Latest news with #MuhammadAliAct
The Independent
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
What is the Muhammad Ali Revival Act and how will it affect boxing and fighters?
On Wednesday evening, the boxing world became gripped by conversations about a new bill that could change the sport and the way fighters are paid. Purportedly for the better. Potentially for the worse. The bill, named the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, was introduced to the US Congress by Representatives Brian Jack and Sharice Davids, with the intention of altering federal regulations around the sport. It is a bill that has been backed by TKO, the UFC ownership group that is crossing into boxing, with UFC president Dana White co-promoting September's seismic Canelo vs Crawford fight in tandem with Saudi adviser Turki Alalshikh. 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 that act 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 were there qualms with the former, and why has the latter proven so controversial? Why is the Revival Act controversial, and what criticisms did the original Ali Act face? Well, at the time of the Ali Act's introduction, some questioned what right Congress had to regulate boxing, given it regulates no other sports. There was also the criticism that the Act had laid out a series of rules for Congress to enforce, but without clear methods of how to enforce them. But to a more pertinent point: on Wednesday evening (23 July), there were altogether different criticisms being aimed at the Revival Act, the main one being that it could see UFC's widely derided style of fighter pay cross into boxing, harming the earning ability of athletes while claiming to do the opposite. Why does the UFC receive criticism over fighter pay? The UFC recently settled an antitrust lawsuit, which claimed the mixed martial arts (MMA) promotion suppressed fighters' ability to negotiate; it was suggested that the UFC had essentially forged a monopoly in MMA. In October, the UFC agreed to pay $380m to a group of former fighters who had competed under its banner between 2010 and 2017, with approximately 1,100 deemed as affected and 97 per cent of them applying to receive funds. The fighters in question received compensation payments between $100,000 and $1m, according to the firm that handled the lawsuit. In general, average fighter pay in the UFC is believed to be much lower than in boxing, though UFC president White has continuously insisted that the media does not know the real numbers. The Independent understands that many fighters enter the promotion on a contract where they earn $12,000 to fight and another $12,000 if they win – with those figures increasing after three bouts, and with $50,000 bonuses available (Fight of the Night, Performance of the Night). The UFC antitrust lawsuit also confirmed numerous reports that, in 2010, the UFC took home approximately 80 per cent of its overall earnings, with fighters left with less than 20 per cent. In comparison, basketball's NBA and its players received around 50 per cent each at the time, and they still do. Currently, players in the WNBA (Women's NBA) are pushing the league for a similar pay system. But how does the UFC's track record on fighter pay relate to the Revival Act, beyond the fact that its parent company (as of 2023) is backing the new bill? What specific changes does the Revival Act seek to make? The Revival Act seeks to allow the creation of Unified Boxing Organisations (UBOs), which would serve as alternatives to boxing's current sanctioning bodies: chiefly the World Boxing Council, World Boxing Association, World Boxing Organization, International Boxing Federation, and International Boxing Organization. Just as those bodies have their own champions, so would UBOs. One UBO would be Zuffa Boxing, likely overseen by UFC president White and Saudi adviser Alalshikh. The UBOs would also pay a minimum national compensation of $150 per round for professional boxers, a figure that might be seen as substantial by very low-level boxers but pitiful by anyone else. The new system would also bid to improve the minimum health insurance available to boxers and access to anti-doping programmes – which can be costly for promoters. As it stands, the minimums in those aspects are controlled by individual states in the US. Many undercard boxers compete in six-round fights, meaning – if they went the distance – they would be expected to earn $900 under the new system. That is understood to be less than a boxer would earn on most shows now, and the sum would struggle to cover the costs of coaching, sparring partners, travel and/or accommodation. These are expenses that fighters are often expected to pay during camp. So, what now? It is worth stressing that this act has not yet been passed. It is likely to be referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the same House that received the 1996 and 2000 acts, with a vote in the House of Representatives being the next step. Thereafter, it would be sent to the US Senate.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
UFC, WWE owners 'close' to Saudi Arabia deal for new boxing league; report $2.8B revenue in 2024
TKO, the parent company of the UFC and WWE, is nearing an agreement with the Saudi Arabian public wealth fund to create a new boxing league, TKO Group Holdings COO Mark Shapiro told investors on Wednesday's earnings call. 'Everybody knows we're in talks with the Saudis, but to give you a little more color, I will tell you that we are close on an agreement with the Saudis on the creation of a boxing league where we, TKO, would be the producer, the promoter, and responsible for all day-to-day operations of the venture, whereby we would receive a fee of $10 million-plus,' Shapiro said during the question and answer portion of the call. Shapiro stressed that TKO will not be putting any capital into the project, and will not be absorbing any added financial risk. That will fall on the Saudi Arabia Public Investment fund, though Shapiro did say TKO will stand to earn equity in the venture over a five-year period, depending on certain benchmarks. Shapiro went on to say that TKO sent a delegation including WWE president Nick Khan and UFC COO Lawrence Epstein to meet with Saudi representatives in London earlier this week, and the two sides are now 'awfully close' to a deal. Shapiro said the project would be 'its own league' with regular boxing events scheduled throughout the year. 'I think on top of that, you should know that as part of the partnership we would be the promoter, producer and event operator of four large-scale kind of super fights, as I call them, that would air really probably two this year and two in 2025,' Shapiro said. 'Those may or may not fall into the boxing league itself. They may just be one-offs. But we would be paid a fee to act as the promoter, the producer and the event operator.' It is currently unclear whether Shapiro meant two events in 2026 following two events in 2025. Shapiro also addressed questions about TKO's plans regarding the Muhammad Ali Act, the federal legislation governing professional boxing in the United States. TKO CEO Ari Emanuel previously suggested that the Ali Act hurt boxing, but hinted at possible changes to the law under the new Trump administration. Shapiro insisted that TKO was not actively trying to repeal the Ali Act, but did question its effect on the sport of boxing. 'Look, the Ali Act has flaws,' Shapiro said. 'We believe it is actually possible to improve the current system, to facilitate more opportunities for boxers and to regrow the sport of boxing in America. That's where we're at. We're not in there actively inside pushing, drafting legislation, lobbying legislators. That's ultimately for somebody else. Whether it stays or goes, we think the opportunity for boxing is extraordinary for us, in particular.' Along with Wednesday's earnings call, TKO published a financial disclosure reporting total revenues of $642.2 million for the fourth quarter of 2024, with overall revenues of $2.804 billion for the whole of 2024. The company's 2024 net income of $6.4 million was a sizable decrease from the previous year, owing mostly to the $375 million settlement of the antitrust lawsuit against the UFC. Still, with the WWE's 10-year, $5 billion deal with Netflix, combined with ongoing negotiations for a new broadcast rights deal for the UFC, TKO is targeting revenues between $2.93 and $3 billion for 2025. As far as UFC's next broadcast rights deal, Shapiro said the exclusive negotiating period with ESPN began on Jan. 15 and runs for 90 days. 'When we look at the outlook for renewal, I'd remind you that the market for premium content — despite ESPN shedding MLB and F1 — is hot. It's quite strong. The content, our content in particular, TKO, is unique because not only do we own and control it, but it's year-round. There's no off-season. 'Our content both at UFC and WWE, for that matter, has urgency,' Shapiro continued. 'And the urgency allows us to attract subs and viewers, and also gives us a consistency to retain [subscribers] and viewers, reduce churn. Obviously, these are appealing attributes for buyers. The content, particularly with the streaming services, which is what it's all about these days, when it comes to our overall deal? One package, two packages, half packages, four packages, NASCAR-style – whatever it might be, we're focused on doing what's best for the business in the long term. So that means a balance between maximizing our reach and engagement and monetization.'
