Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act of 2026
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4624, which I also opposed in committee along with three other members who opposed the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, a bill which radically amends the existing Muhammad Ali Act that was passed in 2000. That law established statutory protections for boxers from exploitative and unethical business practices.
The committee received expert testimony from witnesses with deep experience in the legal landscape in the boxing world and warned us that this bill will strip away many of those hard-fought reforms.
H.R. 4624 creates a new parallel legal structure, the so-called unified boxing organizations, which can engage in promotion, rule setting, match organization, and creation of their own titles and rankings. Under the existing law negotiated and spearheaded by the late John McCain, these functions have been required to remain separate to protect against conflicts of interest and coercive contract terms for boxers.
The UBOs proposed under H.R. 4624 will replicate a model that has been extremely lucrative in other nonboxing, mixed martial arts sports worlds that operate with few legal and economic protections for fighters, leading to a long history of litigation and allegations of coercive and anticompetitive practices.
This includes the use of long-term contracts, including forced arbitration, blocking fighters from bringing a lawsuit for breach of contract, and class action waivers that waive a fighter's right to be awarded damages in settlement on behalf of a group.
One of the crowning achievements of the original Muhammad Ali law was the establishment of a boxer's right to a private cause of action to assert their rights, which all Americans enjoy, to seek legal redress for unlawful injuries. H.R. 4624 fails to protect these protections within UBOs.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a narrative that this is something that has unified the boxing world in terms of support for this bill.
I include in the Record a letter dated just a few weeks ago, February 27, 2026, from USA Boxing, the largest amateur boxing organization in America withdrawing their endorsement that they gave the bill last January. February 27, 2026. Re Withdrawal and Clarification of January 18, 2026, Correspondence. Hon. Tim Walberg, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Walberg and Ranking Member Scott: On January 18, 2026, correspondence was transmitted to your offices regarding the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act (H.R. 4624).
Following review, the USA Boxing Board of Directors determined that the January 18, 2026, correspondence did not reflect a formally adopted Board position at the time of submission and was not authorized by a vote of the Board. Accordingly, the Board issues this clarification and confirms that the January 18 correspondence does not represent an official position at USA Boxing.
Accordingly, the Board hereby withdraws that letter.
After discussion, the Board has determined that USA Boxing will not take a position on H.R. 4624.
We appreciate the Committee's attention to matters affecting the sport of boxing. Respectfully, Tyson Lee, President of USA Boxing. Mike McAtee, Executive Director/CEO of USA Boxing.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from Top Rank boxing CEO Robert Arum, who again criticized this bill for the damage it is going to do to boxers' legal rights, and states that a UBO is deemed in compliance with such provisions simply by virtue of being recognized as a UBO. December 3, 2025. Re Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act.
House Education and the Workforce Committee. Washington, D.C.
Dear Committee Members: My name is Bob Arum and I am the chairman and founder of Top Rank, Inc., a leading boxing promoter operating since 1966. I am writing to you all regarding the proposed Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act (the ``Amendment'').
The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the subsequent Muhammad Ali Act amendment (collectively the ``Ali Act'') instituted a series of regulations intended to protect fighters from exploitative and unethical business practices. By way of example, the Ali Act in its current form:
(1) Prohibits promoters from entering into coercive contracts with fighters (See Ali Act Section 10(a)), which serves to prevent a fighter from being forced to sign a long- term contract with a particular promoter as a condition precedent to securing a fight with an opponent under contract to that same promoter;
(2) Creates strict disclosure rules that compel promoters to disclose to fighters the compensation they have contracted to receive from the fighter's match, which provides fighters with transparency regarding the revenue generated from their bouts and serves as a tool that allows fighters to negotiate fair market value for subsequent bouts (See Ali Act Section 13(b)(1) of the Ali Act); and
(3) Establishes a firewall between promoters and managers, which helps ensure that managers represent the interests of their fighters and do not serve as agents of promoters at their fighters' expense (See Ali Act Section 17(b)).
The Amendment strips away these and other protections for fighters set forth in the Ali Act for any fighter that signs with a newly created Unified Boxing Organization (``UBO''). Specifically, the proposed Section 24(a) of the Amendment states that a UBO is ``deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this Act if the UBO meets the conditions of this section with respect to--(1) each boxer under contract with the UBO; and (2) each professional boxing match organized by the UBO.''
As presently drafted, the conditions required for an entity to qualify as a UBO do not include the protections for fighters set forth above. A UBO is not prohibited from entering coercive contracts with fighters, is not required to provide financial disclosures to fighters, and is not subject to the rule establishing a firewall between managers and promoters. It is not subject to any of the protections created for fighters in the Ali Act. Instead, a UBO is deemed in compliance with such provisions simply by virtue of being recognized as a UBO and complying with the requirements for UBOs. This is incredibly problematic and entirely unjustifiable. Put simply, there is no reason for Congress to actively remove these protections for those fighters who choose to sign with a UBO, and there is no reason for a UBO to be exempt from complying with these protective measures.
Proponents of the Amendment have hailed that it will create greater opportunities for fighters outside the current sanctioning body system, enhance health and safety benefits, and improve fighter pay. The Amendments can achieve those ends without exempting UBOs from the protections for fighters set forth in the Ali Act. Proponents have also stated that the bill does not change the existing provisions of the original Ali Act. This is misleading at best. As stated above, the Amendment exempts UBO's from the existing provisions of the original Ali Act by deeming the UBO in compliance with such provisions so long as it adheres to all UBO requirements. Fighters who benefited from those protective provisions will no longer do so if they participate in the UBO system. That is a fundamental change to the underlying Ali Act and to the many protections granted to fighters therein.
There is likely a version of this bill that achieves the stated aims of its proponents without harming fighters who participate in the alternative UBO system. Indeed, such a change to the presently drafted Amendment could be easily accomplished--UBOs should be forced to comply with those portions of the underlying Ali Act that protect fighters to be deemed in compliance with the overall Act and to maintain their standing as a UBO. There is no sound reason to reject such a proposed change, which serves only to ensure that previous protections for fighters carry over into the new alternative system the Amendment seeks to create.
Please do not hesitate to reach out to me if you have any further questions or if Top Rank can provide any additional information. Sincerely, Robert Arum, Chief Executive Officer, Top Rank, Inc.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, this is incredibly problematic and entirely unjustifiable. Put simply, there is no reason for Congress to actively remove these protections for those fighters who choose to sign with the UBO, and there is no reason for a UBO to be exempt from complying with these protective measures.
Mr. Speaker, lastly, Patrick English, who testified before the committee, rebutted the myth that boxing is dying.
Mr. Speaker, cable is dying, but boxing is signing very lucrative contracts with streaming services.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not have consensus support from those its proponents claim. Again, as has been stated by Ms. Omar, I join with her in calling on the Senate to continue to work on this bill and focus on the achievements of Senator McCain in terms of protecting boxers' rights that are at risk with this legislation. Again, I would ask for Members to oppose this bill when the time comes up for a vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source