On Wednesday evening, the boxing world became gripped by conversations about a new bill that could change the sport and the way fighters are paid. Purportedly for the better. Potentially for the worse.
The bill, named the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, was introduced to the US Congress by Representatives Brian Jack and Sharice Davids, with the intention of altering federal regulations around the sport. It is a bill that has been backed by TKO, the UFC ownership group that is crossing into boxing, with UFC president Dana White co-promoting September’s seismic Canelo vs Crawford fight in tandem with Saudi adviser Turki Alalshikh.
The name of the bill comes from the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 (widely referred to as the ‘Ali Act’). The key aims of that act were: “(1) to protect the rights and welfare of professional boxers on an interstate basis, by preventing certain exploitative, oppressive, and unethical business practices; (2) to assist State boxing commissions in their efforts to provide more effective public oversight of the sport; and (3) to promote honorable competition in professional boxing and enhance the overall integrity of the industry.”
Just as the Ali Act sought to amend the 1996 Professional Boxing Safety Act, so does the Revival Act. On the face of it, the intentions of both acts are noble, so why were there qualms with the former, and why has the latter proven so controversial?
Why is the Revival Act controversial, and what criticisms did the original Ali Act face?
Well, at the time of the Ali Act’s introduction, some questioned what right Congress had to regulate boxing, given it regulates no other sports. There was also the criticism that the Act had laid out a series of rules for Congress to enforce, but without clear methods of how to enforce them.
But to a more pertinent point: on Wednesday evening (23 July), there were altogether different criticisms being aimed at the Revival Act, the main one being that it could see UFC’s widely derided style of fighter pay cross into boxing, harming the earning ability of athletes while claiming to do the opposite.
Why does the UFC receive criticism over fighter pay?
The UFC recently settled an antitrust lawsuit, which claimed the mixed martial arts (MMA) promotion suppressed fighters’ ability to negotiate; it was suggested that the UFC had essentially forged a monopoly in MMA.
In October, the UFC agreed to pay $380m to a group of former fighters who had competed under its banner between 2010 and 2017, with approximately 1,100 deemed as affected and 97 per cent of them applying to receive funds. The fighters in question received compensation payments between $100,000 and $1m, according to the firm that handled the lawsuit.
In general, average fighter pay in the UFC is believed to be much lower than in boxing, though UFC president White has continuously insisted that the media does not know the real numbers. The Independent understands that many fighters enter the promotion on a contract where they earn $12,000 to fight and another $12,000 if they win – with those figures increasing after three bouts, and with $50,000 bonuses available (Fight of the Night, Performance of the Night).
Enjoy 185+ fights a year on DAZN, the Global Home of Boxing
Never miss a fight from top promoters. Watch on your devices anywhere, anytime.
ADVERTISEMENT. If you sign up to this service we will earn commission. This revenue helps to fund journalism across The Independent.
Enjoy 185+ fights a year on DAZN, the Global Home of Boxing
Never miss a fight from top promoters. Watch on your devices anywhere, anytime.
ADVERTISEMENT. If you sign up to this service we will earn commission. This revenue helps to fund journalism across The Independent.
The UFC antitrust lawsuit also confirmed numerous reports that, in 2010, the UFC took home approximately 80 per cent of its overall earnings, with fighters left with less than 20 per cent. In comparison, basketball’s NBA and its players received around 50 per cent each at the time, and they still do. Currently, players in the WNBA (Women’s NBA) are pushing the league for a similar pay system.
But how does the UFC’s track record on fighter pay relate to the Revival Act, beyond the fact that its parent company (as of 2023) is backing the new bill?
What specific changes does the Revival Act seek to make?
The Revival Act seeks to allow the creation of Unified Boxing Organisations (UBOs), which would serve as alternatives to boxing’s current sanctioning bodies: chiefly the World Boxing Council, World Boxing Association, World Boxing Organization, International Boxing Federation, and International Boxing Organization. Just as those bodies have their own champions, so would UBOs. One UBO would be Zuffa Boxing, likely overseen by UFC president White and Saudi adviser Alalshikh.
The UBOs would also pay a minimum national compensation of $150 per round for professional boxers, a figure that might be seen as substantial by very low-level boxers but pitiful by anyone else. The new system would also bid to improve the minimum health insurance available to boxers and access to anti-doping programmes – which can be costly for promoters. As it stands, the minimums in those aspects are controlled by individual states in the US.
Many undercard boxers compete in six-round fights, meaning – if they went the distance – they would be expected to earn $900 under the new system. That is understood to be less than a boxer would earn on most shows now, and the sum would struggle to cover the costs of coaching, sparring partners, travel and/or accommodation. These are expenses that fighters are often expected to pay during camp.
So, what now?
It is worth stressing that this act has not yet been passed. It is likely to be referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the same House that received the 1996 and 2000 acts, with a vote in the House of Representatives being the next step. Thereafter, it would be sent to the US Senate.
