law is not being enforced. He said that
both state and tribal boxing commissions, through ABC, should work to
standardize the regulation of boxing in the areas discussed in our report.
He also made some technical comments, which we incorporated in the body of
the report.
The Miccosukee, Mohegan Sun, Pennsylvania and Texas boxing commissions
also provided written comments, which appear in appendixes VIII, IX, X,
and XI, respectively. In their comments, they expressed appreciation of
our work, indicating, for example, that our report helps to clarify issues
related to the protection of boxers* health, safety, and
economic interests. In addition, the Miccosukee and Pennsylvania boxing
commissions cited tribal or state regulations that cover portions of some
of 15 the elements we identified in the report as fundamental to
protecting boxers* health, safety, and economic interest and to enhancing
the integrity of the sport. In some instances, the Miccosukee and
Pennsylvania boxing commissions noted that it would be difficult for them
to implement certain elements because of personnel and budgetary
constraints or because of their limited jurisdiction. For example, the
Miccosukee commission said that it could not monitor training injuries
because it would not be feasible for the Miccouskee commission or any
other boxing commission to send representatives to gyms throughout the
United States and other countries to monitor real time training injuries.
The Miccosukee commission also indicated that in the future it could
complete and file checklists in event files to document its compliance
with certain provisions, such as the one requiring the presence of
appropriate medical personnel and equipment during and after events. The
commission said that the lack of documentation in its files does not
adequately reflect its compliance with
this provision. The Pennsylvania commission noted the diversity among
various boxing commissions in implementing the federal law. Finally, the
Texas commission said it lacked authority to implement several of the 15
fundamental elements identified in the report.
We recognize that boxing commissions vary in their approach to regulating
boxing because of differences in their laws or regulations, local
situations, and available budgetary and personnel resources. Furthermore,
we recognize in our report that a lack of documentation does not
necessarily mean that a requirement was not met. However, we had no other
practical means to assess the extent to which the federal requirements
were being addressed. Additionally, we agree with the Miccosukee
commission that appropriately completed checklists would help to document
compliance.
Finally, we believe that our findings, along with the comments we received
on our draft report, should provide Congress with useful information as it
considers S. 275.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 5 days after
the date of this letter. At that time, we will provide copies of the
report to the Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, and the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member,
House Energy and Commerce. Copies of the report will also be sent to the
Attorney General, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, the
Secretary of Labor, the Association of Boxing Commissions, the California
State Athletic Commission, the Florida State Athletic Commission, the
Indiana Boxing Commission, the Michigan Bureau of Commercial Services, the
Missouri Office of Athletics, the Nevada Athletic Commission, the
Pennsylvania Athletic Commission, the Texas Boxing and Wrestling Program,
the Miccosukee Athletic Commission, and the Mohegan Tribal Gaming
Commission Athletic Unit, and to others on request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://
www. gao. gov.
Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix XI. If you or your
staff have any questions, please contact me on (202) 512- 2834 or ungarb@
gao. gov.
Sincerely yours, Bernard L. Ungar, Director Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendi xes Professional Boxing Events Held in the United
Appendi x I
States during Calendar Year 2001 State or Indian tribal commission Number
of events held a Percentage of total events
California b 85 11% Texas b 62 8% Nevada b 55 7% Pennsylvania b 52 7%
Missouri b 40 5% Florida b 33 4% New York 28 4% Illinois 25 3% Colorado 24
3% Mississippi 22 3% Indiana b 22 3% Ohio 21 3% Tennessee 19 2% New Jersey
19 2% Michigan b 18 2% Puerto Rico 15 2% Arizona 15 2% West Virginia 14 2%
Virginia 14 2% Oklahoma 14 2% Massachusetts 14 2% Washington 13 2% Georgia
13 2% Kentucky 10 1% Iowa 10 1% South Carolina 9 1% Miccosukee (FL) b 9 1%
Maryland 8 1% Wisconsin 7 1% Utah 7 1% Mohegan Sun (CT) b 7 1% Louisiana 7
1% New Mexico 6 1% Mashantucket Pequot (CT) 6 1%
(Continued From Previous Page)
State or Indian tribal commission Number of events held a Percentage of
total events
Hawaii 6 1% Delaware 6 1% Rhode Island 5 1% North Dakota 5 1% Arkansas 5
1% Washington, D. C. 4 1% Idaho 4 1% Oregon 3 0% North Carolina 3 0%
Nebraska 3 0% Saginaw Chippewa (MI) 2 0% Pueblo de San Juan (NM) 2 0%
Oneida (NY) 2 0% Yakahama Nation (WA) 1 0% New Hampshire 1 0% Connecticut
1 0% Alaska 1 0%
Tot al 777 100%
Source: Fight Fax, Inc. a An event is a meeting of boxers at a place such
as a casino or sports arena where one or more bouts
(matches between two boxers) are held on a particular day. b The state and
tribal boxing commissions we selected for our review.
Note: We did not verify the information we received from Fight Fax, Inc.,
the official record- keeping body of the Association of Boxing
Commissions.
Fundamental Elements to Address Health and Safety, Economic, and Integrity
Problems in
Appendi x II
Professional Boxing For each of the 15 fundamental elements that we
identified, this appendix provides a summary of a major problem in
professional boxing that the element is designed to address. The summaries
are based on the congressional testimony and national studies* by the
National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) Task Force, the
Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Labor* that
we reviewed. The summaries also include recommendations made at the
hearings and in the studies to address the problems. The problems are
divided into three categories: health and safety, economic protection, and
integrity of the sport.
Health and Safety Conduct Medical
In June 1998, the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services reported
Examinations, Including
the results of a study mandated by Congress on health, safety, and
equipment standards for boxing. 1 The study found that although the
overall Neurological Testing
rate of injury is lower in professional boxing than in many other sports,
the risk of sustaining a severe or permanent brain injury is greater in
boxing because fighters are exposed to repeated blows to the head. Head
injuries account for a significant portion of all boxing injuries. Factors
such as poor boxing ability, reduced supervision, and small stature are
thought to increase the likelihood of traumatic head injury. Similarly,
the length of a boxer*s career and the total number of bouts in training,
sparring, and competition combined have been linked to the severity of
neurological damage. Because neurological damage is not always detected
during routine medical examinations, neurological testing may be necessary
to
identify it. Monitor Training Injuries According to a professional boxing
trainer with over 25 years of experience
whom we interviewed, boxers are required to train and spar in the gym
daily for months in preparation for a fight. He said that during the
sparring sessions, many boxers sustain injuries that are not reported to
the boxing commissions. As a result, some of the boxers participate in
events with pre1
Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996: National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health Report to Congress, Study on Health,
Safety, and Equipment Standards for Boxing (June 1, 1998).
existing injuries, exposing themselves to further injury or harm. In an
effort to protect the health and safety of professional boxers, the NAAG
task force recommended in 2000 that state inspectors inspect boxing gyms
if adequate funding and staff are available. Evaluate Medical
To help protect the health and safety of boxers, the NAAG task force
Information and Assess
recommended that all commissions implement a medical classification Risks
system that would establish risk levels for boxing injuries. For a fighter
whose record included any element of a high- risk classification (e. g.,
repeated knockouts), the task force further recommended that
commissions be required to impose a temporary suspension until the fighter
received a medical clearance or required examination, such as a
neurological examination conducted by a neurologist using magnetic
resonance imaging and an electrocardiogram.
Ensure Presence of Medical In 2001, a representative of the Nevada
Attorney General testified 2 that
Personnel and Equipment although common sense dictates that an on- site
ambulance is needed for all
and File Postfight Reports boxing matches and should be available to
transport an injured boxer to a
hospital, many promoters would prefer to call 911 if an ambulance is
needed. The representative said that while this arrangement may be more
cost- effective for the promoter, the treatment of a fighter in the
initial
minutes after an injury* whether waiting for an ambulance to arrive or
receiving immediate and appropriate medial care* is critical in
determining whether the fighter will recover or suffer permanent damage or
death. Similarly, in 1983, the World Medical Association 3 said that
professional boxing events should be held in locations where
adequate neurosurgical facilities are immediately available for
emergency treatment of an injured boxer, a portable resuscitator with
oxygen equipment and appropriate
endotracheal tubes are available at ringside, and 2 Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Testimony on Boxing and Federal
Laws, (Washington, D. C.: May 23, 2001). 3 The World Medical Association
is an international organization created to ensure the independence of
physicians and to work for the highest possible standards of ethical
behavior and care by physicians.
an ambulance is continuously on- site to transport any seriously injured
boxer to a hospital immediately. The Professional Boxing Safety Act of
1996, as amended (the act), requires the continuous presence of a ringside
physician and an ambulance or
medical personnel with appropriate resuscitation equipment at each boxing
event, unless equivalent protection is required by the boxing commission*s
provisions.
A Pennsylvania Athletic Commission official testified 4 in May 2001 that
boxing commissions should be required to develop criteria for licensing
professional boxers, which should include reviews of boxers* fight records
(i. e., wins, losses, knockouts) and suspensions, and a centralized
database of medical examination information on all licensed boxers. He
said that the database should be accessible only to boxing commission
officials and would provide boxing commissions with an additional
screening mechanism to use in their license determination process.
Require Health and Life The president of the Association of Boxing
Commissions (ABC) told us that
Insurance current insurance provisions require promoters to provide health
insurance
coverage only during a boxing event. However, he said such coverage does
not protect boxers in other instances when they may need medical treatment
but do not have health insurance or the financial resources to pay for
treatment. For example, boxers may sustain injuries during an event but
not recognize until later that they have been injured and need treatment.
Many boxers also sustain injuries during training or sparring. In 1996, a
New Jersey Boxing Commission representative testified 5 that boxers spend
far more time sparring in gyms than competing in events; as a result, they
are more likely to sustain injuries during this period. The
representative said that to prevent injuries to the head and other parts
of the body, the amount and intensity of sparring should be monitored. A
trainer we interviewed said that boxers should have health and life
insurance coverage throughout the training period, as well as before,
after, 4 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
Testimony on Boxing and Federal Laws (Washington, D. C.: May 23, 2001).
5 House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee Workforce
Protections Subcommittee and the House Committee on Commerce Subcommittee
on Commerce Trade and Hazardous Materials, The Professional Boxing
Corporation Act of 1995 (Washington, D. C.: June 11, 1996).
and during an event, in order to address any medical conditions or
injuries. However, he said many insurance companies do not offer boxers
health and life insurance at affordable prices. Enforce Suspensions In
2002, the president of ABC testified before the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation on the need for the uniform
enforcement of all suspensions imposed by boxing commissions. Currently,
such enforcement is applicable only to suspensions imposed on boxers for
recent knockouts or for a series of consecutive losses and medical
reasons. The president said that in some instances, commissions have
suspended boxers for falsifying documents or other types of inappropriate
behavior and that to avoid serving the imposed suspensions, some boxers
have
traveled to other states and obtained a license to continue boxing.
Economic Protection Require Pension Plans for
Professional boxing offers no long- term financial protection for its
Boxers
participants, although purses for the big events are in the millions of
dollars and televised worldwide, often on a pay- per- view basis. The New
York State Attorney General testified in 1999 6 that the boxing industry
has generated enormous wealth for virtually everyone except professional
boxers. He
added that over the decades, the interests of professional boxers have
been ignored, leaving many penniless and medically at risk. In 1996,
Congress mandated that the Secretary of Labor undertake a study on the
feasibility of establishing a pension plan for professional boxers.
According to the study, 7 apart from programs run by the California
commission and by the International Boxing Federation for its championship
fights, comprehensive pensions for boxing are virtually nonexistent. The
study concluded that a comprehensive program, if implemented for
professional boxers, would consist of a charitable trust, a defined
contribution plan, a
6 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Hearing on
Reform of Professional Boxing Industry (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 22, 1999).
7 Pension Plans for Professional Boxers: A Study Prepared by the Segal
Company for the Secretary of Labor as Mandated by Congress (December
1997).
defined benefit plan, and a disability income and survivor*s benefit
program. Disclose Purses and Break
In 1997, a reporter testified 8 that in 1986 a boxer was guaranteed
$300,000, Out Payments
with up to another $100,000 in training fees, for a fight. Out of a
potential $400,000, the boxer was paid about $99,000. The manager did not
pay the trainer and the boxer paid the trainer out of his share of the
purse, leaving the boxer with $69,000. To address problems such as this,
the NAAG task force study recommended that a model contract be developed
to outline
contractual disclosure requirements between the promoters, managers, and
boxers. The model contract should specify the rights and responsibilities
of all parties, such as the contest requirements, compensation (including
a full accounting and disclosure of all deductions from a boxer*s purse),
licenses, and remedies for lack of good faith, collusion, or breach of
contract, including arbitration provisions.
Prohibit Conflicts of A Texas Boxing and Wrestling Program official cited
reports of fights in
Interest which a manager managed both boxers and the manager and promoter
were related. Such business arrangements limited the boxers* chances of
receiving fair payment. The official said that in theory, a manager is
supposed to negotiate the most favorable economic terms for the fighter,
while the promoter is supposed to make the largest possible profit on the
event. Establish Uniform
There are frequent reports of boxers* economic exploitation. For example,
Contractual Terms
in January 2003, officials of the Mohegan Tribe Department of Athletic
Regulations reported that a boxer had been fighting for more than a year
and had never received payment for participating in events throughout the
United States, although the manager was receiving the boxer*s fight
purses. For this violation, the commission revoked the manager*s license
for an indefinite period. In 2001, a Pennsylvania Athletic Commission
official said that for years fighters have been contractually tied to
promoters for a series of boxing events, limiting their ability and
opportunities to pursue other promoters and to box in other events. The
official said that the Muhammad
8 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Hearing on
Professional Boxing (Washington, D. C.: May 22, 1997).
Ali Boxing Reform Act, which limits the contracts between the boxer and
promoter to 1 year, is a step in the right direction to correct this
problem. Integrity of the Sport
Require Registration and A Nevada State Athletic Commission official
testified in 1994 9 that boxing
Training for Judges, referees have to decide in a split second which
fighter has won a bout.
Referees, and Others Accordingly, he said, judges should have the ability
to closely observe the
fighters and base their decisions on consistent scoring criteria. The NAAG
task force made recommendations to help enhance the integrity of the
sport, including the following: ABC should develop a standardized
testing program to be administered
to judges and referees. Judges and referees should be required to pass
this examination before
they receive their licenses. To be licensed as a referee, an individual
should have prior experience
officiating in amateur competition or in other states or jurisdictions.
All referees should be required to receive training and attend a minimum
of two medical training seminars each year. To be licensed as a judge,
an applicant should be proficient in the rules and regulations of boxing
and have prior experience officiating in amateur competition or in other
ABC states or jurisdiction.
To be licensed as a ringside physician, a physician should have a state
medical license, be in good standing in the respective state, and have
experience as a licensed physician for a minimum of 2 years.
Ringside physicians should be required to receive training in ringside
medicine.
9 Senate Committee on Commerce, Hearing on Health and Safety of
Professional Boxing (Washington, D. C.: Jan. 20, 1994).
Promoters and managers should be licensed and regulated. Prevent Undue
Influence The president of ABC testified in 2002 10 on the need for
standards to prevent sanctioning organizations from interfering with
boxing commissions* selection of judges and referees. According to the
president, that need was demonstrated during a nationally televised
championship fight in 2001. He said that several weeks before the
scheduled event, the sanctioning organization and the state boxing
commission agreed that the sanctioning organization would designate the
referee and one judge and the commission would designate the remaining two
judges. However, less than 5 minutes before the event was to begin, a
representative from the sanctioning organization threatened to withdraw
the organization*s sanction* an action that would reduce the status of the
fight to a nontitled
event* if the commission did not agree to replace one of the judges
selected by the commission with a judge designated by the sanctioning
organization. The commission agreed to the sanctioning organization*s
demands in order to retain the title status of the fight. Because the
sanctioning organization was allowed to select two of the three judges,
the president of ABC said the outcome of the event might have been
compromised.
Require Uniform Boxing In June 1996, a former Nevada Athletic Commission
official testified 11 that
and Scoring Rules every boxing match in the United States should be
conducted under the
same boxing and scoring rules. While noting that ABC has established
Unified Championship Rules for title bouts, he said that some commissions
do not implement the same rules. The official said that standardizing
boxing and scoring rules is important because fighters can have difficulty
concentrating on protecting themselves in the ring when they are trying to
remember whether a particular state uses a rule. Similarly, it is
difficult for referees to focus on a bout if they are worrying about
changes in the rules for different bouts.
10 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee
on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce, and Tourism: Hearing on the Federal
Regulation of Boxing (Washington, D. C.: May 22, 2002).
11 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Hearing on
Effective Regulation of the Boxing Industry: A Cooperative Effort
(Washington, D. C.: May 23, 2001).
Review Sanctioning The NAAG task force study reported that sanctioning
organizations*
Organizations* Rankings rankings often are not based on objective
assessments of talent or records
of fighters* wins and losses. Instead, according to the study, boxers
associated with certain promoters may be highly ranked regardless of their
skill and ability. The study reported that this creates fraud that can
have deadly consequences. For example, a fight advertised as a major
championship battle may turn out to be a mismatch, as was a bout held on
November 13, 1982, between Ray *Boom- Boom* Mancini and Duk Koo Kim of
South Korea. Mancini knocked out Kim, who never regained consciousness and
died. The World Boxing Association had rated Kim as a top contender, even
though he was not among Korea*s top 40 fighters.
Require Knowledge of In 2002, an entertainment manager testified 12 that
state boxing
Professional Boxing for commissions are generally underfunded and
dominated by political
Commission Officials appointees with limited knowledge of the sport. He
said that many of these
officials do not understand the boxing industry well enough to regulate
it. 12 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce, and Tourism: Hearing
on Federal Regulation of Boxing (Washington, D. C.: May 22, 2002).
Selected Boxing Commissions* Documentation of Compliance with the Act*s
Appendi x III
Provisions This appendix presents the results of our analysis of the eight
state and two tribal boxing commissions* documentation of compliance with
the act*s provisions and provides information on the reasons given by the
commissions for not having documentation. Figure 3 summarizes the results
of our analysis of the commissions* documentation.
Figure 3: Selected Commissions* Documentation of Compliance with the Act*s
Provisions for Boxing Events Held in 2001
Note: This analysis reflects (1) actual percentages for Indiana, Michigan,
and the Miccosukee and Mohegan Sun tribal jurisdictions, where we examined
documentation for all events held in 2001, and (2) estimated percentages
for California, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Texas, where
we examined documentation for a statistical sample of all events held in
2001. Typically, one boxing event consists of 6 to 10 bouts, each of which
may have its own documentation. a The California and Indiana commissions
said they complied with the provision but did not provide
documentation for our review, citing privacy or other concerns. A
California official sought higher- level approval for our review, but it
was not obtained until after we had completed our work at the commission.
b The California commission said it usually complied with this provision
but did not document its compliance. c The California, Indiana, Missouri,
Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Miccosukee commissions said they usually or
always complied with this provision but did not document their compliance.
d The Indiana commission did not provide documentation for our review. e
The California, Michigan, and Nevada commissions said they usually
complied with this provision but did not document their compliance. f In
figure 1 (p. 14), we categorized two commissions (Pennsylvania and the
Miccosukee Tribe) as
having documentation for this provision at least 75 percent of the time. g
The California, Florida, Indiana, Nevada, and Texas commissions said they
complied with this
provision but did not document their compliance. In commenting on a draft
of this report, the Missouri Office of Athletics said that Missouri does
not have a commission, but is staffed by 3 officials. Since Missouri does
not have procedures to prohibit conflicts of interest for the 3 officials,
we considered the 3 officials as a commission that did not have
documentation evidencing compliance with this provision. h The California
commission said it had purged its documentation for this provision from
its files, and the Indiana commission said it was experiencing computer
problems and could not provide the documentation.
The remainder of the appendix provides information on the extent to which
the 10 boxing commissions had documentation indicating compliance with
each of the act*s provisions related to a fundamental element. For the
commissions that did not have or did not provide documentation for our
review, the appendix also includes the reasons given by the commissions
for not having or providing the documentation. When a reason is not
specified, the commission did not provide a reason.
Figure 4: Evaluate Medical Information and Assess Risks
Four of the 10 state and tribal boxing commissions (California, Indiana,
Michigan, and Missouri) provided us with documentation of compliance less
than 50 percent of the time with the act*s provision requiring the
evaluation before each match of medical information and the assessment of
risks involved in allowing a boxer to fight. The Missouri boxing
commission said that it does not collect and maintain medical information
because state law concerning confidentiality, disclosure, and civil
liability issues prohibited them from doing so. The Michigan boxing
commission said that they were advised by its legal counsel to limit the
amount of medical information collected due to the commission*s limited
authority to collect and protect such information. The Indiana Boxing
Commission said it maintained medical information on professional boxers,
but would not
provide that information for review because of confidentiality and civil
liability concerns. A Texas official said that the Texas Boxing and
Wrestling Program used prelicense and prefight examinations, along with
information obtained from Fight Fax, Incorporated, 1 detailing a boxer*s
record of wins and losses and medical suspensions, to assess the risks
involved in allowing a boxer to fight before each match. This official
added that when reported information indicated that a boxer*s physical
condition was questionable, the commission might require the boxer to
undergo additional medical tests to ensure that he or she was not
participating in an event with a pre- existing injury. According to the
official, the Texas Boxing and Wrestling Program does not disclose medical
information it maintains on boxers to other commissions because of
confidentiality and civil liability concerns. The California State
Athletic Commission said it maintained medical information, such as the
results of annual physicals and any neurological tests, on professional
boxers registered in California, but it did not make this information
available for review during our visit to the commission.
1 Fight Fax, Incorporated, is the official record- keeping body of ABC.
Figure 5: Require Minimum Uniform Contractual Terms
Seven of the 10 state or tribal boxing commissions (Florida, Michigan,
Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, Miccosukee, and Mohegan Sun) had
documentation at least 75 percent of the time for the provision requiring
minimum uniform contractual terms between boxers and promoters; the
Indiana Commission had documentation 50 to 74 percent of the time; and the
California and Missouri commissions had documentation less than 50 percent
of the time. The Director of the Indiana Boxing Commission said that the
commission*s representatives were responsible for obtaining copies of all
contracts between promoters and boxers before an event and for ensuring
that boxers were paid in accordance with the contractual terms. However,
contracts between the promoters and boxers were missing from most of the
commission*s event files. The director said that in some cases boxers
forgot to forward their bout agreements to the commission after the
matches. The Executive Officer of the California State Athletic Commission
said that the contractual agreements between boxers and promoters were
submitted to the commission before events and no events were held unless
copies of the agreements were on file. However, many of the 2001 event
files that we reviewed had no documentation of contractual agreements
between boxers and promoters. No reason was given for the missing
contracts. According to a Missouri Office of Athletics official, its legal
counsel advised the commission against requiring boxing contracts because
such agreements involved civil matters that were outside the jurisdiction
of the Missouri Office of Athletics.
Figure 6: Require Standards for Rating Boxers to Protect against
Mismatches
Nine of the state and tribal boxing commissions (Florida, Indiana,
Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, Miccosukee, and Mohegan
Sun) that we reviewed had documentation at least 75 percent of the time
for the provision requiring standards for rating boxers*, considering
their records of wins and losses, weight differentials, caliber of
opponents, and numbers of past fights, to protect against mismatches. The
California State Athletic Commission was the only commission we reviewed
that lacked documentation for this provision. According to the Executive
Officer, the commission reviewed the reports of Fight Fax, Incorporated,
and the commission*s chief inspector determined whether boxers were
matched in accordance with their boxing skill levels, but the commission
did not maintain any records on this process.
Figure 7: Conduct Prefight Medical Examinations
All 10 of the state and tribal boxing commissions had documentation at
least 75 percent of the time for the provision requiring medical
examinations before fights.
Figure 8: Ensure Presence of Medical Personnel and Equipment
Six of the 10 state and tribal boxing commissions (California, Indiana,
Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Miccosukee) had documentation less
than 50 percent of the time for the provision requiring the presence of
appropriate medical personnel and equipment during and after each match.
Officials from these 6 commissions said that no fight would proceed
without emergency medical service and an ambulance on- site during events,
but they did not document their compliance with this requirement.
Furthermore, in commenting on a draft of this report, the Administrator of
the Missouri Office of Athletics noted that the act does not require such
documentation. The Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Mohegan Sun boxing
commissions documented the presence of emergency medical personnel and
equipment during the events at least 75 percent of the time.
Figure 9: Require Health Insurance During Matches
Three of the 10 state and tribal boxing commissions (Florida, Indiana, and
Michigan) lacked documentation at least 75 percent of the time for the
provision requiring health insurance for boxers during matches. The
Florida State Athletic Commission said that it had not documented boxers*
health insurance because of a clerical mistake. The Director of the
Indiana Boxing Commission said that many of the commission*s 2001 event
files
were missing documentation of health insurance coverage because in
Indiana, a majority of the professional boxing events were organized by
the same promoters, who usually secured an annual policy covering all of
the events for the year. We asked the official for documentation of health
insurance coverage for the events whose files were missing such
documentation. However, this documentation was not made available
during our review.
Figure 10: Honor Suspensions Imposed by Other Commissions
Three of the 10 state and tribal boxing commissions (California, Michigan,
and Nevada) had documentation less than 50 percent of the time indicating
that they had enforced suspensions of boxers imposed by other commissions.
Officials from these 3 commissions said that before approving fights, they
reviewed the suspension information received from
Fight Fax and the national suspension list to ensure that boxers were not
participating in events while serving suspensions imposed by other
commissions. The officials added that although this information was
reviewed, they did not maintain a record of the information in the event
files.
Figure 11: Require Disclosure of Purses and Payments to Promoters and
Judges
All 10 of the state and tribal boxing commissions we reviewed had
documentation at least 75 percent of the time for the provision requiring
the disclosure of all purses and amounts paid to promoters. Two of the 10
commissions (Indiana and Missouri) had documentation less than 75 percent
of the time for the provision requiring the disclosure of amounts paid to
judges. The Director of the Indiana Boxing Commission said that the
commission verified all forms of payment before events and ensured that
all payments were made immediately after the events, but the commission
did not make this information available during our review. The Missouri
Office of Athletics said that the commission did not always document
amounts paid to judges because Missouri law did not require the disclosure
of such information. The official added that the promoters usually pay the
judges by check through the Missouri Office of Athletics for tax purposes.
Figure 12: Prohibit Conflicts of Interest for Boxers, Promoters, and
Commission Representatives
The Miccosukee Athletic Commission was the only boxing commission with
documentation at least 75 percent of the time for the provision that calls
for ensuring that there are no conflicts of interest for boxers and
promoters. Officials from the Michigan, Missouri, and Mohegan Sun boxing
commissions said they were unaware that the provision had been enacted in
federal law. The Director of the Indiana Boxing Commission said Indiana
had not experienced any problems with boxers and promoters relating to
conflicts of interest; therefore, the commission felt documentation for
this provision was unnecessary.
The Pennsylvania Athletic Commission was the only boxing commission with
documentation at least 75 percent of the time for the provision that calls
for ensuring that there are no conflicts of interest for boxers and
commission representatives. Officials from the Michigan, Missouri, and
Mohegan Sun commissions said they were unaware that the provision had been
enacted in federal law, and officials from the California, Florida,
Indiana, Nevada, and Texas 2 commissions said they did not maintain
documentation for this provision because they believed these issues were
addressed through discussions.
Figure 13: Require Registration for Boxers and Certification and Approval
for Ring Officials
All 10 of the state and tribal boxing commissions we reviewed had
documentation at least 75 percent of the time for the provision requiring
boxers to be registered. Two of the 10 commissions (California and 2 In
commenting on a draft of this report, the Texas Department of Licensing
and Regulation said that all of its employees are required to sign a
certification that they have read the
department*s conflict of interest policies. However, when we met with the
Texas boxing commission officials they said there was no documentation of
this for us to review.
Indiana) had documentation less than 50 percent of the time for the
provision requiring ring officials to be certified and approved. The
Executive Officer of the California State Athletic Commission said the
commission documented only current registrations and had purged the 2001
data from its files. During our review, the Director of the Indiana Boxing
Commission said the commission was experiencing computer problems and
could not provide us with the list of ring officials certified and
approved in 2001.
State and Tribal Provisions That Cover Additional Health, Safety,
Economic, and
Appendi x IV
Integrity Elements This appendix provides information on the extent to
which the 10 states and tribes that we reviewed had provisions covering
health, safety, economic, and integrity elements in addition to those
covered by the act. The appendix also provides the states* and tribes*
reasons for not having provisions covering certain elements. When reasons
are not specified, the
commissions did not provide them. Conduct Postfight
None of the 10 state and tribal commissions we reviewed had provisions
Medical Examinations,
requiring postfight medical examinations, including neurological testing,
for all boxers who participate in events outside their own jurisdictions.
Including Neurological
Three of the commissions said they did not have provisions requiring Test
i ng
postfight medical examinations or neurological testing because they did
not have the financial resources to administer such requirements and it
would not be feasible to require small promoters or boxers to pay for
them. However, the California, Indiana, Nevada, Texas, and Pennsylvania
boxing
commissions said they required postfight medical examinations when a
commission requested that a previously injured boxer obtain a medical
release before being allowed to fight.
Monitor Training California was the only commission that required the
monitoring of injuries
Injuries sustained during training before events. Five of the state and
tribal boxing
commissions (Indiana, Missouri, Mohegan Sun, Pennsylvania, and Texas)
agreed that from a safety perspective, monitoring boxers* gym activities
was a good concept, but they said they did not have the personnel or
financial resources to monitor local gym activities. The Executive
Director of the Pennsylvania Athletic Commission said that Pennsylvania
did not require the monitoring of gym injuries before events, but he
personally visited each local gym once or twice a year to monitor gym
activities.
File Postfight Medical Eight of the state and tribal commissions
(California, Indiana, Michigan,
Reports Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Mohegan Sun) required
the
filing of postfight medical reports. The Executive Director of the Florida
State Athletic Commission said Florida did not require the filing of
postfight medical reports because the commission and the small promoters
and boxers did not have the financial resources to pay for physicians to
conduct such examinations. The official added that in many cases the small
promoters struggled to pay for the physicians needed to conduct the
required prefight examinations. The Executive Director of the Miccosukee
Athletic Commission said that the commission did not require the filing of
postfight medical reports; however, he said a medical referral might be
given to a boxer if the ringside physician suspected that the boxer had
been injured and a follow- up examination or observation was needed.
Require Health and Life None of the state and tribal commissions require
that boxers be provided
Insurance Before and with health and life insurance before and after each
match. Generally, the
commissions required the promoters to secure health insurance during a
After Fights
match, as the act requires. Some of the policies provided extended
coverage for medical and accidental death and dismemberment for up to 1
year following the match. Four of the commissions (Michigan, Missouri,
Pennsylvania, and Texas) said that providing coverage to boxers before or
between matches* that is, during training* would be too costly. They
stated that it is not the commissions* responsibility to provide coverage,
since boxers are independent contractors.
Enforce Suspensions California was the only state that required its
commission to suspend for Training Injuries
boxers for training injuries. All of commissions agreed that suspending
boxers for gym injuries was not feasible because many of the commissions
were experiencing personnel and budgetary constraints and did not have the
resources to monitor gym activities.
Require Pension Plans California was the only state that required pension
plans for professional boxers. Officials at the other nine commissions
said that this was a positive
initiative; however, six of the commissions (Indiana, Miccosukee,
Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Texas) questioned the contribution
sources and basis for qualification. The Boxing Administrator of the Texas
Boxing and Wrestling Program said that the problems associated with
pension and retirement plans were similar to those attending the health
insurance issue and that they were social rather than professional boxing
issues. According to the Director of the Indiana Boxing Commission,
pension plans would benefit boxers a great deal, particularly if boxers
were older and nearing retirement, younger and intending to make a career
of professional boxing, or injured and without an alternative source of
income. The official said that problems would arise with funding, because
promoters have little incentive to fund pension plans for boxers and might
be unable to afford the additional expense. He said that deducting money
from each boxer*s purse would also be difficult, because most boxers do
not earn more than a few hundred dollars per bout.
According to the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Athletic
Commission, the commission is pursuing funding for pension plans. The
official added that in 1992, the commission attempted to use its budget
surplus to start a trust for professional boxers; however, because of
shortfalls elsewhere in the state*s budget, the funds were expended on
other projects. The commission is initiating a charitable trust under ABC
that has received some voluntary contributions thus far. The goal is to
reach $500,000 in principal and operate the program using the account*s
interest. The official said that because professional boxers are not
unionized, a traditional pension fund would not be feasible. The
Enforcement Division Director of the Michigan Bureau of Commercial
Services said that the commission views operating a pension plan as
outside the state*s role to protect the consumer. In addition, the
official
said, promoters operating in Michigan would not be willing to fund a
pension plan. Officials from the Missouri Office of Athletics and the
Miccosukee Athletic Commission supported the establishment of a pension
plan; however, they questioned the feasibility of doing so, since boxers
are independent contractors.
Require Disclosure of Two of the state and tribal boxing commissions
(Florida and Mohegan Sun)
All Purses and required full and open disclosure of all purses and costs
of bouts, with the
amounts paid to trainers and boxers broken out. According to the Payments
to Trainers
Executive Officer of the California State Athletic Commission, California
and Boxers
has no provision requiring the disclosure of all purses and costs to
trainers, but does require that the amounts paid and costs assessed to
boxers be disclosed. The Enforcement Division Director of the Michigan
Bureau of Commercial Services said that the commission did not have a
provision requiring the disclosure of all purses and costs to trainers and
boxers because the commission did not enforce any such agreements between
these parties, as directed by their legal counsel. The Boxing
Administrator of the Texas Boxing and Wrestling Program said that Texas
only had provisions requiring the disclosure of all purses and costs to
promoters and boxers. However, the Texas official said that the
organization documented information on the fees that the trainers were
paid from the boxer*s purse,
although there was no requirement for such documentation.
Prohibit Conflicts of Eight state and tribal commissions (Florida,
Indiana, Michigan, Nevada,
Interest for Judges and Pennsylvania, Texas, Miccosukee, and Mohegan Sun)
prohibited conflicts
of interest for judges and referees. According to the Missouri Office of
Referees
Athletics official, the commission has provisions for ensuring that there
are no conflicts of interest for state boxing commission representatives.
The official did not explain why the provisions do not address conflicts
of interest for managers, judges, and referees. The Enforcement Division
Director of the Michigan Bureau of Commercial Services said that a number
of state officials resigned after the act established conflict of interest
standards.
Require Registration Missouri was the only commission we reviewed with a
provision requiring
and Training for trainers, managers, promoters, and physicians to be
registered and receive
training. Officials from six of the commissions (California, Florida,
Indiana, Trainers, Managers,
Miccosukee, Pennsylvania, and Texas) said that they had provisions
Promoters, and requiring these occupations to be registered, but because
of limited Physicians financial resources, the provisions governing
training were applicable only to physicians and ring officials.
Preclude Sanctioning Seven of the 10 state and tribal commissions
(California, Florida, Missouri,
Organizations from Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Mohegan Sun) we
reviewed had
provisions for selecting judges and ensuring that sanctioning
organizations Exercising Undue
do not influence the selection process. Influence
Select Uniform Boxing All 10 of the commissions we reviewed had provisions
for selecting the
and Scoring Rules boxing and scoring rules for events, such as ABC*s rules
for championship
events. Require Boxing
Seven of the 10 commissions (California, Florida, Michigan, Nevada,
Knowledge for
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Miccosukee) had provisions that require officials
who serve on boxing commissions to have knowledge of professional
Commission Officials
boxing. According to the Administrator of the Missouri Office of
Athletics, the governor appoints the officials serving on the state*s
boxing commission, and, as a result, some of these officials may not have
a
professional boxing background or knowledge. Similarly, representatives of
the Mohegan Tribe appoint the officials serving on the Mohegan Tribal
Gaming Commission Athletic Unit and therefore, according to the unit*s
legal counsel, some of the officials may not have an extensive background
in boxing. However, this has not been the commission*s experience, the
counsel said.
Appendi x V
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology In analyzing the adequacy of efforts to
protect the health, safety, and economic well- being of professional
boxers and to enhance the integrity of the sport, our objectives were to
(1) identify fundamental elements considered important to address the
major health and safety, economic, and integrity problems facing
professional boxing; (2) assess the extent to which the act*s provisions
cover these elements and whether selected state and tribal boxing
commissions have documentation indicating compliance
with the act*s provisions; (3) assess the extent to which selected states
and tribes have adopted provisions that cover fundamental elements in
addition to those covered in the act; and (4) determine what actions the
Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have taken
under the act.
To identify fundamental elements that are considered important to address
the major health and safety, economic, and integrity problems facing
professional boxing, we reviewed recent congressional testimony and
studies conducted by a task force of the National Association of Attorneys
General, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department
of Labor. From these sources, which documented problems in the boxing
industry and made recommendations to address them, we identified major
problems facing the sport and consolidated the recommendations into 15
fundamental elements that, if implemented, could provide an adequate level
of health, safety, and economic protection to boxers and help enhance the
integrity of the sport. We discussed these elements with the Association
of Boxing Commissions, which agreed that the elements could provide the
desired protection and enhancement.
To assess the extent to which the act*s provisions cover the fundamental
elements we identified, we analyzed the act*s provisions and determined
how many cover fundamental elements, either fully or partially. To assess
the extent to which selected state and tribal boxing commissions have
documented their compliance with the act*s provisions, we identified 8 of
the 46 state boxing commissions and 2 of the 8 tribal boxing commissions
for review. We looked at provisions in the act that were related to the 15
fundamental elements. The eight states are California, Florida, Indiana,
Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Nevada; the two tribes are
the Mohegan Sun (Connecticut) and the Miccosukee (Florida). We selected
California, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Texas because
they held the largest number of professional boxing events in calendar
year 2001, the most recent year for which complete data were available. We
selected Michigan and Indiana to represent states that held a smaller
number of events in calendar year 2001 than the other states selected. We
selected the Miccosukee and Mohegan Sun tribes because they were the
Indian tribes that held the largest number of professional boxing events
in calendar year 2001. The state and tribal commission we selected
accounted for 49 percent of all professional boxing events held in the
United States during calendar year 2001.
At the Indiana, Michigan, Miccosukee, and Mohegan Sun commissions, we
reviewed the cases files for all professional boxing events held in 2001,
and at the remaining commissions, we reviewed the case files for a random
selection of professional boxing events held in 2001. Because we randomly
selected boxing events in these states for review, our sample for each of
these states is just one of many samples we could have drawn. Since each
sample could have produced a different estimate, we express our confidence
in the precision of the estimates for our particular samples using 95
percent confidence intervals. These are ranges within which we are
confident that 95 out of 100 samples drawn from these particular events
would include the true value for all the events in the state. All the
estimates based on sample data in table 3 have 95 percent confidence
intervals not
exceeding plus or minus 10 percentage points, unless otherwise indicated.
To present the results of our case file reviews, we divided the actual or
estimated percentages of cases with documentation into three compliance
categories: 75 to 100 percent, 50 to 74 percent, and below 50 percent. We
did not independently verify the documented compliance, and the results
of our reviews at these 10 commissions cannot be generalized to all boxing
events held nationwide during 2001.
The documentation that we reviewed at the selected commissions varied.
Because the act does not require documentation and the commissions have no
uniform record- keeping standards, we considered all types of
documentation maintained and provided to us by the commissions for our
review. Such documentation included pre- and post- fight medical
examination check sheets, insurance coverage forms, copies of contracts
between boxers and promoters, event sheets identifying boxers*
registration numbers, promoters* revenue reports to commissions, and
statements of independence signed by ring officials.
To assess the extent to which selected states and tribes have adopted
provisions that cover fundamental elements in addition to those covered in
the act, we reviewed the boxing provisions enacted by the eight states and
two tribes and identified provisions that cover fundamental elements or
portions of fundamental elements that the act does not cover. We confirmed
with the boxing commissions of these states and tribes that they
agreed with our analysis of their provisions, and we asked these officials
why their state or tribe had not enacted provisions covering additional
fundamental elements. Our findings for these selected states and tribes
cannot be generalized to all 46 states and eight tribes. We did not assess
the
extent to which the states and tribes had implemented or enforced the
provisions that cover additional fundamental elements.
To determine what actions the Department of Justice and FTC have taken
under the act, we determined the role that each is assigned under the act.
We then met with Justice officials to identify whether any investigations
or
prosecutions had been conducted under the act in the jurisdictions of the
eight state and two tribal commissions in 2001. In addition, we reviewed
Justice*s central case management system for possible cases prosecuted
during fiscal years 1996 through 2002. We also met with FTC officials to
determine whether they had received consumer complaints related to the
boxing industry. Furthermore, to determine that the sanctioning
organizations were making the required information available to the
public, we reviewed the Internet Web sites of 14 sanctioning
organizations.
We performed our work in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards from September 2002 through July 2003 in Washington, D.
C., and at the following state or tribal boxing commission locations:
California State Athletic Commission, Sacramento, California; Florida
State Athletic Commission, Tallahassee, Florida; Indiana Boxing
Commission, Indianapolis, Indiana; Michigan Bureau of Commercial Services,
Lansing, Michigan; Missouri Office of Athletics, Jefferson City, Missouri;
Nevada Athletic Commission, Las Vegas, Nevada; Pennsylvania Athletic
Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Texas Boxing and Wrestling Program,
Austin, Texas; Miccosukee Athletic Commission, Miami, Florida; and the
Mohegan Tribal Gaming Commission Athletic Unit, Uncasville, Connecticut.
Comments from the Association of Boxing
Appendi x VI Commissions
Comments from the Missouri Office of
Appendi x VII Athletics
Comments from the Miccosukee Athletic
Appendi x VIII Commission
Comments from the Mohegan Tribal Gaming
Appendi x IX Commission Athletic Unit
Comments from the Pennsylvania Athletic
Appendi x X Commission
Comments from the Texas Department of
Appendi x XI Licensing and Regulations
Appendi x XII
Contacts and Contributors Contact John S. Baldwin, Sr. (202) 512- 2834
Contributors Frederick Lyles, Jr., John Vocino, Bernice Benta, Christopher
Factor,
Elizabeth Eisenstadt, Jerry Sandau, Brandon Haller, Bert Japikse, and
Sidney Schwartz
(543027)
GAO*s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities
and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal
government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to good
government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity,
and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost is
through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext GAO Reports and
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
Testimony
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail this
list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select *Subscribe to
e- mail alerts* under the *Order GAO Products* heading. Order by Mail or
Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are
$2 each. A check
or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO
also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to
a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax:
(202) 512- 6061
To Report Fraud, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E-
mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Federal Programs
Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470 Public
Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D. C. 20548
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, U. S. Senate
July 2003 PROFESSIONAL BOXING Issues Related to the Protection of Boxers*
Health, Safety, and Economic Interests
GAO- 03- 699
Contents Letter 1
Results in Brief 4 Fundamental Elements Considered Important to Address
Health
and Safety and Economic Problems Facing Professional Boxing 7 The Act*s
Provisions Fully or Partially Cover 10 Fundamental
Elements, and Selected Commissions Varied in the Extent to Which They Had
Documentation Indicating Compliance 11 Selected States and Tribes Vary in
the Extent to Which Their
Provisions Cover Additional Fundamental Elements 14 Federal Action under
the Act Has Been Limited 16 Concluding Observations 17 Agency Comments and
Our Evaluation 17
Appendixes
Appendix I: Professional Boxing Events Held in the United States during
Calendar Year 2001 21
Appendix II: Fundamental Elements to Address Health and Safety, Economic,
and Integrity Problems in Professional Boxing 23 Health and Safety 23
Economic Protection 26 Integrity of the Sport 28
Appendix III: Selected Boxing Commissions* Documentation of Compliance
with the Act*s Provisions 31
Appendix IV: State and Tribal Provisions That Cover Additional Health,
Safety, Economic, and Integrity Elements 41 Conduct Postfight Medical
Examinations, Including Neurological
Testing 41 Monitor Training Injuries 41 File Postfight Medical Reports 41
Require Health and Life Insurance Before and After Fights 42 Enforce
Suspensions for Training Injuries 42 Require Pension Plans 42 Require
Disclosure of All Purses and Payments to Trainers and
Boxers 43 Prohibit Conflicts of Interest for Judges and Referees 44
Require Registration and Training for Trainers, Managers,
Promoters, and Physicians 44 Preclude Sanctioning Organizations from
Exercising Undue
Influence 44
Select Uniform Boxing and Scoring Rules 44 Require Boxing Knowledge for
Commission Officials 44
Appendix V: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 46
Appendix VI: Comments from the Association of Boxing Commissions 49
Appendix VII: Comments from the Missouri Office of Athletics 51
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Miccosukee Athletic Commission 53
Appendix IX: Comments from the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Commission Athletic
Unit 59
Appendix X: Comments from the Pennsylvania Athletic Commission 60
Appendix XI: Comments from the Texas Department of Licensing and
Regulations 62
Appendix XII: Contacts and Contributors 64 Contact 64 Contributors 64
Tables Table 1: Fundamental Elements Considered Important to Address Major
Problems Facing Professional Boxing 10
Table 2: Extent to Which the Act*s Provisions Cover Fundamental Elements
to Help Address Major Problems in Professional Boxing 11
Figures Figure 1: Selected Boxing Commissions* Documentation of Compliance
with the Act*s Provisions Related to 10
Fundamental Elements 14 Figure 2: Extent to Which State and Tribal
Provisions Cover
Additional Fundamental Elements 15 Figure 3: Selected Commissions*
Documentation of Compliance
with the Act*s Provisions for Boxing Events Held in 2001 31 Figure 4:
Evaluate Medical Information and Assess Risks 32 Figure 5: Require Minimum
Uniform Contractual Terms 34 Figure 6: Require Standards for Rating Boxers
to Protect against
Mismatches 35 Figure 7: Conduct Prefight Medical Examinations 35 Figure 8:
Ensure Presence of Medical Personnel and Equipment 36 Figure 9: Require
Health Insurance During Matches 36 Figure 10: Honor Suspensions Imposed by
Other Commissions 37
Figure 11: Require Disclosure of Purses and Payments to Promoters and
Judges 38 Figure 12: Prohibit Conflicts of Interest for Boxers, Promoters,
and Commission Representatives 38
Figure 13: Require Registration for Boxers and Certification and Approval
for Ring Officials 39
Abbreviations
ABC Association of Boxing Commissions FTC Federal Trade Commission NAAG
National Association of Attorneys General USBA United States Boxing
Administration
This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
a
GAO United States General Accounting Office
Based on GAO*s review of congressional testimonies and national studies
dating from 1994 through 2002, GAO identified 15 fundamental elements that
are considered important to protect boxers* health, safety, and economic
well- being and to enhance the integrity of the sport.
The act addresses 10 of the 15 fundamental elements that GAO identified.
The 8 (of 46) state and 2 (of 8) tribal boxing commissions that GAO
selected for review accounted for 49 percent of the fights in 2001 and
varied in the extent to which they had documentation indicating compliance
with the 10 provisions of the act related to the fundamental elements. For
example, all 10 commissions had documentation indicating compliance at
least 75 percent of the time for 3 provisions* requiring prefight medical
exams, disclosure of purses and payments, and registration of boxers* but
only 2
commissions had documentation indicating compliance at least 75 percent of
the time for a provision prohibiting conflicts of interest. Commissions
either gave no reason for the lack of documentation, cited privacy or
liability concerns, or said they were unaware of the federal provision.
The eight states and two tribes that GAO reviewed vary in the extent to
which they adopted additional provisions that cover elements not covered
by the act*s provisions. The number of such provisions ranges from 10
(California) to 4 (Missouri). For example, the states have provisions
requiring the filing of postfight medical reports, uniform boxing and
scoring rules, and boxing commission officials* knowledge of the sport.
Federal actions taken under the act have been limited. The Department of
Justice said it has not exercised its authority to prosecute cases because
none have been referred to it by federal law enforcement authorities.
Furthermore it noted that violations under the act are misdemeanors, and
it
generally applies its resources to prosecuting felonies. The Federal Trade
Commission periodically checks the Web sites of the organizations that
sanction professional boxing events to see whether they have posted the
information that they are required to make available to the public and has
found them to be adequate. Legislation was recently introduced to
significantly amend the act by, among other things, creating a new
organization within the Department of Labor that would provide oversight
and enforcement of boxing laws. This new federal organization is intended
to facilitate more uniform enforcement of federal requirements aimed at
enhancing boxers* health, safety, and general interests as well as the
integrity of the sport.
The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission provided only
technical comments on our report. The Association of Boxing Commissions
and five state and tribal commissions had concerns about the lack of
existing federal enforcement and the economic impact of any additional
federal requirements. The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996
established minimum health and safety standards for professional boxing
and provided
for limited federal oversight by the Department of Justice and the Federal
Trade Commission. In
2000, the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act amended the act to better protect
boxers* economic well- being and enhance the integrity of the sport.
However, reports of problems continue, including permanent and sometimes
fatal injuries, economic exploitation, and corruption.
GAO was asked to (1) identify fundamental elements considered important to
protect professional boxers and enhance the integrity of the sport; (2)
assess the extent to which provisions of the Professional Boxing Safety
Act of 1996, as amended (the act), cover
these elements and determine whether selected state and tribal boxing
commissions have
documentation indicating compliance with the act*s provisions; (3)
determine whether selected states and tribes have provisions that cover
additional
elements; and (4) identify federal actions taken under the act. www. gao.
gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 699. To view the full product, including
the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more information,
contact Bernard Ungar, (202) 512- 4232, ungarb@ gao. gov. Highlights of
GAO- 03- 699, a report to the
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U. S. Senate
July 2003
PROFESSIONAL BOXING
Issues Related to the Protection of Boxers' Health, Safety, and Economic
Interests
Page i GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Contents
Page ii GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Contents
Page iii GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 1 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing United States General Accounting
Office Washington, D. C. 20548
Page 1 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
A
Page 2 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 3 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 4 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 5 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 6 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 7 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 8 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 9 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 10 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 11 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 12 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 13 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 14 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 15 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 16 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 17 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 18 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 19 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 20 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 21 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix I
Appendix I Professional Boxing Events Held in the United States during
Calendar Year 2001
Page 22 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 23 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix II
Appendix II Fundamental Elements to Address Health and Safety, Economic,
and Integrity Problems in Professional Boxing
Page 24 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix II Fundamental Elements to Address Health and Safety, Economic,
and Integrity Problems in Professional Boxing
Page 25 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix II Fundamental Elements to Address Health and Safety, Economic,
and Integrity Problems in Professional Boxing
Page 26 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix II Fundamental Elements to Address Health and Safety, Economic,
and Integrity Problems in Professional Boxing
Page 27 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix II Fundamental Elements to Address Health and Safety, Economic,
and Integrity Problems in Professional Boxing
Page 28 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix II Fundamental Elements to Address Health and Safety, Economic,
and Integrity Problems in Professional Boxing
Page 29 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix II Fundamental Elements to Address Health and Safety, Economic,
and Integrity Problems in Professional Boxing
Page 30 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 31 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix III
Appendix III Selected Boxing Commissions* Documentation of Compliance with
the Act*s Provisions
Page 32 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix III Selected Boxing Commissions* Documentation of Compliance with
the Act*s Provisions
Page 33 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix III Selected Boxing Commissions* Documentation of Compliance with
the Act*s Provisions
Page 34 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix III Selected Boxing Commissions* Documentation of Compliance with
the Act*s Provisions
Page 35 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix III Selected Boxing Commissions* Documentation of Compliance with
the Act*s Provisions
Page 36 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix III Selected Boxing Commissions* Documentation of Compliance with
the Act*s Provisions
Page 37 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix III Selected Boxing Commissions* Documentation of Compliance with
the Act*s Provisions
Page 38 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix III Selected Boxing Commissions* Documentation of Compliance with
the Act*s Provisions
Page 39 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix III Selected Boxing Commissions* Documentation of Compliance with
the Act*s Provisions
Page 40 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 41 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix IV
Appendix IV State and Tribal Provisions That Cover Additional Health,
Safety, Economic, and Integrity Elements
Page 42 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix IV State and Tribal Provisions That Cover Additional Health,
Safety, Economic, and Integrity Elements
Page 43 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix IV State and Tribal Provisions That Cover Additional Health,
Safety, Economic, and Integrity Elements
Page 44 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix IV State and Tribal Provisions That Cover Additional Health,
Safety, Economic, and Integrity Elements
Page 45 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 46 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix V
Appendix V Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 47 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix V Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 48 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 49 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix VI
Appendix VI Comments from the Association of Boxing Commissions Page 50
GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 51 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix VII
Appendix VII Comments from the Missouri Office of Athletics Page 52 GAO-
03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 53 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix VIII
Appendix VIII Comments from the Miccosukee Athletic Commission Page 54
GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix VIII Comments from the Miccosukee Athletic Commission Page 55
GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix VIII Comments from the Miccosukee Athletic Commission Page 56
GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix VIII Comments from the Miccosukee Athletic Commission Page 57
GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix VIII Comments from the Miccosukee Athletic Commission Page 58
GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 59 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix IX
Page 60 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix X
Appendix X Comments from the Pennsylvania Athletic Commission Page 61 GAO-
03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 62 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix XI
Appendix XI Comments from the Texas Department of Licensing and
Regulations Page 63 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Page 64 GAO- 03- 699 Professional Boxing
Appendix XII
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Service Requested
Presorted Standard Postage & Fees Paid
GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***