Boxing Legends Clash with UFC Backers in Senate Hearing Over Ali Act Overhaul
Oscar De La Hoya, the former world champion turned promoter, delivered a stark warning to US lawmakers on Wednesday, arguing that proposed changes to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act would prioritise corporate profits over fighter welfare. The Senate hearing, convened by Texas senator Ted Cruz, exposed a deep rift in the combat sports community regarding the future direction of boxing.
Centralised Model Versus Fighter Protections
At the heart of the debate is a House-passed bill that would permit the creation of "Unified Boxing Organizations" (UBOs). These entities could operate alongside the current fragmented system, acting as both promoter and governing body—a significant departure from the Ali Act's core principle of separating these roles to prevent conflicts of interest.
Supporters, including executives aligned with TKO Group Holdings—the parent company of UFC and WWE—contend that this centralised model would streamline matchmaking, attract investment, and rescue boxing from its chaotic state. Nick Khan, a TKO board member, highlighted the confusion of having multiple fighters claim championship titles in the same weight division, comparing it to Major League Baseball arbitrarily stripping a team of its title.
Fighters Fear Loss of Leverage and Choice
However, critics like De La Hoya and professional boxer Nico Ali Walsh, grandson of Muhammad Ali, vehemently oppose the overhaul. They argue it would concentrate power, weaken federal protections, and ultimately diminish fighters' bargaining power. "This is a fundamental shift in power that would put corporate profits first, fighters second," De La Hoya testified.
Ali Walsh framed the stakes in personal terms, stating, "When one system controls access, choice becomes theoretical, not real. When that happens, you fight who you're told to fight or you don't fight at all." He rejected the notion that boxing is broken, pointing out that UFC champions often seek boxing matches due to the sport's fairer pay structures, where fighters can receive up to 80% of revenue compared to under 20% in the UFC.
Saudi Investment and Geopolitical Concerns
The proposed changes are widely seen as paving the way for ventures like Zuffa Boxing, a joint enterprise backed by TKO Group and Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund. De La Hoya cast the proposal in geopolitical terms, linking it to Saudi-backed efforts to reshape sports through deep-pocketed investment. He cited the LIV Golf breakaway league as a cautionary tale, describing it as "sportswashing" and warning that similar dynamics could unfold in boxing.
Documents reviewed by media outlets reveal that some proposed agreements under the new framework would grant promoters broad control over fighters' careers, including the ability to assign opponents and restrict outside competitions. Contracts could allow promoters to count a bout as fulfilled even if a fighter withdraws due to injury without paying the full purse, and fighters leaving the unified system might forfeit rankings or title status.
Legal Precedents and Economic Implications
The debate unfolds against the backdrop of legal scrutiny in combat sports. In 2024, the UFC agreed to a $375 million settlement to resolve an antitrust lawsuit alleging wage suppression and limited competition. Critics argue the proposed boxing model mirrors key elements of the UFC system, including unilateral matchmaking control and long-term exclusive contracts, which current federal law was designed to prevent.
Senator Cruz framed the proposal as part of a broader trend toward consolidation in sports, where centralised organisation is viewed as a pathway to generate significantly more revenue. "That is the argument," Cruz said. "A crap ton more money."
Ultimately, lawmakers are weighing whether to preserve a decentralised system built on promoter competition or embrace a unified structure modelled after other major sports leagues. The outcome could dramatically reshape boxing's economic landscape, determining whether fighters retain their hard-won protections or cede ground to corporate and foreign investors.
