More than a dozen insiders in boxing — from promoters to fighters, coaches, and experts across the business in logistics, broadcast and law — are divided over a fast-moving piece of federal legislation that could reshape the sport in the U.S.
Some told Uncrowned it’s a long-overdue modernization that boosts fighter welfare and injects fresh capital into a stagnating market. Most, though, warn it’s a Trojan horse for monopoly power, designed to strip away the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act’s core protections while concentrating control in the hands of a single promoter.
Advertisement
That promoter is likely TKO Group Holdings, parent company of the UFC, which supports a bill co-sponsored by the U.S. Representatives Brian Jack (R-GA) and Sharice Davids (D-KS), a former MMA fighter. They’ve pitched the Muhammad Ali American Revival Act as a way to give boxers “more opportunities, better pay, and greater safety standards.”
A UFC spokesperson told ESPN in July that it’s a “thoughtful solution” that offers “more choices and opportunities, greater health and safety protections, and better pay for up-and-coming fighters.” On a later investor call, TKO executives insisted the Ali Act remains intact — but said the bill introduces a new category alongside the existing sanctioning bodies: The Unified Boxing Organization, or UBO.
A UBO would run its own rankings, crown its own champions, and stage its own events — a self-contained circuit that could, in theory, sit alongside the WBA, WBC, WBO and IBF.
All sources that Uncrowned spoke to received anonymity to speak freely.
Advertisement
“This is a power grab,” one industry insider said.
TKO and UFC executives have stressed that they’re not changing the wording of the Ali Act, but instead amending the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996. Critics say that distinction is exactly the point. By existing under a prospective “UBO” category, a promoter could run a fully sanctioned boxing league without having to comply with the Ali Act’s rules — no requirement to disclose fight purses, ticket sales or broadcast revenue to athletes, and no firewall between promoter, sanctioning body and rankings.
“UBO basically means they just get to be the UFC in boxing without having to abide by the Ali Act disclosures,” one source said.
Advertisement
Another warned: “If they don’t have to comply [with the Ali Act], then it’s an unfair advantage over every other promoter.”
Not everyone sees the bill as a threat to sport, though.
Andy Foster, executive officer of the California State Athletic Commission — one of the most influential regulators in the U.S. — told “The Ariel Helwani Show” last week that he believes a well-financed company with broadcast muscle entering boxing lifts the sport, rather than buries others operating within it.
“Any time you get a big corporation that is well-financed, and has good broadcast deals — that’s good for fighters,” Foster said. “I expect a broadcast deal, for it to be televised, and I expect it will be good for American boxers. It will make stars out of people we normally wouldn’t have seen.”
Advertisement
Foster pointed to the UFC’s track record in MMA as proof of what sustained investment and promotion can do for athlete visibility.
“Go back to 2004 or 2005, ‘The Ultimate Fighter’ with Forrest Griffin and Stephan Bonnar. Go back then and see how it has progressed. If it can do 5% of that, boxing will be benefitted.”
One area in which UFC progressed MMA beyond boxing is the construction of its Performance Institutes. This reporter toured the Las Vegas facility multiple times, which is open to any athlete from any sport. Uncrowned has seen boxers there, WNBA stars and football players. While other sportspeople have to pay for its use, anyone on the UFC roster gets rehabilitation, strength and conditioning, and their nutrition taken care of for free. The UFC is in the red $7 million every year for keeping the facility running, one P.I. exec said. There is nothing like this in boxing. Any boxer who joins TKO’s venture would be privy to that facility and the state-of-the-art departments within it. It is a significant benefit to an up-and-coming fighter who is perhaps overlooked in, or discarded from, the current system.
Foster continued by avoiding weighing in on the business-side changes or Ali Act exemptions, and strongly supports the bill’s welfare provisions, especially for lower-paid boxers.
California’s Andy Foster is one of the most influential officials in combat sports.
(Victor Decolongon via Getty Images)
“Ali Act is decided by seven-figure boxers,” he said. “This bill sets a national minimum, insurance requirements, medical requirements. In my view, these are good things that will help low-income boxers.”
Advertisement
California already has the highest minimum in the country — $200 a round — a standard Foster says works fine. The proposed $600 minimum for a four-round fight is, in his view, “more than reasonable,” and wouldn’t put regional promoters out of business.
“If people should be making $150 a round, or more, and have insurance … this should happen,” Foster finished.
Other industry voices echo that optimism.
One Uncrowned source said the bill could push the sport toward higher standards, even if it forces smaller players to adapt, or bow out entirely. “This law will put pressure to raise the standards, but it will be hard for a small promoter to keep a guy who can get better money, services, and insurance elsewhere,” they said. “Fighters deserve that. They deserve more than $150 a round, really.”
Advertisement
This source cited what they saw as parallels to how UFC built its ecosystem in MMA.
“They didn’t get rid of low-level promoters — they co-opted them and fed them talent. If they’re successful, they may be making opportunities for others. UFC spawned PFL — it may spawn others.”
But for most of the insiders Uncrowned spoke to, the risks far outweigh the potential gains.
One promoter was blunt about boxing’s fragile state: “It would be crazy to not set up boxing so you could do that,” they said. “The sport is on life support right now.”
Their biggest worry is the disappearing television deals. The sport is yet to replace the absence of premium broadcasters HBO, Showtime Sports, and most recently, ESPN. This has led the sport to a near-wasteland, if it weren’t for DAZN. Top Rank is scrambling for a partner. Premier Boxing Champions is reduced to a half-dozen shows a year on Prime Video, despite a significant roster.
Advertisement
Without television, this source said, no promoter can sustain a UFC-style system.
“I don’t see how the sport is sustainable without TV,” that source said, adding that disappearing broadcast revenue across the board is a far greater problem for boxing than whatever TKO has planned.
And even if a company like TKO secures a lucrative broadcast deal, smaller promoters already feel squeezed out by the cost of staging shows. “Buying slots on other promoters’ cards is cheaper than running your own card,” this source said. “It’s a huge problem.”
If they don’t have to comply [with the Ali Act], then it’s an unfair advantage over every other promoter.
Others frame the bill’s supposed welfare improvements as a marketing sleight-of-hand. A veteran boxing coach dismissed the minimum pay and insurance provisions as window dressing: “Every fight you do already has insurance,” this source said. “Are you putting lipstick on a pig? It’s still a pig!”
Advertisement
A boxing manager Uncrowned spoke to was unimpressed by the proposed floor of $150 per round because, as they said, “$150 is low. We can make more money than that in a four-round fight [for our lower-level fighters].”
One millionaire boxer, who has yet to take part in a title fight, told Uncrowned their own experience under their current promoters has been exemplary. “My promoter has paid me very well,” they said. “I’d have no intention to leave for the payment scale TKO is suggesting.”
For others, the issue is less about pay and more about power.
A legal expert said the bill’s creation of Unified Boxing Organizations would remove the single biggest check on a promoter’s influence — the Ali Act’s transparency requirements.
Advertisement
The same source flagged an even deeper concern — that a UBO could merge the role of promoter and sanctioning body: “Who decides who fights who [in this scenario]?”
They said the bill is “tailored to let the UFC do to boxing what it does in MMA — without obeying the Ali Act.” They then questioned whether this would help the U.S. market at all, particularly if fighters progressed through a TKO league, only for finals to end up on Riyadh Season, far away from the States.
“How does this help American boxing? How does it revive the American market?”
That sentiment — that this is more about control than reform — came up repeatedly in Uncrowned’s conversations. One boardroom executive said flatly that legislative changes only serve to “benefit the people who have put the changes in, obviously, for their own benefit.”
Advertisement
They questioned why a UBO would be exempt from disclosing revenues to fighters: “Why? That’s why that model, that business, is so much more successful than boxing — because 80% or more of the revenue isn’t going out the window from the get-go.”
They predicted the UFC’s “take-it-or-leave-it” negotiating style will come with it into boxing. “If you don’t like it, then don’t fight.”
That, they said, is a fundamental shift from how boxing contracts currently work: “In our contracts, minimums are just where you start. No one actually fights for the minimum.”
Another industry veteran called the bill “a problem in search of a problem,” adding: “I fail to see anything good about it. Even the four-rounders [with major promoters] are getting $6,000–$10,000 … so $150 a round is an embarrassment.”
Chairman of Matchroom Boxing Eddie Hearn and Queensberry headman Frank Warren are two of boxing’s most successful promoters.
(Richard Pelham via Getty Images)
This source said that removing the firewall between promoters, rankings, and managers would allow promoters to control who gets title shots, and who doesn’t. When it’s “completely within the promoters’ control” it becomes “an illusory process,” they said.
Advertisement
In this source’s view, fighters would be giving up their only protections in exchange for scraps at the table. “Trading [existing] protections for $150 a round and $25,000 of insurance doesn’t make sense.”
And if the structure mirrors UFC’s in MMA, they warned, boxing will be “UFC-ified” within five years, and lead to “all-consuming control of a fighter’s career by the promoter.”
From the legal side, the most troubling detail for multiple sources is that a UBO could bypass key provisions in the Muhammad Ali Act.
Under the Ali Act, promoters must disclose to fighters “the amounts of any compensation, all fees and charges,” as well as purse and gate figures.
Advertisement
To qualify that point, Uncrowned has heard from key decision-makers time and again at numerous marquee Las Vegas events, from Saul “Canelo” Alvarez’s shows, to Errol Spence vs. Terence Crawford and heavyweight spectacles, that even a media budget — from hiring a room for press conferences and other activations throughout the week, to food and beverages — are signed off by the headlining fighters. Those athletes have complete oversight and awareness of what all costs are related to their events, and where every dollar goes.
That requirement — found in Section 13 of the Ali Act — would not apply to a UBO.
The same expert pointed to Section 11, which grants fighters the right to appeal rankings decisions. UBOs, he said, would not have to honor that. “The promoter also being the sanctioning body — [this is the] biggest problem people have” because there are appeals processes in the Ali Act, but “a UBO is not going to have to do that.”
Without those protections, this source warned, rankings could be manipulated to lock fighters into long-term deals, with those same fighters being told by an UBO: “Look, you’re getting paid what it says [and] not a penny more.”
Trading [existing] protections for $150 a round and $25,000 of insurance doesn’t make sense.
This source argued that fighter pay minimums under the bill are meaningless in practice: “$25,000 medical [is a] modest improvement, at best; $150 a round [is] inconsequential. You can’t even get opponents for that.”
Advertisement
And the business model, this source suggested, is designed to dominate the top of the sport. “Antitrust is when you control all top fighters and the title — that’s monopoly.”
The endgame, the source said, is for a TV deal paid by boxing financier Turki Alalshikh, a key partner for TKO in boxing, for which TKO get a flat fee. The same source predicted that if the bill passes, other promoters might rush to form their own UBOs — flooding the sport with new titles and further diluting championships. “What’s to stop every other promoter from forming one? Twenty UBO belts is even crazier [than the situation we have right now].”
And even if the first UBO is built in the U.S., he said, the real business plan may lie overseas. It is contrary to a revival of American boxing if the biggest bouts from this prospective venture heads to Riyadh, the source said.
For this source, and for many of the bill’s critics that Uncrowned spoke to, the bottom line is simple: “Anyone on the business side who is for this is either delusional, ignorant … or getting something,” one source said.
Advertisement
Whether the Muhammad Ali American Revival Act becomes law may depend less on the boxing industry’s divided opinion than on the political and financial momentum behind it.
TKO Group Holdings has the resources, relationships and lobbying muscle to push the bill through Congress, and multiple sources told Uncrowned they doubt there’s enough organized opposition to stop it.
“No way this bill won’t pass without major uproar,” one source said, “and not enough people care,” they finished.
If passed, the legislation could open the door to a new kind of promotional monopoly in boxing — one that mirrors the UFC’s model in MMA, where a single company controls matchmaking, titles, rankings and broadcast rights. To some, that’s a nightmare scenario that undermines decades of hard-fought protections for fighters. To others, it’s a chance to inject stability, marketing muscle and mainstream visibility into a fragmented sport struggling to connect with casual fans.
Advertisement
The split in opinion reflects a deeper truth about boxing in 2025 — this is a sport that is independent but vulnerable. Its best nights still generate global attention and life-changing purses. But those nights are few and far between as the business is too fractured, and the financial stakes make it an irresistible target for corporate consolidation.
Whether the bill ushers in a new era of opportunity or accelerates the sport’s decline will depend on how — and by whom — the first Unified Boxing Organization is built. If history is any guide, the fighters who step through the ropes will feel the consequences long before the rest of us do.
Read the full article here