Eric Bottjer

A bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in July that would create an amended version of the existing boxing reform laws of 1996 and 2000 was discussed on Capitol Hill today. It was the first public hearing on the issue since it was introduced by sponsor Brian Jack, a Republican from Georgia. Supporters of the bill say the novel legislation will create novel opportunities for militants and lead to the long-term rehabilitation of an enterprise that went bankrupt after 130 years of existence. Critics say the bill would allow a UFC-style monopoly similar to the current professional mixed martial arts business model.

Committee Chairman Ryan Mackenzie (Allentown, Pa.) immediately set the tone in his opening remarks. He said this bill would make boxing “great again” (the phrase “great again” was repeated, well, many times, in case you were wondering about Mackenzie’s political leanings). Ranking Member Omar Ilhan (D-Minneapolis, Minn.) said she saw value in the bill, but added: “There are parts of this bill that raise the question of who will actually control the future of boxing. Are we prioritizing Goliath to the detriment of David? This bill as designed gives more power to gigantic corporations than boxers.”

The genesis of the bill – called the Muhammad Ali Boxing Revival Act – is the UFC’s desire to enter (and critics say take over) boxing, supported in part by Saudi Arabia and its “public investment fund.” Those testifying in support of the bill rejected the monopoly narrative. Rep. Jack stressed that the bill, if passed, would not remove the 1996 and 2000 reform acts and that rather than create a monopoly, it would simply give boxers another option to advance their careers. According to Jack, the law will create Unified Boxing Organizations (UBOs), which will create a “parallel system to (existing) sanctioning bodies. The bill will fix “widespread exploitation and corruption in boxing,” Jack said.

Testifying in favor of the bill (H.R. 4624) was Andy Foster, executive director of the California State Athletic Commission, who predicted the creation of many “UBOs” in the coming years. Foster indicated that UBOs would not charge boxers or promoters “crushing punitive fees” and added that the bill guaranteed club-level boxers a minimum pay structure ($150 per round) as well as zero-deductible medical insurance (currently paid by promoters or boxers). Sometimes boxers leave a fight in a worse financial situation than when they arrived, Foster said. He encouraged the committee to add an amendment to the bill that would adjust minimum portfolio amounts in the future to inflation.

Foster was supported at today’s hearing by Lonnie Ali, Muhammad Ali’s widow, and UFC Chief Operating Officer Lawrence Epstein, who stated: “There is no denying that professional boxing has been in steady decline in the United States. The Muhammad Ali Boxing Renaissance Act has the potential to reverse this decline by creating an creative model that will advance the industry.”

Epstein and the bill’s supporters are sensitive to criticism that the potential law would result in a monopoly, and have emphasized that they believe it simply creates an additional avenue of exploration for boxers. “UBOs will not replace sanctioning organizations,” Epstein said.

UBOs would constitute a “separate, parallel system” to the four existing main sanctions groups.

The lone wolf at the hearing was well-known attorney Pat English, who worked on the two previous boxing reform bills that are now the law. “There are things (in the first two bills) that need to be improved and modified,” English said, “but this bill is not the right solution.” The “real purpose” of the novel law, according to English, is to give monopoly power to a specific UBO – Zuffa Boxing, backed by the UFC. Most boxers are against the idea, English said. While supporters of the bill point to drug testing requirements, English added that the bill does not require reporting of test results to athletic commissions or Boxrec, the current official record-keeping service employed by the Association of Boxing Commissions.

Supporters of this act include ABC, as well as the California commission, promoter Tom Brown, Mike Tyson, various arenas in the US and, oh, the Teamsters.

The bill now returns to the committee that hosted today’s hearing (the House Committee on Education and Labor). Any changes or amendments will be discussed (for example, Foster’s proposal to raise the minimum amount of the boxer budget in the future) before it is sent to the House of Representatives for a vote. According to Arnaud Armstrong, communications specialist in Rep. Mackenzie’s Allentown office, the process will take “weeks.” If it passes, it will be sent to the Senate, which typically takes longer than the chamber to prepare the bill for a vote.