Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
So what exactly do they intend to try to do with this?
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
As long as they get all the biggest names under the same umbrella that'd be fine. Right now though they have a hell of an uphill climb to do that. They still have yet to sign 1 name that would be considered must see.
-
black panther
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4097
- Joined: 11 Dec 2003, 07:06
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
Jesus wept.
What scum must there be in the senate to get this bill passed.
What scum must there be in the senate to get this bill passed.
-
JamesPhilips
- Super Bantamweight
- Posts: 6523
- Joined: 19 Mar 2021, 06:43
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
America is a monumentally corrupt country, molded for people with money.black panther wrote: ↑01 May 2026, 09:25 Jesus wept.
What scum must there be in the senate to get this bill passed.
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 102823
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 102823
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
Time To Show Us The New “Ali Act” Bill!
Show us the bill.
That is the only thing that matters right now, and it is the one thing nobody involved in this week’s media tour has produced. Nico Ali Walsh went on The Ariel Helwani Show on Tuesday and told us the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act is dead in its current form, that it will “pass as something else,” and that the changes he pushed in his meeting with TKO are on the way. Financial transparency. Free agency. Length of contracts. Rankings transparency.
Great. Where is the text?
Here is what BoxingInsider.com can report: the text, or pieces of it, exists. Communications circulated among sanctioning body stakeholders and reviewed by BoxingInsider.com describe contract term structures under discussion for the Senate version, including a three year cap on initial contract terms and a six year maximum with extensions. That is real statutory language being shaped, right now, in private.
So the situation is worse than “no bill.” The bill is being written. Stakeholders are seeing pieces of it. Terms are being negotiated. And none of it has been filed, published, or put in front of the fighters whose careers it will govern. Legislation is not amended in a conference room at a fight weekend or in an email thread among insiders. It is amended in committee, in markup, in writing, in public. We have seen none of that.
And here is the harder question. The question is not Nico’s character or his sincerity. It is whether any single fighter, even one with that name, can serve as the de facto endpoint for statutory language that will bind every professional boxer in the country.
He is not a senator. He is not a commissioner. He does not represent a fighters’ union, because boxing does not have one. He founded the Ali Act Preservation Alliance in April and he testified well at the Senate Commerce Committee hearing. Credit where due. But an alliance he assembled himself does not make him the elected bargaining agent for every professional boxer in America. If a final deal arrives blessed by Muhammad Ali’s grandson, that is a powerful endorsement. It is not a mandate.
Lou DiBella made the case for Nico last night, and his view deserves the room. “If you know Nico at all, and you know his parents, and you knew his grandfather, you know that there isn’t any bullshit with this kid. He’s an Ali … he isn’t for sale,” Lou wrote. “And there is nothing wrong with him taking an opportunity to meet with decision-makers around boxing, Senators, Senate staffers, Nick Khan or otherwise.”
On the character question, Lou is right, and nothing in this column argues otherwise. Nobody here is saying Nico Ali Walsh was bought. The concern is not his integrity. It is his leverage, and everyone else’s. A man negotiating alone, with no published text, no union behind him, and no enforcement mechanism, can be completely sincere and still walk away with promises that never make it into statute. That is not a judgment of Nico. It is a description of how Washington works. And it is exactly why the private circulation of draft terms matters: the people at the table are seeing language the fighters are not.
Now look at what Nico actually said. By his own account, the Revival Act was not going to pass the Senate. “These senators have been agreeing with us. They know that the revival act is not going to pass as it stands.” Those are his words.
So the bill was stalled. And at that moment, the man who told Congress the legislation should not carry his grandfather’s name flew to New York at TKO’s invitation, sat for a private meeting with the company pushing the bill, and then appeared on Zuffa’s own broadcast at Madison Square Garden.
That is the moment a stalled bill acquires a new narrative. Whatever concessions may or may not have been extracted, the public effect of the meeting and the subsequent broadcast appearance is the appearance of movement and buy-in. That appearance now exists in the record.
From TKO’s side, it is a classic media-management move: bring the most visible critic inside, put him on your platform, and let the footage speak.
But the footage cuts both ways. Every clip of Ali Walsh declaring victory is a clip confirming the Revival Act, as written and as passed by the House, could not survive the Senate. The company’s most prominent invited guest is on the record saying its bill is finished in its current form. You cannot spend a year telling Washington the legislation is fine and then have your featured broadcast guest announce it is being rewritten because it was going to fail.
And notice what is missing from the list of four. None of them addresses enforcement. Transparency a fighter cannot enforce is a press release. Free agency a fighter cannot afford to defend is free agency in name only. This is not a new concern, and it is not this column’s invention. When the House passed the bill, Representatives Bobby Scott and Ilhan Omar, who both voted for it, publicly called on the Senate to strengthen protections against coercive contracts and forced arbitration. Their words, on the record. Any revised text that does not spell out how a fighter actually enforces these rights has not addressed the fighters’ real position at all.
And understand what the calendar does to all of this. The 119th Congress ends January 3. The Senate leaves for August recess in a few weeks, September belongs to government funding, and October belongs to the campaign trail. There is no realistic path for a rewritten bill to be introduced, marked up, passed, and reconciled with the House as a standalone before the clock runs out. Which leaves the route Washington always leaves for legislation like this: attach it to something that must pass. A defense authorization. A year-end spending package. If the rewritten Revival Act becomes law this year, that is almost certainly how, folded into a December bill, voted on as part of a package no member can realistically oppose, with the final language shaped by whoever was in the room when it was written. The same rooms the fighters are not in now.
Maybe the changes get in. Maybe the contract caps circulating in private hold up, and maybe financial disclosure, free agency, rankings transparency, and real enforcement language all appear in binding statutory text. If they do, I will write that column too, happily.
But nobody should be declaring wins, for the fighters or for TKO, off a private meeting, a highlight reel, and an email chain. Publish the revised text. File it. Let the lawyers who drafted the original Ali Act read it. Let the fighters read it.
Show us the bill.
Show us the bill.
That is the only thing that matters right now, and it is the one thing nobody involved in this week’s media tour has produced. Nico Ali Walsh went on The Ariel Helwani Show on Tuesday and told us the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act is dead in its current form, that it will “pass as something else,” and that the changes he pushed in his meeting with TKO are on the way. Financial transparency. Free agency. Length of contracts. Rankings transparency.
Great. Where is the text?
Here is what BoxingInsider.com can report: the text, or pieces of it, exists. Communications circulated among sanctioning body stakeholders and reviewed by BoxingInsider.com describe contract term structures under discussion for the Senate version, including a three year cap on initial contract terms and a six year maximum with extensions. That is real statutory language being shaped, right now, in private.
So the situation is worse than “no bill.” The bill is being written. Stakeholders are seeing pieces of it. Terms are being negotiated. And none of it has been filed, published, or put in front of the fighters whose careers it will govern. Legislation is not amended in a conference room at a fight weekend or in an email thread among insiders. It is amended in committee, in markup, in writing, in public. We have seen none of that.
And here is the harder question. The question is not Nico’s character or his sincerity. It is whether any single fighter, even one with that name, can serve as the de facto endpoint for statutory language that will bind every professional boxer in the country.
He is not a senator. He is not a commissioner. He does not represent a fighters’ union, because boxing does not have one. He founded the Ali Act Preservation Alliance in April and he testified well at the Senate Commerce Committee hearing. Credit where due. But an alliance he assembled himself does not make him the elected bargaining agent for every professional boxer in America. If a final deal arrives blessed by Muhammad Ali’s grandson, that is a powerful endorsement. It is not a mandate.
Lou DiBella made the case for Nico last night, and his view deserves the room. “If you know Nico at all, and you know his parents, and you knew his grandfather, you know that there isn’t any bullshit with this kid. He’s an Ali … he isn’t for sale,” Lou wrote. “And there is nothing wrong with him taking an opportunity to meet with decision-makers around boxing, Senators, Senate staffers, Nick Khan or otherwise.”
On the character question, Lou is right, and nothing in this column argues otherwise. Nobody here is saying Nico Ali Walsh was bought. The concern is not his integrity. It is his leverage, and everyone else’s. A man negotiating alone, with no published text, no union behind him, and no enforcement mechanism, can be completely sincere and still walk away with promises that never make it into statute. That is not a judgment of Nico. It is a description of how Washington works. And it is exactly why the private circulation of draft terms matters: the people at the table are seeing language the fighters are not.
Now look at what Nico actually said. By his own account, the Revival Act was not going to pass the Senate. “These senators have been agreeing with us. They know that the revival act is not going to pass as it stands.” Those are his words.
So the bill was stalled. And at that moment, the man who told Congress the legislation should not carry his grandfather’s name flew to New York at TKO’s invitation, sat for a private meeting with the company pushing the bill, and then appeared on Zuffa’s own broadcast at Madison Square Garden.
That is the moment a stalled bill acquires a new narrative. Whatever concessions may or may not have been extracted, the public effect of the meeting and the subsequent broadcast appearance is the appearance of movement and buy-in. That appearance now exists in the record.
From TKO’s side, it is a classic media-management move: bring the most visible critic inside, put him on your platform, and let the footage speak.
But the footage cuts both ways. Every clip of Ali Walsh declaring victory is a clip confirming the Revival Act, as written and as passed by the House, could not survive the Senate. The company’s most prominent invited guest is on the record saying its bill is finished in its current form. You cannot spend a year telling Washington the legislation is fine and then have your featured broadcast guest announce it is being rewritten because it was going to fail.
And notice what is missing from the list of four. None of them addresses enforcement. Transparency a fighter cannot enforce is a press release. Free agency a fighter cannot afford to defend is free agency in name only. This is not a new concern, and it is not this column’s invention. When the House passed the bill, Representatives Bobby Scott and Ilhan Omar, who both voted for it, publicly called on the Senate to strengthen protections against coercive contracts and forced arbitration. Their words, on the record. Any revised text that does not spell out how a fighter actually enforces these rights has not addressed the fighters’ real position at all.
And understand what the calendar does to all of this. The 119th Congress ends January 3. The Senate leaves for August recess in a few weeks, September belongs to government funding, and October belongs to the campaign trail. There is no realistic path for a rewritten bill to be introduced, marked up, passed, and reconciled with the House as a standalone before the clock runs out. Which leaves the route Washington always leaves for legislation like this: attach it to something that must pass. A defense authorization. A year-end spending package. If the rewritten Revival Act becomes law this year, that is almost certainly how, folded into a December bill, voted on as part of a package no member can realistically oppose, with the final language shaped by whoever was in the room when it was written. The same rooms the fighters are not in now.
Maybe the changes get in. Maybe the contract caps circulating in private hold up, and maybe financial disclosure, free agency, rankings transparency, and real enforcement language all appear in binding statutory text. If they do, I will write that column too, happily.
But nobody should be declaring wins, for the fighters or for TKO, off a private meeting, a highlight reel, and an email chain. Publish the revised text. File it. Let the lawyers who drafted the original Ali Act read it. Let the fighters read it.
Show us the bill.
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 102823
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
Re: Bill in Muhammad Ali’s name would create UFC-like business model for boxing
Ali Act introduced in Senate addresses contract lengths, titles
Major boxing reforms returned to the Congressional agenda Thursday with the introduction of a Senate version of the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, a copy of which ESPN obtained in advance.
Proponents say their goal is to improve health protections and pay for boxers in hopes of reversing the sport's sagging popularity. But concerns remain over the bill's potential to empower big promoters such as the UFC's Dana White.
Bipartisan sponsorship of the Senate bill gives it improved chances of passage in that chamber, but the task of reconciling it with an existing House version -- which was approved in March -- remains one of the biggest hurdles. The two chambers have until early January to reconcile the bills before a new Congress takes office and restarts the process from scratch.
The Senate bill, co-sponsored by Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Jacky Rosen, D-Nevada, keeps the House bill's framework.
"Fighters will have more options, fans will get more of the fights they want to see, and organizations will have to earn success by delivering for both," Cruz said in a statement to ESPN. "The legislation also strengthens protections for boxers, modernizes safety standards, and creates a more competitive framework for the sport while helping preserve one of America's most cherished traditions for future generations."
Federal regulation of boxing currently is governed by the 2000 Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act and the 1996 Professional Boxing Safety Act. The Ali Revival Act versions before the House and Senate offer the option of creating "unified boxing organizations," or UBOs, to supplement the protections and promotional representation currently available for fighters.
While many similarities exist between the House and Senate versions, there are notable differences in disclosures and regulations around UBOs as well as titles.
The Senate bill would limit a fighter's first contract with a UBO to maximum of three years, provided the fighter has not signed a promotional agreement before. After the first contract, fighters can sign deals for up to six years. Fighters would be allowed to negotiate new deals 90 days before the expiration of any contract. The House bill would give fighters only 30 days.
Rosen said the two extra months of negotiation can keep boxers from making rushed contract decisions.
"Why is that important? If you sign on, let's say you're 17 or 18 and now you're locked in and someone puts you in a 10-year contract, that's maybe the life of your whole career as a boxer," Rosen told ESPN. "That really isn't fair to the young person, the young athlete who is trying to get their foot in the door and make their way in their sport."
The Senate version would allow UBOs to recognize other titles and rankings, potentially another UBO or one of the four current major sanctioning bodies. This provision does not exist in the House bill. This could create matchups between organizations and allow for the possibility of undisputed champions.
The Senate bill removes a provision in the House bill streamlining boxing titles. The House bill calls for one championship per weight class for each sanctioning body or UBO, with an exception for interim titles. The Senate bill removes one title per weight class.
In the Senate bill, UBO fighters would have "access to equipment and facilities for training and rehabilitation at reasonable costs proximate to where the boxer resides." That differs from the House bill, which says fighters would have access to equipment and facilities for rehabilitation "operated by the UBO." Other support services -- insurance during training and fights and medical coordinators -- are the same in both bills.
The Senate bill kept the barrier between UBOs and boxing managers, similar to provisions in the current Ali Act, to prevent financial conflicts of interest. UBOs are prohibited from charging fees to fighters for title contests.
The Senate bill, unlike the House version, would require disclosure and compliance reviews by the Federal Trade Commission and Association of Boxing Commissions, specifically surrounding the ratings process for boxers and opening an avenue for appeal.
Both versions would guarantee boxers at least $200 per round and at least one covered fight every six months.
Rosen told ESPN that her team met with Nico Ali Walsh, a grandson of Muhammad Ali, to discuss the Senate version. Ali Walsh testified during an April 22 hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, which Cruz chairs, and brought up concerns about the House bill, notably regarding fighter protections.
Revival Act critics say it could strip away protections from the initial Ali Act that bar coercive contracts and certain disclosure rules. There were concerns in the April hearing about UBOs restricting fighter options, limiting choice and gaining more profit than fighters.
TKO Group Holdings, which owns the WWE, UFC and part of Zuffa Boxing along with the Saudi Arabian entertainment company Sela, has been a big Revival Act proponent. UFC CEO Dana White founded Zuffa Boxing along with Turki Alalshikh, the chairman of the Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority. It's widely expected that Zuffa would become a UBO if the Revival Act becomes law. TKO board member Nick Khan, the president of WWE, testified at the April hearing in support of the bill.
Both White and Khan issued statements to ESPN early Thursday supporting the Senate version.
The next step would be receiving potential amendments to the Senate version, likely after the chamber's August recess. Should Cruz's version of the bill win Commerce Committee approval and go before the full Senate, the two chambers would have to reconcile their versions to avoid new rounds of reintroduction and debate.
If the Senate version of the bill becomes law, it would take effect 180 days later -- a change from the House bill, which would have taken effect 30 days after being signed.
Major boxing reforms returned to the Congressional agenda Thursday with the introduction of a Senate version of the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, a copy of which ESPN obtained in advance.
Proponents say their goal is to improve health protections and pay for boxers in hopes of reversing the sport's sagging popularity. But concerns remain over the bill's potential to empower big promoters such as the UFC's Dana White.
Bipartisan sponsorship of the Senate bill gives it improved chances of passage in that chamber, but the task of reconciling it with an existing House version -- which was approved in March -- remains one of the biggest hurdles. The two chambers have until early January to reconcile the bills before a new Congress takes office and restarts the process from scratch.
The Senate bill, co-sponsored by Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Jacky Rosen, D-Nevada, keeps the House bill's framework.
"Fighters will have more options, fans will get more of the fights they want to see, and organizations will have to earn success by delivering for both," Cruz said in a statement to ESPN. "The legislation also strengthens protections for boxers, modernizes safety standards, and creates a more competitive framework for the sport while helping preserve one of America's most cherished traditions for future generations."
Federal regulation of boxing currently is governed by the 2000 Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act and the 1996 Professional Boxing Safety Act. The Ali Revival Act versions before the House and Senate offer the option of creating "unified boxing organizations," or UBOs, to supplement the protections and promotional representation currently available for fighters.
While many similarities exist between the House and Senate versions, there are notable differences in disclosures and regulations around UBOs as well as titles.
The Senate bill would limit a fighter's first contract with a UBO to maximum of three years, provided the fighter has not signed a promotional agreement before. After the first contract, fighters can sign deals for up to six years. Fighters would be allowed to negotiate new deals 90 days before the expiration of any contract. The House bill would give fighters only 30 days.
Rosen said the two extra months of negotiation can keep boxers from making rushed contract decisions.
"Why is that important? If you sign on, let's say you're 17 or 18 and now you're locked in and someone puts you in a 10-year contract, that's maybe the life of your whole career as a boxer," Rosen told ESPN. "That really isn't fair to the young person, the young athlete who is trying to get their foot in the door and make their way in their sport."
The Senate version would allow UBOs to recognize other titles and rankings, potentially another UBO or one of the four current major sanctioning bodies. This provision does not exist in the House bill. This could create matchups between organizations and allow for the possibility of undisputed champions.
The Senate bill removes a provision in the House bill streamlining boxing titles. The House bill calls for one championship per weight class for each sanctioning body or UBO, with an exception for interim titles. The Senate bill removes one title per weight class.
In the Senate bill, UBO fighters would have "access to equipment and facilities for training and rehabilitation at reasonable costs proximate to where the boxer resides." That differs from the House bill, which says fighters would have access to equipment and facilities for rehabilitation "operated by the UBO." Other support services -- insurance during training and fights and medical coordinators -- are the same in both bills.
The Senate bill kept the barrier between UBOs and boxing managers, similar to provisions in the current Ali Act, to prevent financial conflicts of interest. UBOs are prohibited from charging fees to fighters for title contests.
The Senate bill, unlike the House version, would require disclosure and compliance reviews by the Federal Trade Commission and Association of Boxing Commissions, specifically surrounding the ratings process for boxers and opening an avenue for appeal.
Both versions would guarantee boxers at least $200 per round and at least one covered fight every six months.
Rosen told ESPN that her team met with Nico Ali Walsh, a grandson of Muhammad Ali, to discuss the Senate version. Ali Walsh testified during an April 22 hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, which Cruz chairs, and brought up concerns about the House bill, notably regarding fighter protections.
Revival Act critics say it could strip away protections from the initial Ali Act that bar coercive contracts and certain disclosure rules. There were concerns in the April hearing about UBOs restricting fighter options, limiting choice and gaining more profit than fighters.
TKO Group Holdings, which owns the WWE, UFC and part of Zuffa Boxing along with the Saudi Arabian entertainment company Sela, has been a big Revival Act proponent. UFC CEO Dana White founded Zuffa Boxing along with Turki Alalshikh, the chairman of the Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority. It's widely expected that Zuffa would become a UBO if the Revival Act becomes law. TKO board member Nick Khan, the president of WWE, testified at the April hearing in support of the bill.
Both White and Khan issued statements to ESPN early Thursday supporting the Senate version.
The next step would be receiving potential amendments to the Senate version, likely after the chamber's August recess. Should Cruz's version of the bill win Commerce Committee approval and go before the full Senate, the two chambers would have to reconcile their versions to avoid new rounds of reintroduction and debate.
If the Senate version of the bill becomes law, it would take effect 180 days later -- a change from the House bill, which would have taken effect 30 days after being signed.