EXECUTIVE director Andy Foster has attempted to justify the California State Athletic Commission’s vote in favour of the proposed Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act.
The initial 1996 Professional Boxing Safety Act, which later became the 2000 Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, is a piece of US legislation designed to ensure greater protection of fighters.
In short, the bill requires full transparency from promoters and sanctioning bodies, meaning that fighters are given the freedom to see how their purses measure up against the money that is generated from an event.
Not only that, but it also prevents promoters from acting as managers – even though Al Haymon has effectively been doing that for years – which, in turn, makes it harder for a person or organisation to rule over the sport with an iron fist.
Boxing powerbrokers Dana White and Turki Alalshikh, however, are hoping to dilute that degree of protection by backing the Ali Revival Act.
The bill was proposed by Congress representatives Brian Jack and Sharice Davids in July, and since then, it has earned the unanimous support of Foster’s California Commission (CSAC).
As a result, the CSAC has endorsed the creation of Unified Boxing Organisations (UBOs), which would effectively allow White to accelerate the establishment of his Zuffa Boxing (TKO Group) promotion.
At the same time, though, many have suggested that the UFC president’s pay scale in mixed martial arts – a sport he has successfully monopolised – pales in comparison to what it should be in boxing.
In response to such claims, CSAC chief Foster said in an interview with Ariel Helwani: “The idea that boxers are now making a lot more [money] than MMA fighters, or UFC fighters in particular, is false. That is a fairy tale. It’s a fable. It’s not true. I’ve got the numbers.”
While that point might be true, at least on a surface level, the purses of MMA fighters are unlikely to stack up particularly favourably against the total revenue of a UFC show.
Either way, the CSAC’s 6-0 vote in favour of the Ali Revival Act last week has not exactly been warmly received, especially not as far as the Association of Professional Boxing Commissions is concerned.
According to the APBC, there was a ‘clear consensus’ by member commissions, who recently discussed the matter, to disagree with the CSAC and ‘vehemently object’ to the Ali Revival Act.
APBC president Albert Low said: “The original Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the later Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 were specifically written to prevent organisations like the TKO Group from having absolute control, to ensure boxers are protected from the very conflicts of interests the latest TKO amendment risks bringing back.
“The Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act made it illegal for a promoter to act as a manager and required full financial transparency from promoters and sanctioning bodies.
“It was designed to keep the business side of boxing honest, or at least transparent, and to give fighters the information and freedom to make the best decisions for their careers.
“This so-called Revival Act, however, is a disgrace as it will open the door for self-serving ‘Unified Boxing Organisations’ to operate outside the current sanctioning framework, effectively allowing one corporation, in this case TKO Group, to both regulate and promote under its own banner.”
The next step in this process should be a hearing in the US House of Representatives, though a date for that is yet to be determined.
