Hearing of House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection: United States Boxing Commission Act
HEARING OF HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: UNITED STATES BOXING COMMISSION ACT
March 3, 2005
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Chairman Stearns. I really appreciate your strong statement, and I thank you for holding today's hearing on our bill, the United States Boxing Commission Act.
After our hearing last Congress, I think it was quite clear that the current boxing regulations, which are meant to ensure that boxers' health and financial interests are protected, were not being adhered to as they should be. Not all trainers or fight promoters are like Clint Eastwood. And we were informed at that hearing, by the presence and the eloquent testimony of Muhammad Ali and other great experts, and as a consequence, Chairman Stearns and I, both, agreed that it was time to do something about this, and I look forward to working with you, Mr. Stearns, on this bill.
What we are doing is significant. Historically, as you know, the regulation of boxing has been purely under the jurisdiction of the States. In the mid-1990's, when reports of corruption and scandals became more frequent, Congress decided it was time to take a closer look at that sport; after all, boxing is no small affair. The sport generates over $500 million in revenue each year, and with the passage of the Professional Boxing Safety Act in 1996, soon followed by the Muhammad Ali Act in 2000, minimum standards were set to protect the physical and economic well being of the boxer, and each State boxing commission was charged with meeting those standards. While some States, such as New York, Pennsylvania, and Nevada have strong boxing commissions that go well beyond the minimum Federal requirements, there is still concern that other States are ignoring the regulations.
Many argue that federally mandated health and safety standards are not being adhered to because no corresponding government regulatory body exists. The absence of a national commission makes boxing unlike all other major professional sports and I believe should give us pause. Boxing is also unlike many other sports in that there are often especially serious physical repercussions. That means if the health and safety standards are not being met, if the professionals who are used to monitor boxers' fitness are not experts in the appropriate medical fields, the boxers' very lives are at stake. Approximately 50 boxers have died in the ring over the last 35 years.
Additionally, because so many parties have a financial stake in each boxing match and their interest may run counter to getting the boxer the most favorable contract terms, many boxers end up destitute. In this sense, boxers are like many other kinds of talent or workers. Their gifts are others fortunes, and they are treated as disposable assets. Now that networks and broadcasters are acting more like promoters, but are not subject to the same regulations that traditional promoters are, I believe that there are new vulnerabilities in the sport which we should examine. I believe that is our responsibility to--that it is our responsibility to ensure that boxers are not being put in the ring without being protecting, both physically and economically. That what I am so pleased that our bill establishes the United States Boxing Commission to make sure that standards are uniform and boxers are protected. I am very glad that all of our panelists are here with us today to help us determine the best role for the
Federal Government to play to ensure the best interest of those participating in the sport, and I look forward to your testimony. Thank you, Chairman Stearns.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to reiterate what you said, essentially that this is a work-in-progress; and therefore, I really appreciate this very constructive testimony today. And I know that, Ms. Torres, if we are going to put up a chart of who is for and who is against that you began your testimony with your reasons that you are not for it, but then went on--and I appreciate that very much--to list the suggestions, that if we do go forward, what are those things that ought to be in a bill. And I truly do appreciate that.
I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. I think--let me just get your response to the issue of forum shopping. I mean how can one ignore the fact that this is a serious problem.
Ms. Torres. Do you mean forum shopping by the boxer in order to get licensed in a State? Is that what----
Ms. Schakowsky. In order to prevent someone who should not fighting in one State, or could not be fighting in one State, from going to another, shopping around because there is lower standards, weaker medical exams, et cetera.
Ms. Torres. I think the only way to address it is to have uniform medical standards from State to State. I mean there is an example this very week of a boxer being licensed in Missouri, and then using that to go fight in Utah, when New York and New Jersey, and California, and Pennsylvania, and Nevada probably would not have licensed him. So it happens; it happens all the time; and it should not be allowed to happen. I think the idea from the WBA--are very much in support of uniform medical and safety standards. I just saw that sort of put on a back burner in this version of the bill. I would like them to be brought to the forefront.
Ms. Schakowsky. Okay. Good. The other--you alluded to--I would like you to enhance a little bit. You talk about your position on the networks being covered under the U.S. Boxing Commission. Should networks be treated as promoters? What is your view on that?
Ms. Torres. Our view--and this from--on behalf of both of these organizations--is that they should be licensed if you are doing a general licensing structure of the entire industry, whether you call them promoters or managers or matchmakers, because they do a little bit of everything. The past few years, they have become very pervasive in dictating who a boxer fights and who a boxer doesn't fight, and they enter into contracts with a boxer. So if we are going to regulate managers and promoters that enter into contracts with boxers, there is no reason to exclude the networks, who also have 3- and 4-belt, long-term contracts with the boxers.
Ms. Schakowsky. And is this a growing area, where----
Ms. Torres. Yes, it is.
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes.
Ms. Torres. It is.
Mr. Schakowsky. Okay. And what do you think about big hotels which host fights. Is there a role there? Or no?
Ms. Torres. Not that I see that would need----
Ms. Schakowsky. Okay.
Ms. Torres. That would--I can't think of anything off the top of my head. It is--that would actually just be the venue, be it a hotel or an arena.
Ms. Schakowsky. Okay. Okay. I wanted to comment on Mr. Stevens--and I think it was you who said that you would not want, in our bill, to limit States that might have more stringent standards. Did you talk about that? The----
Mr. Stevens. Say that again, please.
Ms. Schakowsky. That you would not want Federal legislation to prohibit States that may have more stringent standards from enforcing those. I wondered if you wanted to speak at all about the rights of State commissions----
Mr. Stevens. Well, I really--reiterated your own words in the United States Boxing Commission Act, where you talk about, I believe, that if a national commission has minimum standards that that would not preclude any State from having standards that go beyond those minimum standards, and that they should--the States should, then, be able to impose those standards.
Ms. Schakowsky. So you were just--I thought you found something in the legislation that you though might preclude you from doing what you needed to do.
Mr. Stevens. No. You--actually----
Ms. Schakowsky. Okay.
Mr. Stevens. [continuing] I parroted what you said. I agreed with that. Like for example, the--if I might--Nevada, a few years ago, they had a physical examination, an eye examination, and ophthalmological exam, dilated eye, and they had blood tests. Subsequent to a few years ago, they have gone to an EKG and they have gone to an MRI. Now, let us say for example, the Federal legislation required a physical, an eye exam, and blood work, but New York or Connecticut, or Nevada wanted to do additional testing. I don't believe there should be a prohibition against that. It is just----
Ms. Schakowsky. But----
Mr. Stevens. [continuing] for the safety of the boxer.
Ms. Schakowsky. Okay. Good. Thank you, Mr.--Dr.--oh, I guess my time is up.
Mr. Stearns. Yes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Okay. Thank you.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=99914.wais