
How the Ali Act overhaul is clearing the path for a Saudi-backed takeover of boxing
Last week, those rumors were confirmed when US representatives Brian Jack, a Republican from Georgia, and Sharice Davids, a Democrat from Kansas, introduced the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act in Congress.
The proposed bill is being touted by the congressional representatives as a much-needed modernization of federal regulations in professional boxing, adding new provisions to the 1996 Professional Boxing Safety Act and introducing 'alternatives' to the sanctioning bodies overseeing the sport.
'I am incredibly proud to introduce the bipartisan Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, which provides boxers with more opportunities, better pay, and greater safety standards,' Jack said in the press release. 'Professional boxing is the only sport regulated by Congress, and ambiguity in current law – adopted over a quarter-century ago – has stifled investment. Congressional action is needed to revive this once-great American sport, and this bipartisan legislation establishes a framework for innovation to flourish.'
The 'stifled investment' that Jack is referencing in his statement is TKO's new boxing venture with Sela, an entertainment subsidiary of Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF), and Turki al-Sheikh, the figure behind Saudi's General Entertainment Authority and a close confidant of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The new venture, dubbed Zuffa Boxing, will debut on 13 September 2025, with an anticipated super middleweight showdown between Saul 'Canelo' Álvarez and Terence Crawford. An expanded boxing promotion will likely follow in 2026.
Backed by the Saudi government's enormous resources, Emanuel's company advocated for the bill in Congress, including provisions to created alternatives to long-established sanctioning bodies like the World Boxing Organization (WBO) and World Boxing Council (WBC). The proposed alternatives in the legislation are known as Unified Boxing Organizations (UBOs), which is what Zuffa Boxing will likely operate as.
While framed as a 'framework for innovation', Zuffa Boxing empowers Saudi Arabia to establish a parallel boxing ecosystem where it has sole determination over fighter ranking and championship belts. This paves the way for Saudi to bypass established sanctioning bodies, undermine existing promoters, and ultimately, gut professional boxing.
'This is a concerning bill for professional boxers,' said Erik Magraken, a combat sports regulatory lawyer and founder of combatsportslaw.com. 'It guts the key protections from the Ali Act for promoters that choose to use the 'unified boxing organization' model. It allows a promoter to control rank and title … and achieve a stranglehold on the sport.'
The bill also sets out a series of compliance requirements for UBOs, including minimum per‑round payments and safety provisions such as mandatory medical examinations and expanded health insurance. While these measures could, in theory, benefit up‑and‑coming boxers, they also create significant barriers to entry for smaller boxing organizations attempting to establish UBOs. Zuffa Boxing, backed by Saudi funding, would be well‑positioned to dominate this space, attract new fighters, and establish a new hierarchy in the sport – one in which TKO effectively determines who holds the world titles.
This new model for boxing is based almost entirely on the structure of the UFC, an organization that has long been criticized for its exploitation of fighters in its pursuit of profit. Fitting since UFC CEO Dana White, a longtime friend of US president Donald Trump, is expected to lead the new Zuffa Boxing venture.
'Everybody knows the format – the best fight the best,' White said in interview with The Ring, the boxing magazine owned by Al-Sheikh and, by extension, the Saudi government. 'You work your way up the rankings, and once somebody breaks into the top five [and] there is no question [about] who the best five guys are in each weight class, they fight it out. And once somebody holds that belt, you don't need three letters in front of the belt. Whoever has that belt is the best in the world in that weight class. It's a very simple model.'
Despite generating billions in revenue, the UFC pays its athletes a significantly smaller share compared to other major sports leagues. While NFL and NBA players receive close to 50% of league revenues, UFC fighters earn roughly 15% to 18%, with many on the roster making as little as $10,000 to $20,000 per fight – amounts that barely cover training costs, coaching and medical expenses. Efforts to unionize or challenge these inequities have been quashed by the UFC, which has used long-term, exclusive contracts and its market dominance to keep fighters in line.
Last year, the UFC agreed to a $375m settlement with several hundred fighters to resolve an antitrust lawsuit. The plaintiffs accused the promotion of stifling economic competition and using its monopoly power to suppress fighter pay. While the UFC denied any wrongdoing, the underlying claims remain central to a separate, ongoing case.
When Congress passed the Ali Act in 2000, it was in response to the unfair and anti-competitive practices rampant in pro boxing at the time. The sport was dominated by influential promoters, corrupt sanctioning bodies and coercive contracts. The Ali Act provided federally-backed oversight and enforcement meant to reduce the exploitation of fighters through transparency mandates and financial disclosure requirements. The legislation passed with unanimous bipartisan support and stands as the only example of Congress attempting to directly regulate a professional sport in the United States.
While the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act does not repeal the Ali Act, it does pave the way for new organizations to emerge outside of the purview of current sanctioning bodies, effectively bringing the UFC model to boxing. It is unclear when the bill will reach the House floor, as Congress will be in recess through the entirety of August.
Nevertheless, the bill has received support from Ali's widow, Lonnie Ali, who was quoted in the press release as saying that 'Muhammad would be proud to have his name associated with this bill.' Davids, who co-sponsored the bill, was also a former MMA fighter who once tried out as a contestant for The Ultimate Fighter – a reality show that places fighters in a mansion for several weeks as they work their way through a tournament for a 'six-figure UFC contract'. Their involvement in the bill is a masterstroke of lobbying tactics by TKO and Emanuel.
'The Ali Act was created to stop coercive and exploitative practices by promoters. It was designed to make a monopolization of the sport not possible. Independent rank and title are the key reasons why pro boxers can command such great purses compared to MMA athletes,' Magraken said. 'Boxers compete for titles. Promoters compete for boxers. If promoters own and control titles then boxers can be exploited by promoters.'
This will be remarkably beneficial to Saudi Arabia and Al-Sheikh, who have invested billions to wrest control of boxing from its traditional masters.
Al-Sheikh has bankrolled some of the most high-profile heavyweight fights and broken through negotiation stalemates by offering record-breaking sums of money. His success as a promoter has made him one of the sport's most powerful figures, while fans and media affectionately refer to him as 'His Excellency' – a title that underscores his growing cult of personality.
Al-Sheikh's expanding influence has stifled criticism within boxing. Fans are willing to overlook troubling behavior as long as he continues to deliver exciting matchups, while journalists, eager to maintain their critical access, often frame the narrative in his favor. The kingdom also owns its own boxing magazine and deploys a vast network of PR firms and executives to advance its political agenda through sports.
It is yet another reminder of Saudi Arabia's broader strategy in sports – a blueprint built on acquiring influence, shaping narratives and establishing self-sustaining ecosystems under its control.
Boxing may be the ideal asset to complete that vision.
Karim Zidan writes a regular newsletter on the intersection of sports and authoritarian politics.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
3 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Texas Roadhouse under fire from Trump-backed legal group over DEI
Texas Roadhouse is under fire from a Trump-aligned legal group accusing it of discriminating against white men. Conservative lawyers are arguing that the 600-store steak chain has allegedly given women and people of color preferential treatment in hiring. A complaint by America First Legal (AFL) — a group founded by the White House's deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller — will likely get the ball rolling on a company investigation by America's federal job discrimination watchdog. 'Texas Roadhouse's policies are a relic of an era where DEI contaminated American culture with the false belief that good intentions make discrimination okay,' Will Scolinos, counsel for the group, wrote. 'It is past time for Texas Roadhouse to join other companies in clearing DEI off Americans' tables for good.' AFL's filing is part of a broader conservative push to dismantle corporate DEI programs — one that's already triggered rollbacks at major companies like Ford, John Deere, and Tractor Supply Co. At the center of AFL's latest challenge are Texas Roadhouse's updates to Wall Street. The company promoted its hiring initiatives and leadership summits in its financial records. AFL claimed both programs were illegal because they are exclusionary of white men. Still, Texas Roadhouse — which groups women and nonwhite employees together in its diversity disclosures — has fallen short of creating actual diversity in the boardroom. The AFL notes that 50 percent of its board is white and male, and the complaint doesn't focus on the restaurant chain's broader workforce. To consumers, Texas Roadhouse, a Kentucky-based chain, has a reputation for high-performing restaurants and rowdy atmospheres. In 2024, the company overtook Olive Garden, claiming the top revenue spot among American restaurants. Olive Garden had held the revenue crown among restaurants for seven straight years. Texas Roadhouse didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. In 2017, during President Donald Trump's first administration, Texas Roadhouse settled a $12 Million government complaint, alleging the company avoided hiring restaurant workers over 40. Jerry Morgan, the brand's CEO, has been the top boss since March 2021 AFL has filed similar complaints against major corporations including IBM, Target, Cracker Barrel, and the Los Angeles Dodgers. The group's efforts — along with those of other conservative legal organizations — appear to be making headway. Since Trump returned to the White House, multiple billion-dollar companies including Meta, Walmart, Target, and Disney have scaled back or rebranded diversity programs. McDonald's, for example, announced in January that it would stop setting hiring goals tied to race and gender. The company has faced multiple legal challenges, including over its 40-year-old HACER scholarship program, which has awarded more than $33 million to 17,000 students. The scholarship initially required applicants to have at least one Latino or Hispanic parent. In February, the company settled legal complaints about the program, changing language to say applicants 'must demonstrate their impact and contribution to the Hispanic/Latino community through their activities, leadership and service.'


Daily Mail
5 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Disney gives surprising update on prices
Disney lovers are still pouring into the company's US theme parks — despite massive ticket price hikes. The boom in visitors to Disney World in Orlando and Disneyland near LA was key to a big jump in profits. One-day admission has doubled over the past decade, adding more than $100 per person, according to theme park site Mickey Visit. In the three months ending in June, Disney reported $5.3 billion in income, more than double Wall Street's forecast of $2.3 billion. Much of that came from its U.S. parks, where operating income jumped 22 percent to $1.7 billion. Disney World was the standout performer bringing in record revenue with guest spending up, chief financial officer Hugh Johnston told investors on Wednesday's earnings call. 'Consumers generally these days are willing to pay for value,' Johnston told the Financial Times. 'Our consumer still sees, especially with the investments we've been making with parks and cruise ships, a tremendous amount of value.' Prices will rise again next year too with admission costing roughly $10 more for tickets advertised on Disney's site. The maximum price for a one-day ticket to Disney's Animal Kingdom rose from $169 in 2025 to $179 in 2026. Disney's Hollywood Studios currently costs up to $184 but will rise to $199 next year - the highest increase of any ticket so far. The highest prices could still be yet to come, Disney expert Gavin Doyle, of Mickey Visit, explained. This is because Disney has not released the ticket prices for November or December 2026 yet. These are usually the busiest months of the year and have the highest priced tickets. Doyle expects one-day Magic Kingdom tickets for November and December to hit as high as $205 for 2026. 'These higher prices reflect expected demand for the most crowded days at Disney World throughout the year which is typically aligned with school breaks and holidays,' Doyle said of the price increases. Elsewhere the picture looked less rosy for the company with declines in its traditional cable TV networks which fell 15 percent compared to the same time last year. Prices for one-day tickets to Disney World will increase by roughly $10 next year The decline was offset by boost to its streaming services such as Disney+ which added 1.8 million new subscribers in the quarter. Disney hiked the prices for its plan by 25 percent in October, just a year after the last hike. Disney is also preparing to launch its sports network ESPN in a streaming package later this month. The company announced on Tuesday that it would also be selling a ten percent stake in the network to the National Football League (NFL).


Sky News
5 minutes ago
- Sky News
Trump vowed to end Ukraine war in first 24 hours of his presidency - nearly 200 days in, could he be close?
Seven hours is a long time in US politics. At 10am, Donald Trump accused Russia of posing a threat to America's national security. By 5pm, Mr Trump said there was a "good prospect" of him meeting Vladimir Putin"soon". There had, he claimed, been "great progress" in talks between his special envoy Steve Witkoff and the Russian president. It's difficult to gauge the chances of a meeting between the two leaders without knowing what "great progress" means. Is Russia "inclined" towards agreeing a ceasefire, as Ukraine's president now claims? Is Mr Putin prepared to meet with his Ukrainian foe, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, too? The very fact that we're asking those questions suggests something shifted on a day when there was no expectation of a breakthrough.