This is boxing’s fight of the year and it’s not even in the ring

Forget Tyson Fury vs Anthony Joshua for a moment. Forget Floyd Mayweather vs Manny Pacquiao 2 (we know you want to, anyway). Naoya Inoue vs Junto Nakatani is a salivating contest this week… but put that aside for now, too. Boxing’s biggest fight of the year is already under way, and it is not being waged in the ring; it’s being waged in the US Senate.

It concerns the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, a new bill that was passed by the House of Representatives in March, and which was discussed last week in a hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The bill, named after arguably the greatest boxer ever to have lived, is intended to alter federal regulations around the sport.

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 which 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 has the latter proven so controversial?

As is often the case in sport and the wider world, it comes down to money, and whether boxers’ earning opportunities would improve or suffer in a brave new world.

The Revival Act seeks to allow the creation of Unified Boxing Organisations (UBOs), which would serve as alternatives to boxing’s current sanctioning bodies (for example, the WBC, WBA, IBF), but there is concern that UBOs could dwarf them completely; and under this new proposal, a UBO could act as both promoter and governing body, giving a single entity sway over rankings and matchmaking – perhaps reducing meritocracy. One UBO would be Zuffa Boxing, which launched in January and is overseen by UFC president Dana White and Saudi adviser Alalshikh.

To simplify last week’s proceedings somewhat: in one corner you had Nick Khan, a board member at TKO, the UFC’s ownership group, which has now crossed into boxing by helming Zuffa; in the other you had boxing legend-turned-promoter Oscar De La Hoya, along with Ali’s grandson Nico Ali Walsh.

Ali Walsh’s argument was that “when one system controls access, choice becomes theoretical, not real.” He suggested “boxing is not broken” and that “if it were, UFC champions […] would not be actively targeting boxing fights because of the fair pay.” Indeed, the UFC has been criticised over fighter pay before, and the UFC last year settled an antitrust lawsuit, which claimed the mixed martial arts promotion suppressed fighters’ ability to negotiate; it was suggested that the UFC had essentially forged a monopoly.

It should be said that this lawsuit pertained to years before TKO acquired the UFC. And for his part, Khan said last week: “If you want a chance to be something bigger over a shorter period of time on a platform, we were able to secure a deal with Paramount, a platform that has almost 80m subscribers worldwide and has a network partner in CBS. If you want that exposure, if you want trading-card deals, if you want merchandise deals, if you want video-game deals – of which the fighters would all participate financially… If you want all of that, plus some more, come this way. If you don’t, that’s your choice.”

De La Hoya argued: “This is a fundamental shift in power that […] would put corporate profits first, fighters second […] Fighters deserve real protection ‌and real ⁠opportunity, not to have to fight the system as well. If this bill passes, fighters will have fewer choices, less leverage, and less control over their careers. And when that happens, it will not be the sport that failed them; it will be us.”

De La Hoya’s heart may well be in the right place. The American, now 53, was one half of numerous big-time bouts in Las Vegas during his prime, including against Mayweather and Pacquiao, and when you hear him speak, it does seem that he truly loves boxing like few do.

But speaking of hearts: the issue at the heart of this hearing, and in conversations around the Revival Act itself, is one of transparency.

Indeed, it was just three months ago that De La Hoya’s Golden Boy Promotions were sued by one of his fighters, Vergil Ortiz Jr, who alleged that the promoter had breached contract and interfered with his earning potential – namely preventing him from a much-craved fight with Jaron “Boots” Ennis.

Ortiz signed a new three-year deal with Golden Boy in May 2024, but – per The Guardian – the contract allowed the 28-year-old to leave the company if its broadcast deal with Dazn ended. That partnership ended in December, but Golden Boy argued that Ortiz’s place on its roster was secure due to the promotion’s ongoing discussions with Dazn over a renewal (which was confirmed in March). Ortiz’s counter was that a pending deal with Dazn was not a completed one, and not enough to keep him tied to Golden Boy. At the time of writing, though, he is a Golden Boy fighter as the lawsuit rumbles on.

This is not the first time that De La Hoya has been sued by one of his fighters, either; arguably the biggest star he has ever promoted, Canelo Alvarez, did the same in 2020.

So, De La Hoya has found himself as a kind of figurehead speaking against the Revival Act, arguing for transparency. His criticisms might be fair, and he might be speaking sincerely, but when it comes to transparency, his own allegedly-complicated track record might cost him in this particular bout.