Boxingtalk is proud to present the following white paper analysis from industry insder Charles Muniz. With Zuffa entering the boxing business in 2026 and making a concerted effort to amend the Muhammad Ali Act amended so that it can award its own championships and rank only its own boxers, what might the near future hold for the traditional boxing power players? Read on:
Professional boxing is entering a period of structural uncertainty. The proposed Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act (H.R. 4624) -- championed by the UFC-related venture that is going to ramp up its boxing activities in 2026- introduces a new entity type— the Unified Boxing Organizations (UBO), which would combine promotion, sanctioning and ranking under one roof. Supporters present the bill as modernization aimed at improving fighter welfare through higher minimum purses, medical insurance, and pension opportunities. Opponents caution that these provisions are undefined and could effectively consolidate control of the sport in the hands of a few corporate and financial actors, namely the UFC's Zuffa Boxing.
This report examines the proposed legislation from a regulatory and organizational perspective. It identifies potential overlaps and conflicts between H.R. 4624 and the existing Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act (2000); evaluates the market-structure implications of promoter-sanctioning integration; and analyzes relevant case studies, including current antitrust and integrity investigations involving mixed-martial-arts governance. It also reviews recent developments among U.S. state commissions and international promoters to illustrate how the measure could influence global boxing operations.
This report is NOT written as advocacy. Its purpose is to provide a factual foundation for discussion among fighters, promoters, sanctioning bodies, regulators, and policymakers who share a professional interest in maintaining transparent and competitive standards within combat sports.
I. Background of the Ali Act
The Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act was enacted on May 26, 2000, amending the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996. Congress introduced it to counter conflicts of interest that had developed between promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations during the 1980s and 1990s. Its core objectives were to:
● Maintain independence between promoters and sanctioning bodies.
● Require disclosure of event revenues, contractual terms, and financial arrangements to fighters and regulators.
● Ensure transparency in ranking criteria and title eligibility.
● Empower state athletic commissions to license, oversee, and discipline industry participants.
These provisions created a firewall separating the commercial promotion of events from the regulatory functions that determine championship recognition and athlete ranking. Although enforcement has varied by jurisdiction, the Act remains the principal federal safeguard preserving competitive balance and fighter autonomy.
II. Overview of the proposed legislation, H.R. 4624 — The “Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act”
Introduced in July 2025, H.R. 4624 seeks to “modernize and revitalize” professional boxing through the creation of Unified Boxing Organizations (UBOs). The measure assigns these new entities the combined responsibilities of promotion, ranking, and sanctioning, subject to federal registration and periodic reporting.
Key Features
1. Unified Boxing Organizations (UBOs)-- Authorizes the establishment of corporate bodies empowered to stage events, issue rankings, and crown champions within a single administrative framework.
2. Minimum-Compensation and Insurance Provisions-- Sets baseline payments (e.g., $150 per round) and medical-insurance thresholds (e.g., $25,000). These amounts are symbolic compared with existing market averages and may serve more as public-relations benchmarks than as functional protections.
3. Parallel System Clause-- Permits existing sanctioning bodies (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) to operate alongside UBOs but provides no mechanism to prevent promoters from migrating entirely to the new structure.
4. Federal Pre-Emption and Oversight-- Establishes a federal registry that could limit the authority of state commissions and potentially supersede sections of the 2000 Act.
Procedural Status
As of November 2025, H.R. 4624 remains before the House Committees on Education & Workforce and Energy & Commerce. The bill has drawn support from some state regulators and industry executives while prompting concern from independent sanctioning organizations and fighter-rights groups.
Initial Assessment
The legislation’s text presents an ambitious restructuring of boxing’s governance. By integrating promotion, ranking, and sanctioning functions, it would replace the current multi-body system with a consolidated model. Whether this represents efficiency or concentration depends on how UBOs are licensed, funded, and monitored. Further analysis is required to determine how the model would affect competition, fighter representation, and international alignment.
III. How H.R. 4624 Changes Boxing’s Regulatory Architecture
1. Integration of Commercial and Regulatory Power
H.R. 4624 would dissolve the separation between commercial promotion and regulatory oversight that has defined boxing since 2000. Under the proposed UBO framework, a single corporate entity could stage events, issue rankings, and award championships. Such consolidation would eliminate the checks-and-balances system that currently exists between promoters, sanctioning bodies, and athletic commissions. The bill also introduces a narrative of “fighter welfare”—minimum purses, insurance coverage, and pension discussions—measures that are attractive to lawmakers unfamiliar with boxing economics. These provisions, however, are voluntary and undefined. They do not establish funding mechanisms or administrative oversight. The apparent humanitarian emphasis thus functions primarily as a legislative selling point rather than a binding reform. In practice, the proposed model transfers decision-making authority from independent organizations to a small group of private operators.
2. How the Proposal Is Being Marketed to Congress
Supporters of H.R. 4624 present the bill as a long-overdue modernization effort. They highlight hypothetical benefits—higher earnings for entry-level fighters, access to health insurance, and potential retirement programs—without specifying implementation details. This messaging has proved persuasive in early briefings, particularly for members of Congress who view the sport through the lens of worker protection. Because few legislators are versed in the Ali Act or its history, the proposal’s structural implications have not received rigorous scrutiny. The result is a bill that appears protective on paper yet grants unprecedented consolidation authority to the entities positioned to form the first UBOs. Stakeholders should therefore distinguish between legislative intent and operational effect when evaluating the measure.
IV. Corporate Dynamics and Emerging Fault Lines: Zuffa, Dana White, TKO Group Holdings, and Turki Al Shaikh
1. Origins of the Initiative
The current legislative push stems primarily from the alliance between Zuffa LLC, Dana White, and TKO Group Holdings (Endeavor)—the corporate structure that controls the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). This partnership seeks to adapt the UFC’s integrated business model to boxing. The 2000 Ali Act’s separation of roles has long prevented such integration; H.R. 4624 would effectively remove that barrier. When initial efforts to fund a new boxing league through private investment stalled, TKO Group turned to Saudi Arabia’s General Entertainment Authority (GEA), led by Turki Alalshikh. The GEA’s capacity to underwrite large-scale events provided the financial leverage necessary to advance the project. Because TKO Group is publicly traded, it cannot easily justify major expenditures without clear shareholder benefit. External state financing therefore allows TKO to expand while keeping its own balance sheet lean—a structure that aligns commercial ambition with foreign capital support.
2. The “Soft Entry” Strategy
Analysts describe the current stage as a “soft entry” phase: establishing credibility through co-promotions and selectively funded mega-events before launching a full-scale unified system. By positioning H.R. 4624 as reform legislation rather than market consolidation, proponents can frame the UBO concept as both patriotic and philanthropic. This strategy mirrors earlier tactics used in other entertainment sectors where public narratives of modernization preceded vertical integration.
3. International Ripple Effects — Turki’s Role and the UK Promoters
While the bill is U.S.-based, its implications are global. Matchroom Boxing, Queensberry Promotions, and Boxxer—key pillars of the UK boxing ecosystem—are currently cooperating with Turki Alalshikh on high-profile events and the proposed Ring Magazine championship platform. In the short term, their involvement provides stability and access to funding. In the long term, it positions them within a hierarchy that may eventually be centralized under the UBO framework. Boxxer, whose broadcast arrangement with Sky Sports recently ended, faces additional vulnerability as it seeks new partners. Should H.R. 4624 be enacted, any international promotion seeking U.S. broadcast distribution may need to align contractually with a UBO-recognized partner—effectively extending U.S. corporate standards abroad.
For Matchroom and Queensberry, the risk is subtler: continued reliance on Saudi financing and event hosting may erode negotiating independence once the UBO model consolidates its regulatory legitimacy in Washington. The GEA’s capital strength provides leverage that transcends geography.
4. Internal Tensions and Operational Risks
Industry reports indicate recurring disagreements between Dana White and Turki Al Shaikh regarding event control and brand presentation, most notably surrounding the Canelo Álvarez vs. Terence Crawford spectacle. Such disputes reveal competing priorities—corporate branding versus sovereign-sponsored visibility. While collaboration continues, the relationship remains transactional and potentially unstable. This instability may create short-term openings for independent promoters or sanctioning bodies to maintain relevance through selective partnerships or alternative championship models.
5. Potential Legal and Regulatory Exposure
Adopting a single-entity model raises antitrust and disclosure concerns for any publicly traded company. The 2023 UFC antitrust verdict established that Zuffa’s previous contracting practices could constitute a monopsony—a dominant buyer of fighter services that suppresses competition. Replicating that framework under new branding could invite renewed scrutiny from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, especially if foreign state funding is intertwined. Shareholders may also question fiduciary risk if federal agencies later classify the structure as anti-competitive.
V. Strategic Opportunities for Independent Stakeholders
Consolidation appears likely if H.R. 4624 advances, due in part to Dana White’s relationship with President Donald Trump and the fact the the GOP majority in the House of Representatives has abdicated its responsibility to become Trump's rubber-stamp regardless of the impact on the American public. However, traditional participants retain strategic options if they can present a unified front, which would be wise. Here is how the tradional players in the boxing industry could react:
● Sanctioning Bodies: Highlight their historical role in maintaining competitive plurality and propose joint transparency reforms to demonstrate continued relevance.
● Fighters: Engage legal counsel early to ensure new contracts retain audit and sponsorship rights equivalent to those guaranteed under the Ali Act.
● Promoters: Collaborate on cross-promotional events that reinforce market diversity before regulatory consolidation occurs.
● Regulators: Coordinate interstate and international dialogue on how to preserve jurisdictional oversight should federal pre-emption take effect.
But the transition window is narrow. Once UBOs receive formal recognition, the economic and branding momentum will favor consolidation over collaboration. Stakeholders who act collectively before that point can still influence the regulatory shape of the sport.
VI. Legal and Integrity Precedents in Combat Sports
1. Antitrust Litigation Against Zuffa LLC
In 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued a landmark ruling in the long-standing antitrust litigation against Zuffa LLC, parent company of UFC. The court found that Zuffa’s contracting practices had created a monopsony, enabling it to suppress fighter compensation and limit market entry by rival promoters. The class of affected athletes was awarded approximately $335 million in damages, with a second class action pending for subsequent years. The decision affirmed that the UFC’s business model (characterized by centralized control over athlete contracts, rankings, and broadcast distribution) constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
This legal precedent is directly relevant to H.R. 4624. The bill’s UBO model would allow the replication of the same structure for boxing that has servied Zuffa and the UFC in mixed martial arts: a single entity controlling athlete participation, ranking eligibility, and event promotion. Should Congress authorize such integration, it would effectively codify a model already adjudicated as anti-competitive.
2. Integrity Risks and the FBI Investigation
In 2025, multiple media outlets reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and federal prosecutors had launched an inquiry into allegations of fight manipulation and betting
irregularities involving at least one UFC-affiliated fighter. Although no formal charges have been filed, the investigation highlights systemic vulnerabilities in a structure where one company controls both the competitive and commercial sides of the sport.
Key issues under examination include:
● The absence of independent oversight separating matchmaking from betting markets.
● The influence of promotional contracts on fight outcomes and event scheduling.
● The lack of third-party auditing for fighter purses and discretionary bonuses.
The ongoing investigation underscores the need for clear boundaries between promotion, regulation, and wagering oversight—boundaries that the original Ali Act explicitly preserved and that H.R. 4624 would dissolve. It also raises broader reputational risks for any organization seeking to extend such a model into boxing, a sport already sensitive to perceptions of corruption and manipulation.
VII. Regulatory Oversight and Case Study: California State Athletic Commission
1. Background
The California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) is among the most influential state regulators in U.S. combat sports. Its Executive Officer, Andy Foster, has long been regarded as a leading figure in athletic regulation. Historically, Foster expressed skepticism toward any model that blurs the distinction between promoters and sanctioning bodies, emphasizing that transparency and separation of functions are essential for public confidence. In mid-2025, however, Foster publicly endorsed H.R. 4624, citing its potential to improve baseline compensation and health benefits for fighters. The CSAC subsequently issued a unanimous vote of support without conducting formal public hearings or releasing an independent economic-impact report. Such endorsement by Mr. Foster should be viewed with skepticism given his sudden reversal behind closed doors.
2. The Reversal
The sudden reversal surprised many within the industry. Internal commission documents referenced expected economic benefits for California through an increase in event activity, yet
provided limited data to substantiate those projections. Industry observers noted that major corporate stakeholders and event promoters maintain significant operations within the state,
creating potential economic and political pressure to align with the emerging federal narrative of “modernization.” Foster’s change of stance illustrates the concept of regulatory capture—a process whereby agencies or officials tasked with oversight begin to adopt the priorities of the industries they regulate. While there is no evidence of misconduct, the optics of alignment without transparency have raised questions about the CSAC's philosophical independence.
3. Governance Implications
If state commissions follow California’s example, the system of decentralized regulation envisioned by the Ali Act may erode quickly. Consolidation of authority under a federally recognized UBO would leave state bodies with limited jurisdiction beyond licensing and medical safety. Such a shift could diminish local accountability while increasing the influence of federally recognized private organizations. For fighters and promoters operating under current state systems, this represents a fundamental change in oversight—from locally accountable commissions to federally registered corporate entities. The implications for contract enforcement, arbitration, and appeal rights are significant and warrant comprehensive review before any enactment of H.R. 4624.
VIII. Oversight and Transparency Recommendations
To preserve confidence and integrity across professional boxing and related sports, the following principles should guide any structural reform:
1. Independent Ranking and Sanctioning Panels Rankings and championship determinations should remain separate from commercial promoters to avoid conflicts of interest.
2. Mandatory Disclosure of Financial and Ownership Interests Any entity seeking UBO recognition should be required to disclose ownership stakes, including foreign investors and state-affiliated partners, to relevant U.S. oversight agencies.
3. Integrity and Betting Safeguards Establish a national integrity unit or contract an independent agency to monitor betting patterns, fight outcomes, and contractual incentives that could affect competitive fairness.
4. Public Consultation and Economic Impact Review Require that state commissions hold public hearings and release economic analyses before endorsing any legislation that changes the governance structure of combat sports.
5. These measures would not preclude reform but would ensure that modernization proceeds transparently and with the participation of all affected parties.
IX. Strategic Outlook for Sanctioning Bodies and Promoters
1. Coordinated Industry Response
The proposed UBO structure under H.R. 4624 would shift the balance of power in professional boxing toward a small coalition of corporate and financial entities. Sanctioning bodies and promoters currently operate under a pluralistic model, which allows competition, regional autonomy, and independent brand development. If UBOs are formalized, this pluralism will
diminish.
The four major sanctioning organizations—WBA, WBC, IBF, and WBO—should prioritize immediate dialogue to develop a joint transparency charter reaffirming their shared governance principles. This collective initiative would demonstrate a proactive commitment to modernization while maintaining institutional independence. The same cooperative approach applies to promoters, who may otherwise find themselves negotiating under uniform UBO terms rather than competitive market conditions.
2. International Considerations
For global promoters such as Matchroom, Queensberry, and Boxxer, short-term opportunities under Saudi-backed financing may obscure longer-term risks. Once a U.S.-based UBO framework gains legitimacy, similar integration pressures are likely to extend internationally. The more dependent promoters become on centralized financing, the less leverage they retain in negotiations concerning titles, scheduling, and distribution. Maintaining international diversity in sanctioning and event management helps preserve the sport’s cultural and competitive identity. Coordination among U.S. and UK stakeholders may prove essential to ensuring that any modernization of boxing’s business model respects the independence of existing governing institutions.
3. Regulatory and Investor Relations
For TKO Group Holdings and associated partners, the success of any new structure depends on regulatory perception. Publicly traded companies face fiduciary duties and disclosure obligations
that differ from those of private promoters. If the UBO model proceeds without clear separation between commercial and regulatory functions, investor and regulator scrutiny will likely
intensify. Long-term stability requires transparent governance frameworks that withstand legal, ethical, and antitrust examination.
X. A Final Advisory for Stakeholders
1. The Narrow Window for Collective Action
The professional boxing community has a limited timeframe to evaluate and respond to H.R. 4624 before it advances through committee review. Once codified, any subsequent attempt to restore the current multi-body framework would face significant legal and financial barriers. The transition to a UBO-based structure would effectively centralize control of rankings,
championships, and media rights, leaving existing entities with symbolic roles. Sanctioning bodies, promoters, and fighters should therefore treat the legislative process not as a
distant policy discussion but as an imminent operational decision. Whether they support or oppose the concept, proactive participation in hearings, position papers, and collaborative reform
proposals is essential.
2. Institutional Continuity and Reputation
The integrity of professional boxing depends on transparent governance. Even incremental changes to regulatory architecture must be evaluated for unintended consequences. Public
confidence—among fans, athletes, and sponsors—rests on the belief that athletic results and championship designations are determined in fair competition, free from undue influence, which
has created this opening for Zuffa/TKO and the UBO. Industry leaders who engage constructively and transparently in this process will shape not only the legislative outcome but also the future credibility of the sport.
XI. Conclusion
The Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 established a system designed to protect athletes from exploitative conflicts of interest and to ensure fair competition. The proposed Muhammad
Ali American Boxing Revival Act (H.R. 4624) seeks to replace that system with a unified, federally recognized structure that merges promotion, sanctioning, and ranking. Whether viewed as reform or consolidation, the measure represents a fundamental redefinition of how professional boxing is governed. The stakes are not limited to business efficiency; they concern the sport’s independence, its regulatory integrity, and its international reputation. For fighters, promoters, and sanctioning organizations, the responsibility is shared: evaluate the implications, contribute constructively to the dialogue, and preserve the balance between innovation and integrity that has defined the sport for over a century.
At the same time, discussions among sanctioning bodies and major promoters appear limited or fragmented. Without a coordinated response and active engagement in the legislative process, industry stakeholders risk allowing the amendment of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act to proceed by default. If enacted without meaningful input from those directly affected, the resulting changes could alter long-standing athlete-protection mechanisms and reshape the competitive structure of professional boxing.
But the window to voice concerns to this proposed amendment to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act is narrow indeed. Following recent election results, some Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives who hold seats in competitive districts face heightened electoral pressure heading into 2026. Analysts note that these members may seek to demonstrate greater independence from President Donald Trump or the party’s national leadership as they adjust their political positioning for re-election.
About This White Paper
Title: Independent Regulatory and Structural Review of the Proposed “Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act” (H.R. 4624)
Prepared by: Charles Muniz
Date of Publication: November 17, 2025
This White Paper was developed as an independent review of H.R. 4624 and its potential regulatory, legal, and structural impact on professional boxing. It consolidates legislative material, judicial precedents, and industry developments to present a factual overview for use by fighters, promoters, sanctioning bodies, regulators, and journalists. The report does not advocate a policy position. Its purpose is to provide a clear, organized framework for evaluating how proposed reforms may alter the relationships among athletes, governing bodies, and commercial stakeholders.
If you would like to share your views on this White Paper, send email: boxingratings@yahoo.com -- we’d like to hear your thoughts.
