Boxing Notes: House Advances Sweeping Boxing Bill

On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 4624, the Muhammad Ali American Boxer Revival Act, sending the bill to the Senate. The bill creates and enhances safety protocols while stripping away the financial protections provided by the Professional Boxing Safety Act. The bill is polarizing. Advocates, like Zuffa Boxing, which has lobbied hard for the legislation, say it creates more choice for boxers. Critics, which is effectively everyone else, call it a bill specifically designed to help Zuffa build a UFC-like monopoly.

On Tuesday, shortly after the bill passed the House in a voice vote, Congressman Brian Jack (R-Ga.) sat down with Sports Illustrated to discuss the legislation.

(Interview has been lightly edited for clarity)

Sports Illustrated: Who is this vote a win for?

Brian Jack: Well, first and foremost, it's a win for the House of Representatives because we made history today. This is the first boxing legislation to pass the House in over a quarter-century. It's the third boxing bill to ever pass the House in Congress's storied history. First two, of course, were Professional Boxing Safety Act in 1996. Second was Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act that passed the House in '99 but was enacted in 2000, both of which of course became law. So I would say this is a win for the House of Representatives.

And it's a win for bipartisanship. We had a very broad range of support, a very broad range of members really across the ideological spectrum spoke in favor and in support of my legislation today. Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, members of the Congressional Freedom Caucus all came together to support this, so I think those are two wins.

As it relates to the broader industry, we generated a coalition that spoke out in full force in favor of this legislation. We had Lonnie Ali, Muhammad Ali's (widow), Mike Tyson, Association of Boxing Commissions, medical experts. We had both America's largest arena operators from Madison Square Garden Courts, MGM Resorts International, to State Farm Arena, my hometown of Atlanta, to one of America's largest labor unions, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Both of those sets of individuals and groups benefit from its passing because it's going to bring more boxing fights and bring more entertainment for fans, more ticket revenue for folks, and more jobs.

And frankly, and I'll lastly say, for people that want to participate in this sport and they want to participate in the UBOs (Unified Boxing Organizations) that the House bill provides for the creation of, it's exciting, and my hope is that a lot of people will want to enter this sport and contribute to it.

SI: You introduced this bill last summer. There have been some changes. Where are the most significant?

BJ: I just want to walk you through what was passed today. The first section creates a regulatory framework for UBOs. It is very specific as to how strong the anti-doping provisions are, anti-gambling protections. It provides the guidance and the framework needed, and that's the first section. And just to be clear, UBOs are going to exist in addition to and independent of the sanctioning organizations. They are not going to replace the current sanctioning organization, so we're excited to see that innovation flourish.

And then in the second section of MABRA as I call it, the bill that passed today, you've got four main protocols, some of which were adjusted throughout the amendment process. We strengthened safety protocols for all professional boxers by clarifying which medical examinations are necessary for a physician to clear a boxer for a fight. This expounds upon what current law is, so it helps clarify what a physician needs to do to clear a boxer for a fight, which I think will help boxers all around. Secondly, it specifies $50,000 as the minimum health coverage for boxers injured in a fight. So that, again, is something that expands upon what current law is, but adds that specificity that many in the industry were clamoring for.

This establishes a minimum payment per round of $200 across the board for any professional fight. That was raised through the process. It started off as $150 when you and I spoke last July. It's $200 as passed today. And then this was in addition as well, but this directs sanctioning organizations and UBOs, so both, to award only one championship title for each weight class and allows interim titles on a limited basis.

SI: I watched the floor speeches. Several of your colleagues who voted for it said they hoped that it will be improved on when it reaches the Senate. Do you believe this bill still needs improvement?

BJ: I voted for the bill today as written, and I'm very proud of the legislation we've produced, and it's now up to the Senate and my colleagues in the Senate to consider, and it's their constitutional ability to consider it. So we'll see what they do, but I'm very comfortable and happy with what was passed in the House today, and very confident that this bill will be signed into law this year.

SI: I want to just drill down on a couple of the concerns that were expressed during those floor speeches. The issue of financial disclosure, this is something that comes up in a lot of conversations with boxing promoters. The current system requires financial disclosure on all the revenue from the event. This bill effectively would allow a UBO to not disclose that information. Why do you believe that's acceptable? Why do you think that is alright to have that not part of this process?

BJ: Well, first and foremost, just to be clear, if a fighter wants to participate in the sanctioning organization's model, they have that option to do so. With UBOs, we want to be very prescriptive about how the health and safety protocols function within it. We want to be very prescriptive about anti-doping and positive integrity, but if UBOs want to disclose, then they've got that opportunity to do so within the current framework. If they don't want to disclose, that's something that they can consider.

But ultimately, my hope is you're going to see many UBOs thrive in this and whatever business model works best is what's going to flourish, and I think that's why it's helpful to also have that avenue for fighters to go through the sanctioning organization's model if that's something they want as well.

Not to push back on the notion of detractors, because there certainly are people that understandably are going to have opinions on this, but to have the range of support we generated on the House floor today I think is reflective of just how broadly supportive people are of the notion of allowing UBOs to function, the existing sanction organization's models to function, and to let fighters choose which one works best for them, and let's see what the free market produces thereafter.

SI: The medical improvements are certainly positives. I wonder what the reluctance is to insert language that requires financial disclosure? Mostly because I understand why a UBO would not want to disclose. I understand why any boxing promoter would not want to disclose. This was a problem that led to, in part, the creation of the act in 1996. To protect fighters. Why the reluctance to not insist that all UBOs or anyone involved in this has to disclose the financials?

BJ: Well, I wouldn't say there was necessarily reluctance. I would just say that from our perspective, let's create a framework that protects boxers, protects their safety, protects their health, offers them greater compensation than what they're currently receiving in the system as is, and let's see what happens. Let's see what innovation comes from it. I think that's generally our intent is to provide the broadest framework possible to allow innovation to flourish, and that's the thrust of it.

And as I said and as I mentioned, to earn the support of people from as far left as the Congressional Progressive Caucus and as far right as the House Freedom Caucus, I think demonstrates that really, across the ideological spectrum, people were very happy with what we fashioned today and passed today.

SI: TKO, which is certainly an advocate for this, has built a very successful business with UFC. If it's not a monopoly, it has the largest market share of anybody out there. Zuffa is transparent that it wants to build a business like UFC built. Do you think that is a good thing for boxing?

BJ: I think the more people that participate in boxing, the better, and I'd like to see, as I said from the outset, multiple UBOs flourish within this system. And if they want to adopt different business practices, that's their prerogative. If each UBO could do whatever they so choose, as long as they adhere to the legislation that we passed today and now being considered in the Senate. But from my perspective, and that's an argument that I would gladly entertain with anybody that suggests this doesn't allow for competition, because this is the exact opposite. This allows for tons of competition, and I want to see multiple UBOs enter the space, and I think it's good.

Ultimately, the thrust of it, really to answer your question from the outset, boxers are going to benefit from today because you're going to have more options. It's not law yet, so I would say the House as an institution benefits from this legislative process, but if this is enacted, this will provide boxers more choice and opportunities they don't currently have today in the current system.

SI: You said you want many UBOs to come up from this. Is that even possible? The creation of a UBO requires some very specific things that really only TKO and Zuffa have, like a training center. Isn't this effectively only able to be accomplished by one entity?

BJ: Well, and I want to be clear with respect to the training center. You read the text, it specifically says the boxer has access to equipment of facilities that are operated by the UBO for training and rehabilitation. We want to provide a broad framework that incentivize the creation of UBOs, but we're not going to get that specific as to, to answer your question directly, what the training center would specifically have.

But no, I see no reason why you can't have many, many UBOs thrive after this legislation has passed. We'll take MMA, some of UFC's competitors, you've got PFL, you've got a bunch of promotions in different countries that are strong competitors to UFC, and I think it's constructive to have a free market approach. The more people that participate, the better options will come for boxers and for fans alike. I truly believe this will revitalize the sport once passed.

SI: The other issue is coercive contracts. This is something that comes up a lot, the type of long term contracts that UBOs are allowed to sign fighters to. Why are you comfortable with that when so many other people in boxing seem to be very uncomfortable with it?

BJ: Well, first and foremost, a boxer can elect to go the UBO model or not, so it's not forcing a boxer into that. They basically have a fork in the road. They can go to UBOs or they can go to sanctioning organizations. It's their choice. But first and foremost, less than six years, that seems to be a broader sports and industry standard. They've got to have a fight once every six months, and if they don't have that fight, it's forcing UBOs to schedule a fight once every six months, and the boxer is paid, as you can read through the text, not less than 10 times the minimum payment for a boxer for one round. So boxers are going to be compensated if they're not fighting every six months, and they're also given a window within which they can start to negotiate with other promoters at the end of their contract.

So I think we're very comfortable with the contract provisions that are in the first section of this bill, and again, just want to go back to the fact that despite the conversations at the outset and some of the noise on the outside, you had overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle, and I think that's largely reflective of where the American people are.

SI: I get that there was broad support. But it comes back to the original point that I made after listening to these floor speeches, at least three that I heard said they hope that the Senate changes some of this and specifically pointed out the issue of coercive contracts. And if a 20-year-old kid signing a contract maybe doesn't have the sophistication to understand what he's necessarily getting into, should that not be taken into account?

BJ: Well, again, I think that question, which I respect, comes back to the thrust of this, which is if you're comfortable with the current system and you want to operate within the current system, you have that ability to do so. If you opt to go the UBO model, we've provided guidelines and a framework for it. UBOs can opt to do whatever, as long as they meet the requirements that we just laid out in the House, they can opt to structure their business model however best they can.

So we've provided those limitations. Contracts can't exist longer than six years, they've got to have a fight at least once every six months, so we've laid out those kind of baseline thresholds, and I'm hopeful that UBOs create a business model that honors what the federal law is, but adopts to where the market and the industry is.

But I just want to get back to the notion and dispel the concept, because I do think some of the detractors suggest that this is foisted upon every boxer entering the sport. You've got an opportunity to elect to go to UBOs or sanctioning organizations. Why not give boxers that choice?

SI: On the impact on small promoters, some have contacted me in the last couple of months describing their trepidation for this law. Do you see this as being the kind of existential threat to small promoters that frankly they do right now? They believe that this is potentially an extinction level event for them.

BJ: Just to be clear, and it's really important to understand the difference in the two sections. The UBO section is very prescriptive about the nature of how, for instance, your point on anti-doping will function within UBOs. For the broader changes to the Professional Boxing Safety Act of '96, we definitely get into, we'll talk minimum medical requirements, ensuring that a physician checks quite a few boxes before they clear a boxer for competition. I welcome that debate with anyone because I think it helps benefit the safety of boxers to ensure that there is effectively a checklist that physicians have to go through to make sure they're able to fight.

With respect to insurance and minimum payment per round, I think $200 as a minimum payment per round, it's at present, the highest in the nation, along with California, and that's exciting. Boxers are going to have an opportunity now to know at least what the minimum threshold is for them to earn revenue in any fight they participate within.

I think it gets back to the thrust of this is this doesn't change how small promoters operate and function, other than a couple more safety protocols and some minimum payments. This gives everybody a chance to produce a fight or to elect and opt to go into the UBO model, which is very prescriptive as to how you sign up and how you can register as a UBO. But at the core, we have an opportunity to let people exist in the current system or choose a new system, and I just get back to thinking competition is helpful and will inspire a lot more options for fighters in the sport.

SI: Yes, and to be clear, I've heard no pushback from these small promoters on the payment per round or on the insurance. Many of them have told me they exceed that anyway in their traditional coverage. It's the advanced testing that is to them a threat. They operate on such small margins.

BJ: But we're looking at heart exams, brain health exams. That was something that a lot of my colleagues from across the aisle very much cared about. Physical exams with blood work, this is good stuff. And the validity, by the way, that the law spells out is for one year. I think that the required examinations are helpful, and I think that they will protect the safety of boxers and give kids coming up that haven't yet elected to choose a career path a chance to say, “Okay, I can get involved in the sport and feel comfortable with the safety protections that are there for me.”

More Boxing from Sports Illustrated