Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
A new bill that aims to overhaul the business of professional boxing in the United States has been introduced into Congress.
The bill, titled "The Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act," was introduced Wednesday by U.S. Representatives Brian Jack, a Republican from Georgia, and Sharice Davids, a Democrat from Kansas. The bill’s language would allow for “alternative systems” called Unified Boxing Organizations, which would permit promoters to introduce their own rankings and championship belts – something explicitly outlawed by the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000.
That provision would allow for a structure in boxing that is similar to Ultimate Fighting Championship naming its own champions in mixed martial arts. The similarity isn’t coincidental, as the bill is backed by TKO, the company which owns the UFC and has partnered with Riyadh Season financier Turki Alalshikh, according to The Ring’s Mike Coppinger.
As part of the bill, UBOs would have to pay boxers a minimum of $150 per round, while also mandating a minimum of $25,000 in coverage for injuries sustained during a fight.
Under the UBO system, these organizations would be allowed to establish their own anti-doping testing programs, just as the UFC has, raising jurisdictional concerns with state commissions and their own drug testing policies.
UBOs would also have to provide health insurance to boxers under contract to them, which would cover injuries sustained in training. UBOs would also "ensure that the boxer has access to equipment and facilities" for "training and rehabilitation," similar to the UFC Performance Institute in Las Vegas.
Rep. Jack claims that “ambiguity in current law … has stifled investment,” while claiming that the law would establish “a framework for innovation to flourish.
“Under the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act (H.R. 4624), UBOs would not replace the current sanctioning organizations,” reads a press release from Rep. Jack’s office. “Instead, UBOs would exist side-by-side and operate independently, with UBO events regulated by state athletic commissions.”
In addition to TKO and the bill’s co-sponsors, the bill also has high-profile endorsements from Michael Mazzulli, president of the Association of Boxing Commissions, and Lonnie Ali, the widow of boxing great Muhammad Ali.
But the proposal isn’t without its detractors.
Erik Magraken, a combat sports regulatory lawyer, warns that in-house championships could make it more difficult for boxers to leverage their worth in an open market.
“Independent rank and title is the biggest protection that lets boxers earn so much more than MMA fighters,” said Magraken in a post on the social media platform X.
“Boxers compete for titles. Promoters compete for boxers. If promoters own and control titles then boxers can be exploited by promoters.”
Veteran matchmaker Ron Katz worries the bill will mean “more titles to confuse the ever-dwindling fan base of the sport,” though he states that some of the other provisions in the bill seem “very positive.”
A bill would need a simple majority to pass the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate before it could be sent to the president to be signed into law.
Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 100697
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
I like Dana White and think he comes across well in interviews, and the UFC is a good business model.
I do find it quite troubling that the only way this new organisation can or is willing to proceed is by changing the Muhammad Ali act that was set up to prevent fighters being exploited, it'll mean another set of champs and interim champs to follow if they create their own belts similar to the UFC belt setup but think boxing fans are used to this by now, it'll be interesting to see how this situation develops post congressional votes from this side of the pond.
I do find it quite troubling that the only way this new organisation can or is willing to proceed is by changing the Muhammad Ali act that was set up to prevent fighters being exploited, it'll mean another set of champs and interim champs to follow if they create their own belts similar to the UFC belt setup but think boxing fans are used to this by now, it'll be interesting to see how this situation develops post congressional votes from this side of the pond.
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
Scumbag move for a scumbag act by scumbag people
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
If this bill is signed off,this will be bad for boxing in my opinion. We had years of big potential fights not being made because of the political minefield. Then Turki came along with his deep pockets and all of a sudden the big fights were being made. The sport could now be re-fragmented again, which puts us back to square one. I hope I'm wrong,we will just have to.wsit and seeRuthless-RKO wrote: ↑24 Jul 2025, 03:04 Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
A new bill that aims to overhaul the business of professional boxing in the United States has been introduced into Congress.
The bill, titled "The Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act," was introduced Wednesday by U.S. Representatives Brian Jack, a Republican from Georgia, and Sharice Davids, a Democrat from Kansas. The bill’s language would allow for “alternative systems” called Unified Boxing Organizations, which would permit promoters to introduce their own rankings and championship belts – something explicitly outlawed by the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000.
That provision would allow for a structure in boxing that is similar to Ultimate Fighting Championship naming its own champions in mixed martial arts. The similarity isn’t coincidental, as the bill is backed by TKO, the company which owns the UFC and has partnered with Riyadh Season financier Turki Alalshikh, according to The Ring’s Mike Coppinger.
As part of the bill, UBOs would have to pay boxers a minimum of $150 per round, while also mandating a minimum of $25,000 in coverage for injuries sustained during a fight.
Under the UBO system, these organizations would be allowed to establish their own anti-doping testing programs, just as the UFC has, raising jurisdictional concerns with state commissions and their own drug testing policies.
UBOs would also have to provide health insurance to boxers under contract to them, which would cover injuries sustained in training. UBOs would also "ensure that the boxer has access to equipment and facilities" for "training and rehabilitation," similar to the UFC Performance Institute in Las Vegas.
Rep. Jack claims that “ambiguity in current law … has stifled investment,” while claiming that the law would establish “a framework for innovation to flourish.
“Under the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act (H.R. 4624), UBOs would not replace the current sanctioning organizations,” reads a press release from Rep. Jack’s office. “Instead, UBOs would exist side-by-side and operate independently, with UBO events regulated by state athletic commissions.”
In addition to TKO and the bill’s co-sponsors, the bill also has high-profile endorsements from Michael Mazzulli, president of the Association of Boxing Commissions, and Lonnie Ali, the widow of boxing great Muhammad Ali.
But the proposal isn’t without its detractors.
Erik Magraken, a combat sports regulatory lawyer, warns that in-house championships could make it more difficult for boxers to leverage their worth in an open market.
“Independent rank and title is the biggest protection that lets boxers earn so much more than MMA fighters,” said Magraken in a post on the social media platform X.
“Boxers compete for titles. Promoters compete for boxers. If promoters own and control titles then boxers can be exploited by promoters.”
Veteran matchmaker Ron Katz worries the bill will mean “more titles to confuse the ever-dwindling fan base of the sport,” though he states that some of the other provisions in the bill seem “very positive.”
A bill would need a simple majority to pass the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate before it could be sent to the president to be signed into law.
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
I didn't realise it had got that far through Congress yet, they must have lobbied well to get it looked at so quick.
The belts situation is the same old story, fight fans will know who the real champs are, though we might not see the best fight the best regularly, which hasn't really been the case anyway. This will just add to the mess.
The changes in the act I saw whilst looking into the story were fighter/promoter contract length terms and wording which are in the act to stop exploitation, unless they up the purse sizes it doesn't seem the best deal for fighters or the fans as I don't think the fighters with options will go for this, i think this will be short-lived even if it has gone through both houses of Congress.
The belts situation is the same old story, fight fans will know who the real champs are, though we might not see the best fight the best regularly, which hasn't really been the case anyway. This will just add to the mess.
The changes in the act I saw whilst looking into the story were fighter/promoter contract length terms and wording which are in the act to stop exploitation, unless they up the purse sizes it doesn't seem the best deal for fighters or the fans as I don't think the fighters with options will go for this, i think this will be short-lived even if it has gone through both houses of Congress.
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 100697
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
‘It would be a tragedy’: Bob Arum doesn’t want to see Ali Act amended
Bob Arum thinks Dana White wants to undermine fighter’s bargaining power in boxing.
On Dana White wanting to change the Ali Act
“I think that’s exactly what he’s trying to do (undermine the bargaining power of fighters) and the Ali Act has worked very, very well and what it’s done is raise boxing purses to an unprecedented high level…It’s fair. These fighters risk their lives and health every time they step in the ring and they should be compensated and unlike the UFC fighters who fight for pittance, if that happened to boxing it would be a tragedy.”
Bob Arum thinks Dana White wants to undermine fighter’s bargaining power in boxing.
On Dana White wanting to change the Ali Act
“I think that’s exactly what he’s trying to do (undermine the bargaining power of fighters) and the Ali Act has worked very, very well and what it’s done is raise boxing purses to an unprecedented high level…It’s fair. These fighters risk their lives and health every time they step in the ring and they should be compensated and unlike the UFC fighters who fight for pittance, if that happened to boxing it would be a tragedy.”
-
Riddick Bowie
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 931
- Joined: 19 Jul 2003, 07:25
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
If Bob Arum is against it, it must be good for boxing.
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
It'd probably be an improvement. It would start chipping away at the sanctioning bodies even more so than is already happening.
.
I don't even know who 70% of the "Champions" are in Boxing anymore.
.
I don't even know who 70% of the "Champions" are in Boxing anymore.
-
Nightmare Roy
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 16387
- Joined: 18 May 2003, 17:29
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
That could be done in a wholly different act. That's not the main intention of this act.
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 100697
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
California commission unanimously supports Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act
The California State Athletic Commission unanimously voted 6-0 on Wednesday during a public hearing to support the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act (H.R. 4624).
The TKO Group-backed bipartisan legislation was introduced by U.S. Representative and congressman Brian Jack (R-Georgia) and U.S. Representative and congresswoman Sharice Davids (D-Kansas) on July 23 “to provide professional boxers with more career opportunities, better pay, and greater safety protections.”
The new bill preserves the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act ("Ali Act") that was codified in 2000 and enhances the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 by adding supplemental provisions. The new legislation has been met with mixed feedback across the combat sports space, as some have been in favor of the bill due to the new opportunities it presents, while others have pushed back in fear of market control, one-way negotiations and subdued fighter pay.
The legislation was originally endorsed by the Association of Boxing Commissions and Lonnie Ali, the wife of the late boxing icon.
During Wednesday’s meeting, Zuffa Boxing’s Nick Khan, who is also the president of WWE and a TKO Group board member, promoters Tom Loeffler and Cory Rapacz, longtime official John McCarthy, former UFC fighter and current official Chris Leben and former UFC champion Forrest Griffin all endorsed the legislation.
Former UFC fighters as well as amateur boxers, managers, trainers and members of the media were some of the figures who spoke in opposition of the bill. There were no active professional boxers who called in during the meeting.
The CSAC first held a discussion around the matter on September 8, and after hearing heavy opposition in the public comment part of the call, the meeting was tabled until December 8 before being rescheduled to Wednesday.
“On behalf of Zuffa Boxing, we want to thank the California State Athletic Commission for their thoughtful consideration of all voices presented in today’s hearing and for their unanimous (6-0) support for the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act," Khan said in a prepared written statement that was distributed to the media following the meeting.
"This bill does not eliminate or change any of the existing provisions of the original Ali Act. What we are proposing is an alternative system in which fighters will have more choice and opportunities, better pay, greater health and safety protections, and more events in which to compete.
“Also, as the commission is fully aware, the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act is supported by Lonnie Ali, wife of the greatest, Muhammad Ali. We know Lonnie personally and can share with you what she said to us: ‘This is a great opportunity for boxers, and this is what Muhammad would have wanted.’”
H.R. 4624 is awaiting a hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Key highlights of the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, as it was originally presented at the time of the initial announcement of the bill:
- Allows for the creation of alternative systems called Unified Boxing Organizations that would provide professional boxers more opportunities, better pay and greater health and safety protections.
- The UBO system would not replace the current structure involving sanctioning organizations. UBOs would be a separate, parallel system that would produce more events and give professional boxers additional choice and opportunities to compete.
- Boxers would have the freedom to choose which of the two systems — the sanctioning organizations model or UBO model — is best for them.
- Establishes a national minimum payment per round for all professional boxers ($150 per round), which prevents up-and-coming fighters from being exploited. Uniform standards are needed, as six states have minimums less than $150 per round, while most states have no minimum at all.
- All professional boxers would have access to better health insurance, including a first-time national minimum of $25,000 of coverage for injuries sustained during a bout — higher than the current minimum in 43 states.
- UBO boxers would benefit from additional health and safety protections, including enhanced comprehensive medical exams; more licensed physicians and ambulance units present at each event; and health coverage for injuries sustained during training for a bout.
- UBOs would have comprehensive anti-doping testing programs that would ensure no boxer has an unfair advantage over his or her opponent.
- UBOs would also enact strict anti-betting policies to safeguard the integrity of competition.
- UBOs would not charge boxers any fees for placement in the rankings or the right to participate in championship matches.
The California State Athletic Commission unanimously voted 6-0 on Wednesday during a public hearing to support the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act (H.R. 4624).
The TKO Group-backed bipartisan legislation was introduced by U.S. Representative and congressman Brian Jack (R-Georgia) and U.S. Representative and congresswoman Sharice Davids (D-Kansas) on July 23 “to provide professional boxers with more career opportunities, better pay, and greater safety protections.”
The new bill preserves the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act ("Ali Act") that was codified in 2000 and enhances the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 by adding supplemental provisions. The new legislation has been met with mixed feedback across the combat sports space, as some have been in favor of the bill due to the new opportunities it presents, while others have pushed back in fear of market control, one-way negotiations and subdued fighter pay.
The legislation was originally endorsed by the Association of Boxing Commissions and Lonnie Ali, the wife of the late boxing icon.
During Wednesday’s meeting, Zuffa Boxing’s Nick Khan, who is also the president of WWE and a TKO Group board member, promoters Tom Loeffler and Cory Rapacz, longtime official John McCarthy, former UFC fighter and current official Chris Leben and former UFC champion Forrest Griffin all endorsed the legislation.
Former UFC fighters as well as amateur boxers, managers, trainers and members of the media were some of the figures who spoke in opposition of the bill. There were no active professional boxers who called in during the meeting.
The CSAC first held a discussion around the matter on September 8, and after hearing heavy opposition in the public comment part of the call, the meeting was tabled until December 8 before being rescheduled to Wednesday.
“On behalf of Zuffa Boxing, we want to thank the California State Athletic Commission for their thoughtful consideration of all voices presented in today’s hearing and for their unanimous (6-0) support for the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act," Khan said in a prepared written statement that was distributed to the media following the meeting.
"This bill does not eliminate or change any of the existing provisions of the original Ali Act. What we are proposing is an alternative system in which fighters will have more choice and opportunities, better pay, greater health and safety protections, and more events in which to compete.
“Also, as the commission is fully aware, the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act is supported by Lonnie Ali, wife of the greatest, Muhammad Ali. We know Lonnie personally and can share with you what she said to us: ‘This is a great opportunity for boxers, and this is what Muhammad would have wanted.’”
H.R. 4624 is awaiting a hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Key highlights of the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, as it was originally presented at the time of the initial announcement of the bill:
- Allows for the creation of alternative systems called Unified Boxing Organizations that would provide professional boxers more opportunities, better pay and greater health and safety protections.
- The UBO system would not replace the current structure involving sanctioning organizations. UBOs would be a separate, parallel system that would produce more events and give professional boxers additional choice and opportunities to compete.
- Boxers would have the freedom to choose which of the two systems — the sanctioning organizations model or UBO model — is best for them.
- Establishes a national minimum payment per round for all professional boxers ($150 per round), which prevents up-and-coming fighters from being exploited. Uniform standards are needed, as six states have minimums less than $150 per round, while most states have no minimum at all.
- All professional boxers would have access to better health insurance, including a first-time national minimum of $25,000 of coverage for injuries sustained during a bout — higher than the current minimum in 43 states.
- UBO boxers would benefit from additional health and safety protections, including enhanced comprehensive medical exams; more licensed physicians and ambulance units present at each event; and health coverage for injuries sustained during training for a bout.
- UBOs would have comprehensive anti-doping testing programs that would ensure no boxer has an unfair advantage over his or her opponent.
- UBOs would also enact strict anti-betting policies to safeguard the integrity of competition.
- UBOs would not charge boxers any fees for placement in the rankings or the right to participate in championship matches.
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 100697
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 100697
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
Dana White elaborates on Muhammad Ali Act changes, encourages fighters 'bet on me'
Zuffa Boxing’s Dana White will be going all-in on the sweet science beginning in 2026 with a dozen events and a roster of about 200 fighters.
White and company do not plan on working with other promoters or the major sanctioning bodies, and will eventually rank and award its own belts to its roster.
White is also one of the leading figures at the forefront of the TKO Group-backed Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act (H.R. 4624), a bipartisan legislation which has been met with mixed feedback across the combat sports space.
The bill preserves the Ali Act but aims to “to provide professional boxers with more career opportunities, better pay, and greater safety protections.” Many principals across boxing believe altering the existing federal regulations will lead to market control, one-way negotiations and suppressed fighter pay.
White elaborated on the plans he has in place in an interview on the "3 Knockdown Rule" hosted by Mario Lopez and Steve Kim.
“I'm definitely not trying to get rid of [the Muhammad Ali Act],” said White. “We're going to add on to it. I think the Ali Act was done with the right intentions. Just because it was put in place, it doesn't mean it works, and it doesn't mean it fixes anything. It actually complicated a lot of things. And here is the reality: If you look at where boxing was and where it's gotten to now, it got to a place where it took Saudi Arabia money to make any fights that you might want to see. It's not sustainable. You can't do that long term ... Turki Alalshikh is very passionate about the sport and he's done incredible things in a short amount of time, but if you don't turn it into a real business, it is not sustainable.
“Not one word is going to be changed [in the Ali Act] — not one thing. There is just going to be an add-on to the Muhammad Ali Act. If you are a fighter, you can stay exactly under the way it is now, or come bet on me and fight in our organizations. There are going to be plenty of options.”
The California State Athletic Commission unanimously voted 6-0 last week during a public hearing to support the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act.
Separately, Zuffa Boxing recently landed a media rights deal to stage its shows on Paramount+ adjacent with UFC programming.
“I have a lot of work to do over the next five years, but I am looking forward to it,” said White. “[My vision for Zuffa Boxing] is pretty simple — you start from the bottom and start to build the sport back up from the ground up, and turn it into a business like we did with the UFC.
"What I mean when I say that is restoring faith in boxing fans that when you tune in, you're going to get a good product from the first fight of the night to the last fight of the night, and the best will fight the best. The live event on television will be amazing, and the live event in house will be a great experience.
“The best are going to fight the best and losses probably won't matter as long as people fight their asses. People care about seeing great fights. I’m going to travel this thing to places in cities [other major promoters] normally wouldn't.
“When you look at the way the UFC was built, I took all of the things I loved from boxing, and all the things I hated about boxing, and built the UFC. I will do the same exact thing with Zuffa Boxing.”
Zuffa Boxing’s Dana White will be going all-in on the sweet science beginning in 2026 with a dozen events and a roster of about 200 fighters.
White and company do not plan on working with other promoters or the major sanctioning bodies, and will eventually rank and award its own belts to its roster.
White is also one of the leading figures at the forefront of the TKO Group-backed Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act (H.R. 4624), a bipartisan legislation which has been met with mixed feedback across the combat sports space.
The bill preserves the Ali Act but aims to “to provide professional boxers with more career opportunities, better pay, and greater safety protections.” Many principals across boxing believe altering the existing federal regulations will lead to market control, one-way negotiations and suppressed fighter pay.
White elaborated on the plans he has in place in an interview on the "3 Knockdown Rule" hosted by Mario Lopez and Steve Kim.
“I'm definitely not trying to get rid of [the Muhammad Ali Act],” said White. “We're going to add on to it. I think the Ali Act was done with the right intentions. Just because it was put in place, it doesn't mean it works, and it doesn't mean it fixes anything. It actually complicated a lot of things. And here is the reality: If you look at where boxing was and where it's gotten to now, it got to a place where it took Saudi Arabia money to make any fights that you might want to see. It's not sustainable. You can't do that long term ... Turki Alalshikh is very passionate about the sport and he's done incredible things in a short amount of time, but if you don't turn it into a real business, it is not sustainable.
“Not one word is going to be changed [in the Ali Act] — not one thing. There is just going to be an add-on to the Muhammad Ali Act. If you are a fighter, you can stay exactly under the way it is now, or come bet on me and fight in our organizations. There are going to be plenty of options.”
The California State Athletic Commission unanimously voted 6-0 last week during a public hearing to support the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act.
Separately, Zuffa Boxing recently landed a media rights deal to stage its shows on Paramount+ adjacent with UFC programming.
“I have a lot of work to do over the next five years, but I am looking forward to it,” said White. “[My vision for Zuffa Boxing] is pretty simple — you start from the bottom and start to build the sport back up from the ground up, and turn it into a business like we did with the UFC.
"What I mean when I say that is restoring faith in boxing fans that when you tune in, you're going to get a good product from the first fight of the night to the last fight of the night, and the best will fight the best. The live event on television will be amazing, and the live event in house will be a great experience.
“The best are going to fight the best and losses probably won't matter as long as people fight their asses. People care about seeing great fights. I’m going to travel this thing to places in cities [other major promoters] normally wouldn't.
“When you look at the way the UFC was built, I took all of the things I loved from boxing, and all the things I hated about boxing, and built the UFC. I will do the same exact thing with Zuffa Boxing.”
-
LucaDiCaro
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 172
- Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 11:57
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
Recently published Statement from the Association of Professional Boxing Commissions
Association of Professional Boxing Commissions (APBC) Objections to Proposed H.R. 4624 Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act
During recent discussions between APBC member commissions, with regard to the press reports that the California State Athletic Commission support and approve the proposed Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, there was a clear consensus by the members of the Association of Professional Boxing Commissions (APBC) to unanimously disagree with the California Commission and vehemently object to the proposed H.R. 4624 Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, a bill that was proposed by Representatives Mr Brian Jacks (R - Georgia) and Ms Sharice Davids (D - Kansas), stated as for the purpose of amending the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 to establish requirements for unified boxing organizations, to further enhance the well-being of professional boxers, and for other purposes.
APBC President Mr Albert Low, the former Chairman of the Michigan State Boxing Commission, said “It is clear that the members, as well as the board, of the APBC are unified in their objection to this abomination of an act, that literally will reverse all the good the original Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act has done for the protection of the boxers from unscrupulous managers and promoters.
“The original Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the later Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 were specifically written to prevent organisations like the T.K.O. Group from having absolute control to ensure boxers are protected from the very conflicts of interests the latest T.K.O. amendment risks bringing back.
“The Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act made it illegal for a promoter to act as a manager and required full financial transparency from promoters and sanctioning bodies. It was designed to keep the business side of boxing honest, or at least transparent, and to give fighters the information and freedom to make the best decisions for their careers.
“This so-called Revival Act, however, is a disgrace as it will open the door for self serving “Unified Boxing Organisations” (UBOs) to operate outside the current sanctioning framework, effectively allowing one corporation, in this case T.K.O. Group, to both regulate and promote under its own banner.
“In other words this will allow T.K.O. to act within professional boxing in the same way it already does in mixed martial arts, that is control the talent, the titles, the schedules and the pay.
“We need to learn from past mistakes, we must prevent this disgrace of an act becoming law, otherwise the boxers will potentially suffer exploitation, one-sided contracts and lack of pay transparency in the future, which are the inherent dangers of allowing one company to dominate the marketplace.”
Association of Professional Boxing Commissions (APBC) Objections to Proposed H.R. 4624 Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act
During recent discussions between APBC member commissions, with regard to the press reports that the California State Athletic Commission support and approve the proposed Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, there was a clear consensus by the members of the Association of Professional Boxing Commissions (APBC) to unanimously disagree with the California Commission and vehemently object to the proposed H.R. 4624 Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, a bill that was proposed by Representatives Mr Brian Jacks (R - Georgia) and Ms Sharice Davids (D - Kansas), stated as for the purpose of amending the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 to establish requirements for unified boxing organizations, to further enhance the well-being of professional boxers, and for other purposes.
APBC President Mr Albert Low, the former Chairman of the Michigan State Boxing Commission, said “It is clear that the members, as well as the board, of the APBC are unified in their objection to this abomination of an act, that literally will reverse all the good the original Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act has done for the protection of the boxers from unscrupulous managers and promoters.
“The original Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the later Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 were specifically written to prevent organisations like the T.K.O. Group from having absolute control to ensure boxers are protected from the very conflicts of interests the latest T.K.O. amendment risks bringing back.
“The Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act made it illegal for a promoter to act as a manager and required full financial transparency from promoters and sanctioning bodies. It was designed to keep the business side of boxing honest, or at least transparent, and to give fighters the information and freedom to make the best decisions for their careers.
“This so-called Revival Act, however, is a disgrace as it will open the door for self serving “Unified Boxing Organisations” (UBOs) to operate outside the current sanctioning framework, effectively allowing one corporation, in this case T.K.O. Group, to both regulate and promote under its own banner.
“In other words this will allow T.K.O. to act within professional boxing in the same way it already does in mixed martial arts, that is control the talent, the titles, the schedules and the pay.
“We need to learn from past mistakes, we must prevent this disgrace of an act becoming law, otherwise the boxers will potentially suffer exploitation, one-sided contracts and lack of pay transparency in the future, which are the inherent dangers of allowing one company to dominate the marketplace.”
Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑22 Oct 2025, 03:54 Dana White elaborates on Muhammad Ali Act changes, encourages fighters 'bet on me'
Zuffa Boxing’s Dana White will be going all-in on the sweet science beginning in 2026 with a dozen events and a roster of about 200 fighters.
White and company do not plan on working with other promoters or the major sanctioning bodies, and will eventually rank and award its own belts to its roster.
White is also one of the leading figures at the forefront of the TKO Group-backed Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act (H.R. 4624), a bipartisan legislation which has been met with mixed feedback across the combat sports space.
The bill preserves the Ali Act but aims to “to provide professional boxers with more career opportunities, better pay, and greater safety protections.” Many principals across boxing believe altering the existing federal regulations will lead to market control, one-way negotiations and suppressed fighter pay.
White elaborated on the plans he has in place in an interview on the "3 Knockdown Rule" hosted by Mario Lopez and Steve Kim.
“I'm definitely not trying to get rid of [the Muhammad Ali Act],” said White. “We're going to add on to it. I think the Ali Act was done with the right intentions. Just because it was put in place, it doesn't mean it works, and it doesn't mean it fixes anything. It actually complicated a lot of things. And here is the reality: If you look at where boxing was and where it's gotten to now, it got to a place where it took Saudi Arabia money to make any fights that you might want to see. It's not sustainable. You can't do that long term ... Turki Alalshikh is very passionate about the sport and he's done incredible things in a short amount of time, but if you don't turn it into a real business, it is not sustainable.
“Not one word is going to be changed [in the Ali Act] — not one thing. There is just going to be an add-on to the Muhammad Ali Act. If you are a fighter, you can stay exactly under the way it is now, or come bet on me and fight in our organizations. There are going to be plenty of options.”
The California State Athletic Commission unanimously voted 6-0 last week during a public hearing to support the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act.
Separately, Zuffa Boxing recently landed a media rights deal to stage its shows on Paramount+ adjacent with UFC programming.
“I have a lot of work to do over the next five years, but I am looking forward to it,” said White. “[My vision for Zuffa Boxing] is pretty simple — you start from the bottom and start to build the sport back up from the ground up, and turn it into a business like we did with the UFC.
"What I mean when I say that is restoring faith in boxing fans that when you tune in, you're going to get a good product from the first fight of the night to the last fight of the night, and the best will fight the best. The live event on television will be amazing, and the live event in house will be a great experience.
“The best are going to fight the best and losses probably won't matter as long as people fight their asses. People care about seeing great fights. I’m going to travel this thing to places in cities [other major promoters] normally wouldn't.
“When you look at the way the UFC was built, I took all of the things I loved from boxing, and all the things I hated about boxing, and built the UFC. I will do the same exact thing with Zuffa Boxing.”
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 100697
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
Nico Ali Walsh refuses to hold his tongue on Ali Revival Act
Nico Ali Walsh believes more fighters are not speaking out about the Ali Revival Act for fear of being frozen out if and when the changes take effect.
Walsh is in Dubai where he fights on Friday at the IBA Champions Fight Night at the Duty Free Tennis Stadium
Walsh, a middleweight, has a record of 11-2-1 (5 KOs), and is 1-1-1 in his last three fights.
He meets Dubai-based Ugandan Jeremiah Sserwadda but has recently been outspoken about the proposed TKO changes to the Professional Boxing Act of 1996 that its defenders claim will improve health and safety for fighters, as well as minimum pay for lower-level fighters.
But those who believe the Act should remain as it is are concerned about a lack of transparency for fighters and the lack of firewalls at the business-end of the sport.
“There’s two sides to this,” said Ali Walsh, grandson of Muhammad Ali. “One, the fighters that are speaking out on it don't have the platform that I have. Obviously, I’m an Ali, so anything that I say about the Ali Act will reach front news. Just because my grandfather put that act in place and that’s close to me; that’s close to my heart. That’s my family. So that’s one. And then, two, a lot of fighters don’t want to speak on it because these guys that are changing the Act could eventually be giving them an opportunity. As a fighter, you have to be in the position to say something. When you stand for something as a fighter, you’re cutting out a lot of potential money or a lot of potential opportunities that you could be making in the future. But something that my grandfather has always done is he stood on what he believed no matter what repercussions there were. That’s what I want to do. That’s what I’m doing. So anything that I believe in, I will say something. And I don’t care if it makes me lose opportunities or money in the future. I don’t care. I truly don’t believe in the changes to the Ali Act. I think it’s horrible for the sport. It’s horrible for the fighters. And I will always speak my opinion on that.”
Are there any grey areas where the existing Act could be added to with the new ideas to improve it altogether?
“I don't see a problem with the Ali Act now,” said the middleweight. “I want to talk to the people who are trying to make these changes. I’m sure there's fine print somewhere where not every single change could possibly be bad. But why change it at all? What’s the problem with the Ali Act now? I don’t think there's any reason to change it. So, I mean, it’s very unnecessary.”
The bill has received public support from Mike Tyson, a friend of Ali’s, and Ali’s widow, Lonnie. But Ali Walsh said that has not caused dissention in the family.
“No, I don't believe anyone outside of boxing would fully understand the magnitude that changes to the Ali Act would do to the sport, to the fighters,” he said.
Walsh has boxed for four years under the current system, and he has no regrets about the path he has chosen.
He turned pro with the impossible task of living up to a name that is bigger than the sport.
“I’ve loved my pro career so far,” said the 25-year-old. “I’m getting experience on the job for the lack of amateur experience. But I’ve had such an exciting career so far. I’ve gone through ups, downs, in-betweens. I’ve had injuries. So, I have a very exciting career and I’m looking forward to this next fight.”
He has not, however, been oblivious to the online criticism he’s received.
“I mean, I get a lot of hate, but most of the hate is from people that just don’t like hearing about me constantly,” he said.
“All the UK people, all the people that are here in Dubai, all the people that were in the Philippines [where he boxed to a draw in October with Kittisak Klinson], none of them were hating on me. I get all that hate from my own country, which is crazy. But, nah, it’s weird. I really don’t understand the hate. I'm not forcing myself onto anybody. So, I don’t think it’s warranted.”
Ali Walsh knows, too, that he could have taken a softer path than the one he has followed.
“And I remember mentioning that to someone the other day,” he continued.
"Like, I could have been 50-0. I could have had 50 fights in Tijuana fighting a dude who was 1-30, 12-11. Like, this is what a lot of people do. But I just don’t value that. I haven’t fought an opponent with a losing record. Everyone I fight comes to fight, so I’m very proud with my opposition. And it’s only getting better.”
Nico Ali Walsh believes more fighters are not speaking out about the Ali Revival Act for fear of being frozen out if and when the changes take effect.
Walsh is in Dubai where he fights on Friday at the IBA Champions Fight Night at the Duty Free Tennis Stadium
Walsh, a middleweight, has a record of 11-2-1 (5 KOs), and is 1-1-1 in his last three fights.
He meets Dubai-based Ugandan Jeremiah Sserwadda but has recently been outspoken about the proposed TKO changes to the Professional Boxing Act of 1996 that its defenders claim will improve health and safety for fighters, as well as minimum pay for lower-level fighters.
But those who believe the Act should remain as it is are concerned about a lack of transparency for fighters and the lack of firewalls at the business-end of the sport.
“There’s two sides to this,” said Ali Walsh, grandson of Muhammad Ali. “One, the fighters that are speaking out on it don't have the platform that I have. Obviously, I’m an Ali, so anything that I say about the Ali Act will reach front news. Just because my grandfather put that act in place and that’s close to me; that’s close to my heart. That’s my family. So that’s one. And then, two, a lot of fighters don’t want to speak on it because these guys that are changing the Act could eventually be giving them an opportunity. As a fighter, you have to be in the position to say something. When you stand for something as a fighter, you’re cutting out a lot of potential money or a lot of potential opportunities that you could be making in the future. But something that my grandfather has always done is he stood on what he believed no matter what repercussions there were. That’s what I want to do. That’s what I’m doing. So anything that I believe in, I will say something. And I don’t care if it makes me lose opportunities or money in the future. I don’t care. I truly don’t believe in the changes to the Ali Act. I think it’s horrible for the sport. It’s horrible for the fighters. And I will always speak my opinion on that.”
Are there any grey areas where the existing Act could be added to with the new ideas to improve it altogether?
“I don't see a problem with the Ali Act now,” said the middleweight. “I want to talk to the people who are trying to make these changes. I’m sure there's fine print somewhere where not every single change could possibly be bad. But why change it at all? What’s the problem with the Ali Act now? I don’t think there's any reason to change it. So, I mean, it’s very unnecessary.”
The bill has received public support from Mike Tyson, a friend of Ali’s, and Ali’s widow, Lonnie. But Ali Walsh said that has not caused dissention in the family.
“No, I don't believe anyone outside of boxing would fully understand the magnitude that changes to the Ali Act would do to the sport, to the fighters,” he said.
Walsh has boxed for four years under the current system, and he has no regrets about the path he has chosen.
He turned pro with the impossible task of living up to a name that is bigger than the sport.
“I’ve loved my pro career so far,” said the 25-year-old. “I’m getting experience on the job for the lack of amateur experience. But I’ve had such an exciting career so far. I’ve gone through ups, downs, in-betweens. I’ve had injuries. So, I have a very exciting career and I’m looking forward to this next fight.”
He has not, however, been oblivious to the online criticism he’s received.
“I mean, I get a lot of hate, but most of the hate is from people that just don’t like hearing about me constantly,” he said.
“All the UK people, all the people that are here in Dubai, all the people that were in the Philippines [where he boxed to a draw in October with Kittisak Klinson], none of them were hating on me. I get all that hate from my own country, which is crazy. But, nah, it’s weird. I really don’t understand the hate. I'm not forcing myself onto anybody. So, I don’t think it’s warranted.”
Ali Walsh knows, too, that he could have taken a softer path than the one he has followed.
“And I remember mentioning that to someone the other day,” he continued.
"Like, I could have been 50-0. I could have had 50 fights in Tijuana fighting a dude who was 1-30, 12-11. Like, this is what a lot of people do. But I just don’t value that. I haven’t fought an opponent with a losing record. Everyone I fight comes to fight, so I’m very proud with my opposition. And it’s only getting better.”
-
johnmanchester
- Light Flyweight
- Posts: 245
- Joined: 12 May 2025, 04:36
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
Here's why the ufc model won't work in boxing:
With the ufc there is no other game in town. They are the original brand, people even call the sport "ufc" (incorrectly)
And even then, they've had issues where their big name fighters have occasionally held out or jumped ship. Eg most recently Ngannou, back in the day Couture etc
Boxing is nothing like that. There is no monopoly to be had. The major belts are not being written off. There are other promoters who represent a viable alternative.
They're going to find out the hard way.
Fury vs Joshua is also going to put paid to a lot of this. Once that fight and its inevitable rematch happen, Turki will lose a lot of interest in this boxing project, all the big "impossible" fights will have been made.
With the ufc there is no other game in town. They are the original brand, people even call the sport "ufc" (incorrectly)
And even then, they've had issues where their big name fighters have occasionally held out or jumped ship. Eg most recently Ngannou, back in the day Couture etc
Boxing is nothing like that. There is no monopoly to be had. The major belts are not being written off. There are other promoters who represent a viable alternative.
They're going to find out the hard way.
Fury vs Joshua is also going to put paid to a lot of this. Once that fight and its inevitable rematch happen, Turki will lose a lot of interest in this boxing project, all the big "impossible" fights will have been made.
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
The UFC just got successfully and rightfully sued for $375m by over 1,000 of their former athletes for their business practices which would be legitimised by this act. Why does anyone think this is good for boxing?
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 100697
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45213
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
Yeah, for the owners.morria wrote: ↑26 Jul 2025, 11:00 I like Dana White and think he comes across well in interviews, and the UFC is a good business model.
I do find it quite troubling that the only way this new organisation can or is willing to proceed is by changing the Muhammad Ali act that was set up to prevent fighters being exploited, it'll mean another set of champs and interim champs to follow if they create their own belts similar to the UFC belt setup but think boxing fans are used to this by now, it'll be interesting to see how this situation develops post congressional votes from this side of the pond.
The fighters get piss all.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45213
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
I think you're on the money here.johnmanchester wrote: ↑11 Dec 2025, 10:55 Here's why the ufc model won't work in boxing:
With the ufc there is no other game in town. They are the original brand, people even call the sport "ufc" (incorrectly)
And even then, they've had issues where their big name fighters have occasionally held out or jumped ship. Eg most recently Ngannou, back in the day Couture etc
Boxing is nothing like that. There is no monopoly to be had. The major belts are not being written off. There are other promoters who represent a viable alternative.
They're going to find out the hard way.
Fury vs Joshua is also going to put paid to a lot of this. Once that fight and its inevitable rematch happen, Turki will lose a lot of interest in this boxing project, all the big "impossible" fights will have been made.
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 100697
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 100697
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 100697
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
Eddie Hearn on Ali Revival Act: The decision’s already made
Promoter Eddie Hearn has been speaking about this week’s senate hearing about the Ali Act overhaul in Washington this week.
The hugely powerful men behind Zuffa Boxing are pushing congress to make additions to the Ali Act with The Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act.
While some of the improvements concern important topics including minimum pay and medical insurance, Hearn believes the proposed changes are more concerned with “control” and that, regardless of any hearings and arguments, the most important decisions have already been made.
“Look, it’s designed to protect the fighters and I think TKO/Zuffa Boxing are coming in because they want control and they want to basically organize and control the revenue for the fights and not really give it fairly to the fighters,” Hearn told FightHub at the Jarrell Miler-Lenier Pero show in Florida. “That’s what I think. Under the Muhammad Ali Act, you have to actually show the fighters what the revenue is with every show. And if they did that, the fighters would be very disappointed, as they are in the UFC. Nico Ali Walsh [who spoke at the senate] made a great point, you have to understand these guys are saying, ‘Look, we’re doing it in UFC, this is the model we would use.’ Every fighter in the UFC is disappointed and unhappy with their pay. In fact, they’re getting paid awfully and it’s not fair what the UFC are doing to their fighters. So on what basis is that model going to work in boxing? The fighters at the moment are respected through that act and I don’t think they will be.”
Hearn has recently started working with UFC heavyweight champion Tom Aspinall on a managerial basis, and he watched the senate hearing with interest.
“There were a lot of comments and arguments that I thought were incredibly flawed that weren’t really argued, but to me the decision’s already made,” Hearn added. “Ultimately, you’ve got Dana White [who was] in the White House tonight having a cuppa tea with Donald Trump. It’s a gimme. It’s a favor, so you’re never going to win. But that’s what you’re up against. They’re control freaks. And when you take the control away from them, they can’t operate in that world. But boxing’s very different. It’s not how they think it’s going to be because they operate in a world that they can control and manipulate everything they want and you just can’t do that in boxing.”
Hearn was later asked about the same subject by a group of reporters and he continued: “It’s obviously a done deal before they’ve even gone in. It’s all favors for the boys, that’s just how politics work. I thought there was a lot of flawed arguments, particularly from Nick Khan, and I thought there were some valid points from him and I thought Nico Ali Walsh spoke really well. I thought Oscar [De La Hoya] spoke well. I thought there was a lot of opportunities missed. Ultimately, you’re trying to create a UFC environment and I think the best thing that Nico Ali Walsh said was every UFC fighter is unhappy with their pay, but yet you’re trying to create that same system and that same environment.”
Speaking about what might happen next, Hearn predicted: “I think there’s going to be a big split now in boxing. And I think if you go with Zuffa, you’re out of the governing bodies. I think that’s really how it has to be… All those fighters want to win those belts. No fighter is interested in winning the Zuffa belt. I’m sure in time, maybe in five years, maybe that belt might mean something. I don’t think so. The reality is I think now is the time where we’ve got to say, ‘If you sign with Zuffa, you can’t win a world championship.’ I mean, you’ve seen Jai Opetaia lose his world title, the thing that he was most proud of, the thing that he wanted to unify and become undisputed, and now you’re seeing Richardson Hitchins sign and now he’s given up his title as well. So that’s fine. If you sign with Zuffa, you can’t have that legacy. You can’t have it both ways. And I think that’s how it should be. Because I think Zuffa should have the balls to say ‘Yeah.’ We know what they’re trying to do. Just come out and say it. ‘We’re not going to work with you guys.’ They’ve already said that, then they moaned and cried when the IBF didn’t sanction the fight with Jai Opetaia [against Brandon Glanton]. So, let’s just get it right, you’ve got to fight for two ways. You’ve got to fight for legacy, or you fight for this new system. For me, the legacy will always be the answer.”
Hearn understands that the current construct is not perfect, however.
“Everything has problems. Everything can be improved,” he said.
But he said that how things stand now were more than fair for US fighters with the current system, firewalls and protections in place, particularly since he knows well how the system works in the US.
“The reality is, that Act is designed to protect the fighter and they’re trying to unprotect the fighter by having complete control to do whatever they want,” Hearn went on. “As a Brit coming into this country and seeing that Act at work, I couldn’t believe it when I first came, because you have to tell the fighters how much revenue is in the night. And they [Zuffa] don’t want you to know how much revenue’s in the night. That should tell you everything you need to know, and no one really mentioned that by the way. But that is the key reason…. “They [the fighters] don’t know what Paramount are paying per show. You have a situation where that deal could be so big they could be getting $10m a night from Paramount and the guys fighting in the Apex, the total purses for the entire night, are a million dollars, and they’re getting $10m revenue just from the broadcaster. These are the things they’re trying to stop you from knowing. When I first came here it was, ‘Oh my God. There’s actually a piece of paper,’ ‘TV are paying this, gate [is] this, other revenue,’ and it’s like… That’s unbelievably fair. You can’t get any fairer than that. But they don’t want you to know that. They just want to control you.”
Promoter Eddie Hearn has been speaking about this week’s senate hearing about the Ali Act overhaul in Washington this week.
The hugely powerful men behind Zuffa Boxing are pushing congress to make additions to the Ali Act with The Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act.
While some of the improvements concern important topics including minimum pay and medical insurance, Hearn believes the proposed changes are more concerned with “control” and that, regardless of any hearings and arguments, the most important decisions have already been made.
“Look, it’s designed to protect the fighters and I think TKO/Zuffa Boxing are coming in because they want control and they want to basically organize and control the revenue for the fights and not really give it fairly to the fighters,” Hearn told FightHub at the Jarrell Miler-Lenier Pero show in Florida. “That’s what I think. Under the Muhammad Ali Act, you have to actually show the fighters what the revenue is with every show. And if they did that, the fighters would be very disappointed, as they are in the UFC. Nico Ali Walsh [who spoke at the senate] made a great point, you have to understand these guys are saying, ‘Look, we’re doing it in UFC, this is the model we would use.’ Every fighter in the UFC is disappointed and unhappy with their pay. In fact, they’re getting paid awfully and it’s not fair what the UFC are doing to their fighters. So on what basis is that model going to work in boxing? The fighters at the moment are respected through that act and I don’t think they will be.”
Hearn has recently started working with UFC heavyweight champion Tom Aspinall on a managerial basis, and he watched the senate hearing with interest.
“There were a lot of comments and arguments that I thought were incredibly flawed that weren’t really argued, but to me the decision’s already made,” Hearn added. “Ultimately, you’ve got Dana White [who was] in the White House tonight having a cuppa tea with Donald Trump. It’s a gimme. It’s a favor, so you’re never going to win. But that’s what you’re up against. They’re control freaks. And when you take the control away from them, they can’t operate in that world. But boxing’s very different. It’s not how they think it’s going to be because they operate in a world that they can control and manipulate everything they want and you just can’t do that in boxing.”
Hearn was later asked about the same subject by a group of reporters and he continued: “It’s obviously a done deal before they’ve even gone in. It’s all favors for the boys, that’s just how politics work. I thought there was a lot of flawed arguments, particularly from Nick Khan, and I thought there were some valid points from him and I thought Nico Ali Walsh spoke really well. I thought Oscar [De La Hoya] spoke well. I thought there was a lot of opportunities missed. Ultimately, you’re trying to create a UFC environment and I think the best thing that Nico Ali Walsh said was every UFC fighter is unhappy with their pay, but yet you’re trying to create that same system and that same environment.”
Speaking about what might happen next, Hearn predicted: “I think there’s going to be a big split now in boxing. And I think if you go with Zuffa, you’re out of the governing bodies. I think that’s really how it has to be… All those fighters want to win those belts. No fighter is interested in winning the Zuffa belt. I’m sure in time, maybe in five years, maybe that belt might mean something. I don’t think so. The reality is I think now is the time where we’ve got to say, ‘If you sign with Zuffa, you can’t win a world championship.’ I mean, you’ve seen Jai Opetaia lose his world title, the thing that he was most proud of, the thing that he wanted to unify and become undisputed, and now you’re seeing Richardson Hitchins sign and now he’s given up his title as well. So that’s fine. If you sign with Zuffa, you can’t have that legacy. You can’t have it both ways. And I think that’s how it should be. Because I think Zuffa should have the balls to say ‘Yeah.’ We know what they’re trying to do. Just come out and say it. ‘We’re not going to work with you guys.’ They’ve already said that, then they moaned and cried when the IBF didn’t sanction the fight with Jai Opetaia [against Brandon Glanton]. So, let’s just get it right, you’ve got to fight for two ways. You’ve got to fight for legacy, or you fight for this new system. For me, the legacy will always be the answer.”
Hearn understands that the current construct is not perfect, however.
“Everything has problems. Everything can be improved,” he said.
But he said that how things stand now were more than fair for US fighters with the current system, firewalls and protections in place, particularly since he knows well how the system works in the US.
“The reality is, that Act is designed to protect the fighter and they’re trying to unprotect the fighter by having complete control to do whatever they want,” Hearn went on. “As a Brit coming into this country and seeing that Act at work, I couldn’t believe it when I first came, because you have to tell the fighters how much revenue is in the night. And they [Zuffa] don’t want you to know how much revenue’s in the night. That should tell you everything you need to know, and no one really mentioned that by the way. But that is the key reason…. “They [the fighters] don’t know what Paramount are paying per show. You have a situation where that deal could be so big they could be getting $10m a night from Paramount and the guys fighting in the Apex, the total purses for the entire night, are a million dollars, and they’re getting $10m revenue just from the broadcaster. These are the things they’re trying to stop you from knowing. When I first came here it was, ‘Oh my God. There’s actually a piece of paper,’ ‘TV are paying this, gate [is] this, other revenue,’ and it’s like… That’s unbelievably fair. You can’t get any fairer than that. But they don’t want you to know that. They just want to control you.”
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
How different are the equivalent rules in other jurisdictions like the UK, EU, Japan, Australia, Mexico etc? Will it make boxers want to box elsewhere?