LOS ANGELES — On Wednesday, the California State Athletic Commission formally blessed an amendment to the Professional Boxing Safety Act, voting unanimously to support fundamental federal changes to decades-old legislation protecting fighter interests.
As hearings go, this was a kangaroo court. Hours before, a subcommittee recommended supporting new legislation—officially H.R. 4624, the Muhammad Ali Boxing Revival Act—telegraphing the commission’s intentions. Indeed, the entire two-hour meeting—which was observed via video call by Sports Illustrated—felt deeply unserious. During parts of the comments portion, several commissioners had their cameras off. On multiple occasions a moderator was asked how many more were in line to speak.
Said one major promoter, “This [vote] was over before it started.”
Amending the PBSA—the 1996 law that itself was amended in 2000 by the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, which the new Ali Act is attempting to step on—is polarizing. Proponents of the bipartisan legislation point to enhanced medical protections, higher minimum pay and year-round use of world class training facilities for any fighter choosing to compete in a newly formed Unified Boxing Organization (UBO). And, they will point out, fighters don’t have to compete in the UBO system. If they want to compete under the old model, they are free to do so.
Said commissioner Chris Gruwell, “This raises the floor.”
Most of it is nonsense, of course. Enhanced medical protections are great … until you realize most major promoters offer similar insurance coverage, or better. Ditto on the per round minimums for fighter pay. And the notion that the original Ali Act will remain untouched—drink for every time you have had that narrative slammed down your throat—is ridiculous when a superseding law declares that a promoter that meets certain criteria doesn’t have to abide by it.
Let’s call the Muhammad Ali Boxing Revival Act what it is: a naked attempt by Zuffa Boxing, the Saudi Arabia–funded, Dana White–fronted promotion, to introduce a UFC-like model into the sport. Changes would allow Zuffa to create its own title, casting aside federally regulated (theoretically, anyway) sanctioning bodies. It would allow it to create its own rankings. It would blur the lines between promoters and managers, a no-no under the current rules. And it would operate free of the financial disclosures the current version of the Ali Act requires.
That last one is the biggie. Among the provisions of the original Ali Act was a requirement for promoters to make full financial disclosures before every event. Every penny—ticket revenue, broadcast dollars, sponsorship cash—must be accounted for. A smart fighter—or, more likely, a smart manager—will bank that information for future negotiations. Without it, fighters are negotiating blind.
“In boxing, the majority of the revenue from the show goes to the fighter,” said Eddie Hearn, chairman of Matchroom Boxing. “In MMA, the majority of revenue from the show goes to the promoter. Good luck to [White]. I wouldn’t moan. But that’s not how we work in boxing. And I’m not interested in a fake belt. I’m not interested in changing the Muhammad Ali Act. I’m not interested in changing the shape of the ring or the rules.”
In fairness, Zuffa officials aren’t really running from any of this. They just believe their way is better. The first commenter during Wednesday’s hearing was Nick Khan, the WWE president and the brains behind Zuffa Boxing. Khan, whose career includes managing Manny Pacquiao and James Toney, decried the state of boxing. Khan called the sport “stagnant on its best day” while noting the disappearance of boxing on linear television.
“The current system leads to a series of one-off events,” said Khan. “With organizers that are clueless about building fighters and their stories in the modern world of media.”
Indeed, financially speaking, UFC is a roaring success. The promotion just cut a seven-year, $7.7 billion rights deal with Paramount+ , which (surprise!) recently tossed in a few bucks to add Zuffa Boxing rights to the platform. The argument is that a successful business will benefit everyone, including boxers. Rising tides, and all of that.
But UFC exercises extraordinary control over fighters, a fact highlighted by nearly a dozen former UFC fighters who called in to voice dissent. On X (formerly known as Twitter) Cris Cyborg, the legendary former UFC titleholder, posited that the lack of an Ali Act (the original version) in UFC was what stopped her from becoming an undisputed champion in her weight class.
If the Muhammad Ali act was applied to MMA I would be undisputed world champion at 145lbs or I would have earned my rematch with Amanda Nunes…
— CrisCy₿org.Com (@criscyborg) October 15, 2025
Promoters owning championship belts and being able to leverage them to force fighters into long term contracts below market value is…
“Promoters owning championship belts and being able to leverage them to force fighters into long term contracts below market value is not in the fighters best interest,” Cyborg said [sic].
Ultimately, California’s ruling carries no tangible consequence. The future of the Ali Act will be decided in Washington D.C., where it is expected to be debated in hearings in the months ahead. And it may never get a straight up or down vote. More likely there will be an attempt to stuff it into larger legislation and ram it past enough congressmen and senators that either don’t know enough about the changes, or don’t care.
And that’s where this endorsement could have an impact. There are 52 U.S. representatives from California and another couple of U.S. senators from the state, each (probably) with more pressing issues than federally regulating a flagging sport. It’s reasonable to assume some will see this ruling and decide that if the state commission is good with it, so are they.
On Wednesday, the California commission decided the current Ali Act was flawed. And no one is saying it isn’t. Enforcement for it is inconsistent and, in many jurisdictions, non-existent. Rather than work to fix the problems, six commissioners decided UFC can do it better.
More Boxing on Sports Illustrated
This article was originally published on www.si.com as A Polarizing Vote Has Boxing on Its Way to a UFC-Style Makeover .
