De La Hoya and Nico Ali Walsh oppose a new Congressional boxing bill, warning it could limit fighter rights and control.
A contentious debate over the future of professional boxing unfolded in the U.S. Senate this week, as Oscar De La Hoya and Nico Ali Walsh voiced strong opposition to proposed federal legislation backed by Zuffa.
At issue is the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, a revised version of the original 2000 law designed to protect fighters through financial transparency and a separation of power between promoters, managers, and sanctioning bodies. The new bill has already passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and is widely expected to advance through the Senate before reaching Donald Trump for final approval.
De La Hoya, a former Olympic gold medalist and six-division world champion who now leads Golden Boy Promotions, warned lawmakers that the revised act could fundamentally alter the sport’s economic structure. He argued that Zuffa’s plan to introduce a centralized promotional model—including its own rankings and championship belts—would limit fighter autonomy and concentrate financial control.
“This bill would reduce choices, leverage, and career control for fighters,” De La Hoya told the Senate panel led by Ted Cruz. He also questioned whether the initiative was truly about fighter safety, noting that boxing already enforces medical and insurance standards that are not uniformly applied in mixed martial arts.
Ali Walsh echoed those concerns, emphasizing that the original Ali Act was created to prevent exactly this type of consolidation. He criticized provisions that could lock fighters into long-term promotional contracts while allowing a single entity to oversee matchmaking, rankings, and titles.
“They should not control the entire marketplace,” he said, arguing the bill undermines protections tied to his grandfather’s legacy.
Supporters of the legislation, however, framed it as a necessary evolution for a fragmented sport. Nick Khan testified that boxing has steadily declined in popularity over the past five decades and lacks structural cohesion. He argued that a unified system could improve fighter pay, introduce consistent health benefits, and streamline competition.
Khan also pointed to safety data, noting that no fighters have died in UFC events—operated by Zuffa leadership—despite hundreds of shows, while boxing has recorded significantly more fatalities over time. Critics counter that boxing stages far more events annually, making direct comparisons difficult.
The proposed reforms include minimum pay standards, expanded health coverage during training camps, and enhanced medical testing. The bill has received bipartisan support, with regulators such as Tim Shipman and Andy Foster endorsing its safety provisions.
Still, De La Hoya questioned the broader financial motivations, citing past antitrust settlements involving the UFC and raising concerns about increasing outside investment, including ties to Saudi-backed ventures. Zuffa representatives responded by highlighting De La Hoya’s own business dealings and legal disputes with fighters.
As the legislation moves closer to becoming law, the clash reflects a deeper divide within boxing—between preserving its decentralized traditions and embracing a more corporate, unified model.
Need a deeper dive into the subject? Here's TJ Rives and Dan Rafael talking about this fight outside of the ring: