Ted Cruz TKO's America with his Ali Revival Act
Legalized tampering, short-term rookie contracts, and health & safety loopholes.
Miraculously, right at the same time that news broke last Thursday about the MVP/PFL merger into MVP MMA, ESPN quietly published a report with pre-packaged quotes from both TKO executives and US Senators regarding the Senate’s amended version of the Ali Revival Act.
In the world of Nick Khan and Harrison Whitman, there are few coincidences. Everything is calculated. The only reason Mssrs. Khan & Whitman can execute their business tactics is because of two reasons: no one is paying attention, but those who do emotionally fall into a pattern of learned helplessness.
“What can you do?”
The only individuals who demonstrated any challenge to Zuffa Boxing’s monopolization plans were from USA Boxing.
Now we have the proposed text of the Senate’s amended version of the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act. Legislative action supposedly will take place after the August 2026 recess period.
Let’s analyze this Senate legislation in three stages:
What the bill actually says; and analyze all of the traps and add-ons that will likely impact boxing starting in May 2027-ish
What the bill is intentionally vague on regarding enforcement, compliance, and regulatory standards
What the bill excludes in terms of actual fighter protections and what Senate staffers ignored from public feedback
What the Senate version of the Ali Revival Act says and does
Any time you have work product that is influenced by long-time UFC attorney Lawrence Epstein, you have to carefully review it multiple times.
No exceptions in this case. My first reading of the Senate version was to discover what the text said on its face. My second reading attempted to decipher what applied to UBOs vs. non-UBOs. My third reading attempted to calculate the various schemes to weaponize this bill against the legacy, non-UBO promoters. Each reading presented new interpretations.
Why do I mention the name Lawrence Epstein? He’s the legal mastermind in UFC World and Las Vegas business politics. As Paul Magno at The Boxing Tribune reported on Monday, there are some very interesting fingerprints all over Zuffa Boxing activity involving the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.
Here’s some inside baseball for you:
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck represented the Las Vegas Stadium Authority in getting Allegiant Stadium built. Lawrence Epstein is Vice Chairman of the LVSA. Allegiant Stadium hosted Wrestlemanias 41 & 42 along with Canelo Alvarez vs. Terence Crawford. These events generated huge government contracts and tax credits.
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck is the law firm representing Jai Opetaia, Zuffa Boxing Cruiserweight champion, in his lawsuit against the IBF.
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck represents Zuffa as a key lobbying firm. A recent filing reveals Brownstein employed nine lobbyists for the Ali Revival Act at a price tag of $150,000 for Q2 2026.
In a political game of arbitrage, what a financial bargain for TKO to create legislation that helps pave the way toward a boxing monopoly.
Looking at the text of the Senate’s Ali Revival Act
Some key bullet points:
Creation of a bypass system via Unified Boxing Organizations. As long as UBOs meet certain criteria, they are exempt from the legal requirements in the traditional Ali Act legislation. The bill labels this as an “alternative system for compliance.”
UBOs can recognize both their own titles and titles from others sanctioning organizations. This is a key deviation from the House version of the Ali Revival Act. Zuffa Boxing will be utilizing this strategy moving forward without saying the name of the sanctioning body (e.g. Ryan Garcia vs. Conor Benn “for the World Welterweight title.”)
Removed from the House bill is the “one title per weight class provision.” This is a classic negotiating technique by Ted Cruz & TKO. Sanctioning bodies were scared that their various title belts (e.g. “Silver” or regional) would be banned. This provision is now gone. Opposition to the Ali Revival Act by major sanctioning bodies is suddenly muted. As Larry Goldberg at Boxing Insider stated, “Belts for everyone.”
Specific medical examination rules for boxers in UBOs after a knockout and boxers over the age of 40. Chest X-Ray (every six years), CMP + urinalysis annually. But there is a giant loophole we will soon point out.
UBOs will pay for an extra physician and ambulance at events in addition to regular state athletic commission staffing requirements. The Association of Boxing Commissions + Association of Ringside Physicians are in charge of biennial physician certification.
UBOs must provide boxers access to a medical coordinator for administrative help, a training & rehab facility, and insurance coverage for both fight training and fight day. The Senate text on the required training facility has dramatically been watered down compared to the House bill. “Access to equipment and facilities for training and rehabilitation at reasonable costs proximate to where the boxer resides.” Who defines reasonable costs? Later in the bill, the text states that a boxer is responsible for paying the insurance deductible.
UBOs must have their own anti-doping plan with at least half the boxers on a fight card tested per event, along with “no-notice testing” by “an independent third-party.” Drug testing results are reported to ABC. In other words, Zuffa Boxing is codifying their corporate drug testing policy into Federal law. The Ali Revival Act is delegating authority under the color of law to a trade organization in ABC.
So far, relatively straight forward.
Here comes the shenanigans
Boxers contracted to a UBO have a 90 day negotiating window before their current contract expires. “The contract shall not prohibit, during the 90 day period ending on the last day of such contract, the boxer from communicating with another unified boxing organization or a promoter, provided that the boxer may not enter into a new agreement before the end of the term of the existing contract.”
A minimum of one match offered every six months. If you know how UFC contracts work, you can see where this is going. If a boxer rejects an opponent offered by Zuffa Boxing, TKO can theoretically extend that boxer’s contract.
A boxer’s first professional contract with UBO has a maximum duration of three years. With an important caveat. “Except as specified in paragraph (2), the contract may not exceed six years.”
For an uneducated eye, this all sounds great on paper. If you’re reading this article, you are well educated on fight politics. Nothing is ever as it seems.
Ted Cruz & TKO implemented quite a surprise for non-UBO promoters in this add-on paragraph.
“Application to all promotional contracts. -- Notwithstanding another provision of law, the protections afforded to boxers under paragraphs (1)(A), (1)(C), and (2) shall apply to any contract between a boxer and a promoter to the same extent as those protections apply to a contract between a boxer and a Unified Boxing Organization.”
See this stunt? Ted Cruz just pulled a fast one by listing various contractual requirements for UBOs… only to turn around and apply it to ALL non-UBO promoters.
TKO’s legislation is about to entirely change the way boxing contracts are structured for everyone.
A UBO doesn’t have to deal with a boxer challenging them with a Private Right of Action because the UBO bypasses regular Ali Act provisions.
If you know the history of how UFC operates, you’ll quickly recognize how boxers are about to substantially lose certain Ali Act protections. Key word: protections. “Protections” is a Frank Luntz buzzword that he’s been programming politicians to use in marketing key legislation for decades.
Explaining how this new system can be exploited by TKO
Take for example the new “90 day negotiating window” provision.
To the public, it sounds great. Giving boxers a chance to negotiate a better deal on their behalf. What’s wrong with giving fighters an opportunity to make more money?
The 90 day negotiating window provision in the Ali Revival Act is going to legalize tampering. I wonder who could benefit from this?
Let’s say a legacy boxing promoter takes the financial risk of bringing over a Cuban fighter to the United States. That legacy manager/promoter invests and risks quite a bit of money on immigration paperwork, training costs, and paying for fight bookings on other promoter’s shows. Once that fighter’s contract reaches the 90 day negotiating window, it immediately gives Zuffa Boxing an opportunity to learn exactly what that boxer is making and the conditions of that boxer’s current contract. Giving TKO 90 days to legally tamper with a boxer makes it incredibly difficult for a legacy promoter to compete. Why?
Look at UFC’s reported historical track record of doing business (via antitrust court documents).
Arbitration clauses.
Class action waivers.
Champion’s clauses and various forms of tolling/extensions (including medical suspensions and declination of opponents offered.)
Matching rights (12 months in duration)
Now add a 90-day legalized tampering period into that mix. Throw in the unlimited financial resources of TKO.
This is a complete recipe for TKO to treat every legacy boxing promoter in America as if they are Cage Warriors and LFA. Feeder leagues. TKO can cherry pick whatever boxers they want without absorbing any of the promotional risk in creating star power.
Let’s shift our focus to the “three year provision” for first time promotional contracts. Here’s Paul Magno at The Boxing Tribune explaining TKO’s angle in wanting this contractual provision as law.
For instance, limiting the contract period of a fighter’s first pro contract to a max of three years is being sold as a fighter-freedom feature. In reality, it handcuffs existing promoters while clearing a smoother path for cash-rich Zuffa to swoop in and sign young talent once others have absorbed the financial risk of developing them.
The newly inserted contract cap is an acknowledgment that Zuffa does not currently have the developmental infrastructure in place to bring along high-end prospects. Instead, they intend to rely on outside companies to bring that talent along and then step in to pick up the fighters who’ve made it through the rough and unprofitable early stages of their careers.
And if legacy promoters decide it’s too expensive to invest in top prospects? Zuffa Boxing will funnel these prospects into their own UBO, perhaps using a variation of a Dana White’s Contender Series. This will allow TKO to eventually drive down boxing salaries in the long run through various legal mechanisms while substantially raising financial barriers of entry for any boxing promoter in the United States.
By changing the legal structure of all boxing contracts, TKO is positioning itself to take advantage of the traditional Ali Act’s Private Right of Action. More litigation, not less, is going to blossom because of the Ali Revival Act and all of it will be aimed at legacy boxing promoters. TKO’s UBO will bypass the Private Right of Action being used against them.
The Ali Revival Act will complicate business for domestic promoters, who will likely have to promote more of their events outside of the United States. This works out perfectly for TKO. They want to control the American boxing market and media rights.
The rest of the Ali Revival Act provisions
There is a UBO provision for a “firewall between UBOs and managers.” Managers can still get their % of a fee from their boxing clients.
A UBO must file a report/document with both the Federal Trade Commission and the Association of Boxing Commissions regarding where they are domiciled, business address, and the UBO’s web site. Any information regarding a UBO’s rankings system must also be included in these reports. There is an “internet alternative” option. The Ali Revival Act specifies that this provision does not preclude states from implementing their own rules and regulations.
There is a section covering medical baseline requirements for boxers. Here comes some controversy:
Complete physical exam, including blood work - yearly
Dilated eye exam - yearly
Heart exam (electrocardiogram + stress test over the age of 40) - yearly
Antibody tests (Hep B, C, etc.) - every six months
Pregnancy test - 14 days before fight
Brain health exam (40 or older: MRI and MRA scans; under 40, MRI of the brain OR neurological exam) - yearly
As Larry Goldberg at Boxing Insider points out, there is a huge flaw in the brain health examination requirements.
Read that the way a lawyer reads it, because that is how it will be applied. A fighter can turn pro at 18, box for 21 years, take thousands of punches in fights and tens of thousands more in sparring, and satisfy federal brain health law every single year with an office visit. Reflexes, balance, a light in the eyes, follow my finger. No scan, not once.
The first federally required image of that fighter’s brain arrives on his 40th birthday, and for most professional boxers, that is a birthday the sport never sees.
Notice what is missing from the table entirely: a CT scan. The bill’s under-40 choice is an MRI or an office exam, and CT appears nowhere, even though it is the cheaper, faster scan available in every hospital in America and the one New Jersey has accepted for years as a valid baseline image.
So the table gets it wrong in both directions at once. A fighter who skips imaging altogether satisfies federal law, while a fighter who goes out and gets an actual picture of his brain on a CT does not. Under this bill, an office exam counts and a brain scan doesn’t.
Then there are the non-UBO insurance provisions for legacy promoters.
$50,000 per fighter with $15,000 accidental death coverage.
On a personal level, I am extremely disappointed in the Senate staffers who refused to listen to the public feedback they received regarding insurance protections for boxers.
After the April 2026 Senate hearing on the Ali Revival Act, I sent a note to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation with the following passage:
Insurance Coverage Loophole
This proposed Act does not address the duration of mandatory insurance coverage for boxers that promoters are legally required to purchase.
● See H.R. 4624 § 11(b) (requiring medical protections but not specifying coverage duration or post-bout continuity of care).
There are no uniform coverage standards for insurance companies across state athletic commissions servicing promoters and fighters.
Current insurance standards in most states provide promoters same-day coverage until 11:59 PM. Without guarantees that hospitals can be reimbursed by all insurance providers, boxers with life-threatening injuries face a financially-crippling dilemma.
Gaps in coverage for hospitalization; and
Cost-shifting to public healthcare systems (e.g., Medicaid) for catastrophic injuries
This troubling scenario has impacted multiple boxers in California. Fighters placed in medically-induced comas following brain bleeds & craniotomies often face overwhelming hospital and rehabilitation expenses, due to inadequate or nonexistent Long Term Care coverage. At present, the only recourse is expensive litigation against promoters & athletic commissions. The lack of mandated minimum coverage durations and reimbursement guarantees remains a serious gap in protecting fighter safety.
Absolutely nothing in this currently amended Ali Revival Act addresses any of the real-life challenges that state athletic commissions face when a boxer is critically injured and taken to a hospital in the late evening.
There are no new enforcement mechanisms
This was the other major criticism I raised in my note to the U.S. Senate on the Ali Revival Act.
There are no real mechanisms for compliance or enforcement. It’s the same regulatory system, only this time the Association of Boxing Commissions — a trade organization very friendly to TKO — now has color of oversight under authority presented as a Federal delegation.
What happens if a state athletic commission doesn’t implement new Federal medical guidelines for boxers?
Hypothetically, let’s say a boxer in a certain state with lower medical examination and insurance standards ignores the new Ali Revival Act provisions. Let’s say that boxer is critically hurt in his match and put into Long Term Care. If that boxer (or his family) sues the event promoter and the athletic commission for not following Federal law, how much is it going to cost in litigation?
Hypothetically, let’s say someone creates their own UBO and doesn’t provide insurance for every fighter. One of that UBO’s fighters is seriously injured. What is the liability scope of the state athletic commission overseeing the event?
We know that TKO has full spectrum financial, political, and legal domination in American combat sports. They can make one phone call to The White House, any state Governor, and most state AGs to get whatever kind of favor they want.
What is a more likely scenario: TKO utilizing their broad political power to enforce the Ali Revival Act to improve fighter health & safety or weaponizing their political power against any promoter and fighter they perceive to be a financial threat to their bottom line?
How will legacy boxing promoters react?
Once this Senate version of the Ali Revival Act passes, there will be a six month transition period. I expect complete and total chaos.
There will be a short time frame for promoters to engage in a mad rush to lock up as many boxers as possible to brand new five year contracts.
This financial panic will box in legacy promoters. Do they burn a lot of their reserve capital trying to lock up talent or do they play it safe and hope the TKO alligator doesn’t swallow up their rosters whole?
The likely outcome is that legacy boxing promoters will be less incentivized to run events in America. More American boxers will engage in “win tourism.” Expect more boxing fights outside of the States while TKO swallows up the American marketplace.
Zach Arnold is lead opinion writer for The MMA Draw on Substack. His archives can be read at FightOpinion.com. Contact Zach: fightopinion at protonmail dot com.