Major changes to Ali Revival Act before House vote next week
UBOs and the Association of Boxing Commissions are the biggest winners.
Remember Nancy Pelosi’s famous quote before the US Congress passed the Affordable Care Act?
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it — away from the fog of the controversy."
It turns out that the Worst of Washington has resurfaced in regards to making last-minute changes to the proposed legislative text of the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Reform Act.
The biggest winners are obvious. TKO, which is pushing Unified Boxing Organizations. The second biggest winner is not so obvious, although Thursday’s announcement about the Association of Boxing Commissions advising regulatory affairs on the UFC White House event kind of gave this game away.
Andy Foster. Mike Mazzulli. Tim Shipman. Will they be among the estimated 5,000 VIPs for the event?
Quietly — and without much notice — the US House of Representatives made some significant changes to the proposed Ali Revival Act text in the last 48 hours. These changes were made on Tuesday, March 17th. House Leadership quietly made changes to this bill after amendments were voted on by the House Education and Workforce Committee on January 21st.
This development means two things. First, heat from both ABC and USA Boxing members clearly attracted the attention of Ali Revival Act boosters. Second, these last-minute changes make vocal critics of the bill look stupid to the general public. They don’t know what they’re talking about. Well, apparently, neither will members of the House of Representatives when they vote to rubber-stamp this new legislation.
We have to pass the bill before we can find out what is in it. Because nobody in Congress or the general public knows what the bill actually is.
Not here at The MMA Draw. We don’t accept this practice.
Notorious glutton for punishment Zach Arnold has carefully read the newly revised Ali Revival Act text and will now detail step-by-step the dramatic impact this piece of legislation will have on US combat sports.
What changed over the last two months?
The March 17th legislative text by US House Leadership is a complete and total rewrite of the Ali Revival Act—a self-contained substitute amendment. Let’s highlight some key examples.
There was an enormous firestorm over a 50% random drug testing standard under WADA standards. Larry Goldberg at Boxing Insider presented a fantastic summary.
The March 17th version of the bill now states mandatory drug testing for title fights and random drug testing for the rest of the fight card, but no longer specifies the 50% benchmark.
The second major change in the Ali Revival Act is the increased dependence on the Association of Boxing Commissions for oversight and implementation of these new Federal standards in the states.
Whether this is an attempt to sidestep obvious 10th Amendment/anti-commandeering issues, who knows.
Bottom line? The ABC just went from a trade organization to a quasi-governmental organization overnight. That raises some very interesting legal issues regarding administrative transparency and public records requests.
Let’s review the entire March 17th revised text of the Ali Revival Act legislation. You can read the text for yourself.
Unified Boxing Organizations: Medicals, drug testing, and insurance
The Ali Revival Act creates two parallel universes with similar actors involved in oversight of both. UBOs get to bypass many regular Ali Act standards for transparency as long as they pay the bills. It instantly creates disparate treatment for promoters under regular order versus actors to whom athletic commissions can outsource their bills. Expenses such as drug and medical testing.
UBOs will pay the bills of regulators and will thereby be granted significantly more power over their contractual affairs with boxers.
For example, Unified Boxing Organizations are required to cover costs for drug testing, medical testing, and insurance. However…
“COST OF ANY DEDUCTIBLE -- The cost of any deductible for any health insurance required to be provided by the UBO for a boxer shall be the financial responsibility of the boxer.”
There are also somewhat-specific requirements for providing access to training facilities and medical coordinators.
Under a UBO system, a boxer who is knocked out must undergo a brain health scan before being cleared to compete. Boxers over the age of 40 must undergo a standard battery of medical tests, plus an additional set of annual supplemental tests, such as chest X-rays, urinalysis, and a metabolic blood panel.
All promoters, UBO or non-UBO, must have a ringside physician and ambulance at all times for an event. However, the UBO system requires an additional ambulance and ringside physician. 2 + 2.
Each physician used by a UBO must be certified by the Association of Boxing Commissions in partnership with a group such as the Association of Ringside Physicians.
The Ali Revival Act specifies that UBOs cannot run events in states without athletic commissions.
UBOs must annually publish documentation regarding their anti-doping programs and the list of prohibited substances. Random drug testing is required for 50% of all UBO fights. UBOs are allowed to conduct “no-notice drug testing” of contracted boxers.
However, there is significant wiggle room for UBOs regarding Therapeutic Use Exemptions in conjunction with state athletic commissions.
“The UBO may elect to not test a boxer participating in a covered match for any substance that is not prohibited by the boxing commission of the State in which the match is being held or the tribal organization described in paragraph (2)(B)(ii)(II) that is regulating the match.”
Third-party entities are responsible for drug testing. These entities report positive test results to the UBO, ABC, and the state athletic commission overseeing the fight.
This creates a loophole that allows an athletic commission to take a hands-off approach to drug testing.
The Ali Revival Act also creates new standards for promoters utilizing the regular boxing system. This bill establishes annual federal medical testing guidelines. Complete physicals plus blood work, eye exams, electrocardiograms, brain health exams (over age 40), and antibody tests (every six months).
All promoters are required to provide $50,000 in medical insurance per fighter plus $15,000 in accidental death coverage. Promoters pay those insurance premiums. Insurance costs are about to double or triple overnight for promoters.
For regular boxing promoters, drug testing is required in all title fights and for random drug testing of undercard fighters. However, there is no longer a 50% benchmark as originally proposed in a January 21st amendment. The Ali Revival Act specifies WADA standards regarding prohibited substances.
Unified Boxing Organizations: Contracts
In exchange for paying significantly more regulatory costs for athletic commission oversight, UBOs are granted permission to implement UFC-like terms and conditions for contracts with boxers.
I previously argued that the Ali Revival Act serves as a quasi-antitrust exemption for UBOs.
Under the revised Ali Revival Act text, UBOs are allowed to have six-year contracts with boxers. Boxers are allowed to talk to other UBOs 30 days before contract expiry. A UBO shall arrange one fight every six months and pay a minimum of $200 per round.
However…
‘‘(ii) ensure that such boxer is paid an amount that is not less than 10 times the minimum payment for such boxer for 1 round as specified pursuant to subparagraph (A), except that this clause shall not apply if an injury prevents the boxer from fighting and the boxer is collecting insurance for such injury pursuant to subsection (d)(2), or the boxer refuses or is otherwise unable to fight for reasons beyond the control of the UBO, including inability of the boxer to travel or the boxer’s failure to maintain relevant licensure."
This paragraph grants significant power and latitude to the UBO.
Hypothetically, this clause means a standard UBO contract — with a $200 per round minimum — would create a contractual floor of $2,000 per fight for a boxer.
But… if a fighter is injured and collecting insurance or turns down a fight, then circumstances change.
Instead of boxers choosing who they can fight, it’s now the UBO that can hypothetically shift the power dynamic by telling boxers and managers who they want to see fight.
A six-year contract between a UBO and a boxer is a powerful tool for a promoter.
Standard UFC contracts now contain both arbitration and class action waivers. Under regular boxing contracts, the current Ali Act provides boxers with a Private Right of Action to sue in Federal court. The UBO system side-steps this Private Right of Action provided under the current Ali Act. Thomas Hauser recently reported on this arbitration provision in Zuffa Boxing contracts for The Guardian.
Unified Boxing Organizations: Conflicts of interest
This is where the revised March 17th text of the Ali Revival Act gets interesting.
Under the TKO banner, there is Zuffa Boxing. From Boxing Scene reporting, we know that former Top Rank attorney Harrison Whitman, former CAA agent Ishmael Hinson, and John Spinale of Jazz Venture Partners have a boxing management company called Hualapai Ventures. According to SEC records, there was fundraising in February of 2024.
Zuffa Boxing and The Ring are promoters, with SELA in the financial orbit. Hualapai Ventures is the management company. Then there are boxing managers like Keith Connolly who are conducting business with Zuffa.
The Ali Revival Act states that UBO officials or representatives cannot have any direct or indirect financial stake in boxers. UBOs cannot pay managers unless there is a contract which stipulates such a payment arrangement between boxer and manager.
UBOs cannot charge fees from boxers for rankings or title fights. The obvious issue this raises is fighter pay. Max Kellerman is on the record discussing a recalibration of fight money in a TKO-oriented boxing world. You can currently make more as a boxer but pay higher sanctioning body fees, or you can (theoretically) earn less under Zuffa but not pay sanctioning body fees.
Unified Boxing Organizations: FTC oversight
Here is where an already messy Ali Act law for Federal enforcement gets even messier under the new Ali Revival Act.
A prospective UBO must submit certain information to both the Federal Trade Commission and the Association of Boxing Commissions. This includes the state in which the UBO is incorporated, its website address, and its business address. These records must be publicly made available. There is an “Internet Alternative” provision allowing a UBO to bypass a formal FTC declaration.
What about foreign UBOs? Nothing specified.
Who is going to enforce the criminal and civil provisions in the Ali Revival Act?
Page 18 of the March 17th revised Ali Revival Act legislative text.
“UNIFIED BOXING ORGANIZATIONS -- Any officer or employee of a Unified Boxing Organization who willfully and knowingly violates, or coerces or causes any other person to violate, section 24 shall, upon conviction, be imprisoned for not more than 1 year or fined not more than $20,000, or both.”
Comparing the current Ali Act text to the newly revised text of the Ali Revival Act, it is obvious that there is no clarity on how the law will be enforced and by whom.
The Federal Trade Commission?
The US Department of Justice?
US State Attorneys General?
Local District Attorneys?
The Association of Boxing Commissions?
Because there hasn’t been active combat sports litigation against administrative agencies to produce case law clarifying oversight boundaries, no one is entirely sure who is legally empowered to enforce the provisions of the Ali Act and Ali Revival Act.
Who has standing?
This ambiguity is on purpose. The more governmental and administrative entities cited, the greater the risk there is of politicized lawfare.
Who benefits?
The Ali Revival Act dramatically increases the politicization of combat sports. It’s unavoidable. Everyone is going to need a lobbyist — and a good law firm on retainer. Including the various sanctioning bodies.
Big trouble for sanctioning bodies
The Ali Revival Act creates separation between UBOs and sanctioning organizations such as the WBC.
“Without reliance on a sanctioning organization operating independently of such association, league, or centralized industry organization, implements a system for title belts and ranking for boxers under contract with such association, league, or centralized industry organization.”
That’s not the only nasty surprise awaiting Mauricio Sulaiman.
On page 22 of the revised Ali Revival Act text is this provision regarding title belts and sanctioning bodies:
“(c) SIMPLIFICATION OF TITLES --
(1) SINGULAR TITLES -- A sanctioning organization or Unified Boxing Organization shall award only 1 championship title for each weight class.
(2) INTERIM TITLES -- A sanctioning organization or Unified Boxing Organization may not award an interim championship title except in the case of an injury or illness to a reigning titleholder, refusal or inability by the reigning title holder to defend his title, or for reasons beyond the control of the boxer, including inability to travel.”
What does this mean for the WBC, IBF, WBA, and WBO?
It means, at least in the United States, the days of regional or secondary titles are outlawed under the Ali Revival Act text. Perhaps the WBC Silver belts are on the chopping block?
The more intriguing question is what kind of legal standing does this provision in the Ali Revival Act give promoters to sue someone like the WBC if they continue to use more than one title per weight class?
We already know about recent reports regarding allegations of legal threats against the IBF. All it takes is a few active lawsuits against the current sanctioning bodies to cripple them financially and force them into submission.
Regulatory capture — in the form of the Ali Revival Act, plus state athletic commissions imposing hard caps on title fees, plus lawfare, could bankrupt the legacy players.
Larry Goldberg at Boxing Insider argues that the Ali Revival Act will significantly increase “win tourism” outside of the United States.
The ABC turned into a quasi-governmental entity overnight
This is the biggest legal and regulatory challenge facing everyone living in an Ali Revival Act world.
All judges and referees in American combat sports must be licensed by respective athletic commissions OR the ABC.
By Statute, this new Ali Revival Act delegates significant oversight to a trade organization. A trade organization that isn’t part of the Federal government but now is being cited as an authority under the Ali Revival Act.
“CONSISTENT STANDARDS -- It is the sense of Congress that:
“(1) uneven development of standards and practices by boxing commissions (including tribal organizations in compliance with section 21) has enabled matches that would not have been authorized by boxing commissions with robust standards and practices, and that boxers have been seriously injured or killed as a result;
“(2) the Association of Boxing Commissions (in this subsection referred to as the ‘ABC’), in partnership with the Association of Ringside Physicians, is well-positioned to identify policies and practices most conducive to boxer safety and wellbeing; and
“(3) the ABC should, accordingly, publish and maintain --
“(A) a model legislative and regulatory code for professional boxing, derived from --
“(i) State policies that are most protective of boxers’ safety, health, wellbeing, and economic opportunity;
“(ii) rigorous sporting authority guidelines, such as the USA Boxing protocols for medical suspension; and
“(iii) expert consensus statements from the Association of Ringside Physicians and other sports medicine organizations;
“(B)” best practices recommendations for oversight of professional boxing and implementation of legal duties by boxing commissions; and
“(C) an annual report card of boxing commission conformance with such model codes and best practices.”
The Ali Revival Act just turned the Association of Boxing Commissions into hall monitors that can publish reports and report cards without impunity.
The weaponization and politicization that the Ali Revival Act provides is nasty. Since most individuals in regulatory positions of authority are complete pushovers, this legislation enables the current bullies to pound their chests.
The usual suspects are the biggest winners.
It’s a poor attempt at bypassing anti-commandeering and 10th Amendment issues.
The history of combat sports regulators having any courage is bleak. Don’t expect immediate litigation.
However, the elevation of the Association of Boxing Commissions into a quasi-governmental agency creates some rather unforeseen consequences for those currently in power.
Should they be challenged in the courts regarding oversight or issues relating to Freedom of Information Act requests, the Ali Revival Act just provided some ammunition to provide standing to sue.
And if ABC says they aren’t a governmental authority, shove their upcoming oversight of the UFC White House event in their face.
Timetable
The US House of Representatives will vote on the Ali Revival Act next week.
Once this legislation hits the US Senate, it is expected to proceed to a vote on an expedited basis.
It is only a matter of weeks, not months, before this legislation passes Congress and is signed into law by US President Donald J. Trump.
Zach Arnold is the lead opinion writer for The MMA Draw Newsletter on Substack. You can e-mail him at fightopinion - at - protonmail dot com.