WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives took a significant step Tuesday toward reshaping the landscape of professional boxing by passing the Muhammad Ali Boxing Revival Act on a voice vote following a brief half-hour debate. The legislation, which aims to introduce new organizational options for boxers, now advances to the Senate for consideration. If approved there and signed by President Donald Trump, the bill would mark the most substantial update to boxing regulations since the original Ali Acts of the 1990s and early 2000s.
The Muhammad Ali Boxing Revival Act, spearheaded by Rep. Brian Jack, R-Ga., seeks to expand choices for fighters by permitting the creation of Unified Boxing Organizations, or UBOs. These entities would function as integrated operations, handling promotion, sanctioning, rankings, titles, and matchmaking — much like the Ultimate Fighting Championship does in mixed martial arts. Importantly, the bill applies solely to boxing and would not alter the existing MMA framework.
Under current federal law, established by the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000, there is a strict separation between promoters, who organize bouts, and sanctioning bodies, which oversee rankings and titles. Proponents argue that UBOs would provide a streamlined alternative without dismantling the traditional system, allowing boxers to select the career path that best suits them.
Supporters of the measure, including UFC CEO Dana White and his company Zuffa Boxing, former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson, and the Association of Boxing Commissions, hailed the bill as a progressive step. They emphasized enhanced protections for fighters, such as mandatory annual physicals, brain and eye testing, and heart exams with blood work every six months. The legislation would also limit each sanctioning body to one belt per weight class and mandate a minimum payment of $200 per round for all participants.
"My hope is, by its passage, you're not just going to have one UBO, my hope is that you're going to have a dozen UBOs operating, if not more, in this sport," Rep. Jack told ESPN after the vote. "The more interest, the more innovation, the more opportunities for boxers and for fans, the more opportunities to enjoy a sport that used to inspire greatness."
The bill's passage in the House came after it cleared the House Committee on Education and the Workforce in January by a 30-4 margin. During Tuesday's floor debate, nine members addressed the legislation, with only Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., voicing opposition. The voice vote reflected broad bipartisan support, building on the original Ali Acts, which were enacted to safeguard boxers following concerns over exploitation and safety in the sport.
Courtesy of a March amendment, the Revival Act would empower the Association of Boxing Commissions and the Association of Ringside Physicians to set uniform health and safety standards across all states. This includes heightened scrutiny for fighters over 40, with more frequent testing. Additionally, the commissions would gain authority to certify judges and officials nationwide, a role previously reserved for individual state athletic bodies.
"You've got multiple options here. Fighters can pursue one path or they can pursue another path if this bill becomes law," Rep. Jack said. "They can join a UBO or they can join the existing sanctioning organization model. Why not give fighters that choice?"
Despite the momentum, the bill has drawn sharp criticism from segments of the boxing world, who warn it could erode hard-won protections for athletes. Detractors, including prominent promoters, argue that UBOs might consolidate power in the hands of a few entities, tilting the financial scales toward promoters at the expense of fighters' rights and earnings.
Rep. Courtney, in his floor remarks, expressed particular alarm over the potential for UBOs to mirror models in other combat sports that prioritize profits over participant welfare. "UBO organizations proposed under [the Revival Act] will replicate a model that has been extremely lucrative in other, non-boxing mixed martial arts sports worlds that operate with few legal and economic protections for fighters," he said. Courtney highlighted risks associated with long-term contracts, forced arbitration clauses that prevent breach-of-contract lawsuits, and waivers of class-action rights.
Top Rank founder Bob Arum echoed these concerns in a December letter to Congress, questioning the exemptions UBOs would receive from standard compliance rules that apply to other boxing entities. Arum also raised fears that boxers opting into UBOs could forfeit key safeguards outlined in the prior Ali Acts, potentially exposing them to exploitative practices.
The involvement of Dana White and Zuffa Boxing has fueled additional skepticism. Critics in the boxing community allege that White is pushing the changes to enable his promotional outfit to emulate the UFC's integrated control over matchmaking, rankings, titles, and fighter contracts. The UFC itself has faced legal challenges on these fronts, including two antitrust lawsuits from fighters accusing the organization of wage suppression and monopolistic behavior. One of those cases settled for $375 million.
White has rebutted the accusations, aligning his defense with congressional backers by framing UBOs as an optional pathway rather than a mandatory overhaul. Meanwhile, even some supporters of the bill have called for refinements. Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., who voted in favor, suggested the Senate consider adding provisions to bar UBO contracts from including clauses that prohibit class-action lawsuits or require private arbitration.
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who proposed amendments during the committee stage, backed the legislation but urged stronger measures. "Stronger financial transparency, stronger anti-monopoly provisions and stronger safeguards against coercive contracts," she advocated. Courtney and two other House members similarly encouraged the Senate to bolster the bill's fighter protections before final passage.
The original Ali Acts emerged in response to high-profile issues in boxing, including the 1996 death of boxer Jimmy Garcia and broader concerns about promoter dominance and inadequate safety protocols. The 1996 Safety Act focused on licensing and medical requirements, while the 2000 Reform Act targeted conflicts of interest in sanctioning. The Revival Act builds on this foundation but introduces the UBO concept as a voluntary innovation, potentially fostering competition and drawing new investment into a sport that has seen declining mainstream interest compared to MMA.
As the bill moves to the Senate, its fate remains uncertain. Lawmakers there may revisit the amendments proposed in the House, weighing the balance between innovation and athlete safeguards. For boxers, the legislation represents a potential crossroads: a chance for diversified opportunities or a risk of repeating pitfalls seen in other combat sports. Industry observers will watch closely as the Senate deliberates, with the outcome likely to influence the structure of professional boxing for years to come.