logo
How the Ali Act overhaul is clearing the path for a Saudi-backed takeover of boxing

How the Ali Act overhaul is clearing the path for a Saudi-backed takeover of boxing

Yahoo2 days ago
When Ari Emanuel – the notorious Hollywood powerbroker and CEO of TKO Holdings Group, which owns both the UFC and WWE – made a rare media appearance on the Pat McAfee Show in February 2025, he offered cryptic remarks about the state of boxing. Though typically cagey, Emanuel hinted, 'Who knows what's going to happen with the Ali Act' – a reference to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, a federal law designed to protect the rights and welfare of boxers. Since then, rumors have swirled that TKO is quietly working to amend the law to make way for its newly minted boxing venture with Saudi Arabia.
Last week, those rumors were confirmed when US representatives Brian Jack, a Republican from Georgia, and Sharice Davids, a Democrat from Kansas, introduced the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act in Congress.
The proposed bill is being touted by the congressional representatives as a much-needed modernization of federal regulations in professional boxing, adding new provisions to the 1996 Professional Boxing Safety Act and introducing 'alternatives' to the sanctioning bodies overseeing the sport.
'I am incredibly proud to introduce the bipartisan Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, which provides boxers with more opportunities, better pay, and greater safety standards,' Jack said in the press release. 'Professional boxing is the only sport regulated by Congress, and ambiguity in current law – adopted over a quarter-century ago – has stifled investment. Congressional action is needed to revive this once-great American sport, and this bipartisan legislation establishes a framework for innovation to flourish.'
The 'stifled investment' that Jack is referencing in his statement is TKO's new boxing venture with Sela, an entertainment subsidiary of Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF), and Turki al-Sheikh, the figure behind Saudi's General Entertainment Authority and a close confidant of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The new venture, dubbed Zuffa Boxing, will debut on 13 September 2025, with an anticipated super middleweight showdown between Saul 'Canelo' Álvarez and Terence Crawford. An expanded boxing promotion will likely follow in 2026.
Backed by the Saudi government's enormous resources, Emanuel's company advocated for the bill in Congress, including provisions to created alternatives to long-established sanctioning bodies like the World Boxing Organization (WBO) and World Boxing Council (WBC). The proposed alternatives in the legislation are known as Unified Boxing Organizations (UBOs), which is what Zuffa Boxing will likely operate as.
While framed as a 'framework for innovation', Zuffa Boxing empowers Saudi Arabia to establish a parallel boxing ecosystem where it has sole determination over fighter ranking and championship belts. This paves the way for Saudi to bypass established sanctioning bodies, undermine existing promoters, and ultimately, gut professional boxing.
'This is a concerning bill for professional boxers,' said Erik Magraken, a combat sports regulatory lawyer and founder of combatsportslaw.com. 'It guts the key protections from the Ali Act for promoters that choose to use the 'unified boxing organization' model. It allows a promoter to control rank and title … and achieve a stranglehold on the sport.'
The bill also sets out a series of compliance requirements for UBOs, including minimum per‑round payments and safety provisions such as mandatory medical examinations and expanded health insurance. While these measures could, in theory, benefit up‑and‑coming boxers, they also create significant barriers to entry for smaller boxing organizations attempting to establish UBOs. Zuffa Boxing, backed by Saudi funding, would be well‑positioned to dominate this space, attract new fighters, and establish a new hierarchy in the sport – one in which TKO effectively determines who holds the world titles.
This new model for boxing is based almost entirely on the structure of the UFC, an organization that has long been criticized for its exploitation of fighters in its pursuit of profit. Fitting since UFC CEO Dana White, a longtime friend of US president Donald Trump, is expected to lead the new Zuffa Boxing venture.
'Everybody knows the format – the best fight the best,' White said in interview with The Ring, the boxing magazine owned by Al-Sheikh and, by extension, the Saudi government. 'You work your way up the rankings, and once somebody breaks into the top five [and] there is no question [about] who the best five guys are in each weight class, they fight it out. And once somebody holds that belt, you don't need three letters in front of the belt. Whoever has that belt is the best in the world in that weight class. It's a very simple model.'
Despite generating billions in revenue, the UFC pays its athletes a significantly smaller share compared to other major sports leagues. While NFL and NBA players receive close to 50% of league revenues, UFC fighters earn roughly 15% to 18%, with many on the roster making as little as $10,000 to $20,000 per fight – amounts that barely cover training costs, coaching and medical expenses. Efforts to unionize or challenge these inequities have been quashed by the UFC, which has used long-term, exclusive contracts and its market dominance to keep fighters in line.
Last year, the UFC agreed to a $375m settlement with several hundred fighters to resolve an antitrust lawsuit. The plaintiffs accused the promotion of stifling economic competition and using its monopoly power to suppress fighter pay. While the UFC denied any wrongdoing, the underlying claims remain central to a separate, ongoing case.
When Congress passed the Ali Act in 2000, it was in response to the unfair and anti-competitive practices rampant in pro boxing at the time. The sport was dominated by influential promoters, corrupt sanctioning bodies and coercive contracts. The Ali Act provided federally-backed oversight and enforcement meant to reduce the exploitation of fighters through transparency mandates and financial disclosure requirements. The legislation passed with unanimous bipartisan support and stands as the only example of Congress attempting to directly regulate a professional sport in the United States.
While the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act does not repeal the Ali Act, it does pave the way for new organizations to emerge outside of the purview of current sanctioning bodies, effectively bringing the UFC model to boxing. It is unclear when the bill will reach the House floor, as Congress will be in recess through the entirety of August.
Nevertheless, the bill has received support from Ali's widow, Lonnie Ali, who was quoted in the press release as saying that 'Muhammad would be proud to have his name associated with this bill.' Davids, who co-sponsored the bill, was also a former MMA fighter who once tried out as a contestant for The Ultimate Fighter – a reality show that places fighters in a mansion for several weeks as they work their way through a tournament for a 'six-figure UFC contract'. Their involvement in the bill is a masterstroke of lobbying tactics by TKO and Emanuel.
'The Ali Act was created to stop coercive and exploitative practices by promoters. It was designed to make a monopolization of the sport not possible. Independent rank and title are the key reasons why pro boxers can command such great purses compared to MMA athletes,' Magraken said. 'Boxers compete for titles. Promoters compete for boxers. If promoters own and control titles then boxers can be exploited by promoters.'
This will be remarkably beneficial to Saudi Arabia and Al-Sheikh, who have invested billions to wrest control of boxing from its traditional masters.
Al-Sheikh has bankrolled some of the most high-profile heavyweight fights and broken through negotiation stalemates by offering record-breaking sums of money. His success as a promoter has made him one of the sport's most powerful figures, while fans and media affectionately refer to him as 'His Excellency' – a title that underscores his growing cult of personality.
Al-Sheikh's expanding influence has stifled criticism within boxing. Fans are willing to overlook troubling behavior as long as he continues to deliver exciting matchups, while journalists, eager to maintain their critical access, often frame the narrative in his favor. The kingdom also owns its own boxing magazine and deploys a vast network of PR firms and executives to advance its political agenda through sports.
It is yet another reminder of Saudi Arabia's broader strategy in sports – a blueprint built on acquiring influence, shaping narratives and establishing self-sustaining ecosystems under its control.
Boxing may be the ideal asset to complete that vision.
Karim Zidan writes a regular newsletter on the intersection of sports and authoritarian politics.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

South Dakotans in Congress betray their state with votes that could kill SD Public Broadcasting
South Dakotans in Congress betray their state with votes that could kill SD Public Broadcasting

Yahoo

time6 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

South Dakotans in Congress betray their state with votes that could kill SD Public Broadcasting

I never thought I would see the day when U.S. Senators John Thune and Mike Rounds and Rep. Dusty Johnson would sell out their South Dakota values and upbringing to become puppets of a president. Nor did I think I would see them damage institutions that are at the core of South Dakota's society. Unfortunately, it appears that President Donald Trump is so powerful that personal values no longer matter. Last week, all three voted to rescind $1.1 billion in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — funding that all three had previously voted to approve. It's clear that National Public Radio was Trump's target. He believes taxpayer money shouldn't be going to support news he perceives as a challenge to his line of thinking. But often when we act hastily and with little thought, the grenades we throw miss the intended target and damage innocent victims. Such is the case here. Only 1% of NPR's operating budget and 15% of the Public Broadcasting System budget comes from the corporation, and both will survive. Most of the corporation's funding goes to support local public broadcasting systems, which likely will not. 'After the cut, NPR is still going to be NPR and PBS is still going to be PBS,' said Julie Overgaard, executive director of South Dakota Public Broadcasting. 'They are all going to continue to exist.' So will public stations in the major metropolitan areas. 'It's the places like us that will suffer the most,' Overgaard said. 'The reason the CPB was set up was so that rural communities can share in a collective public media. 'We don't have enough people and wealth to exist on our own. The very thing they were trying to eliminate will survive. Instead, it's something very important to our state that will be eliminated.' Programs like 'South Dakota Focus,' 'In the Moment,' 'Dakota Life' and 'Jazz Nightly,' along with statehouse coverage and broadcasts of high school sports and activities, may all disappear. What a legacy for Thune, Rounds and Johnson — the men who destroyed SDPB. Last week while casting their votes, they hid behind the need to cut the budget deficit. Funny. They found deficit religion only a few weeks after they voted for Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Act that increases the deficit. The more talented politicians become, the better they are at creating alternative realities. Here's the reality of SDPB's future. The impending loss of $2 million in funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting may force SDPB to quickly cut up to 20 people from its 60-member staff. The damage likely will be worse. Even if SDPB could raise $2 million in three months, it probably wouldn't matter. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is essentially dead as of Sept. 30, severing the technical backbone of SDPB's network. It facilitates the sharing of programming from network to network. It facilitates emergency alerts and emergency alerts. It handles SDPB's website and negotiates music broadcast rights nationally. 'The situation is grave, fluid and chaotic,' Overgaard said. Rounds acted like he was the champion leading up to the vote, holding out to the last minute as he secured an agreement to find $9.4 million in funding elsewhere for communication towers on Native American reservations. That's not likely to be sustainable in the long-term. 'It's a nice gesture, but it is hollow in its result,' Overgaard said of Rounds' action. 'It will still result in the demise of tribal stations.' Programs like Native American News and other nationally shared music and talk programs likely won't be produced, and the national network that distributes it won't exist. Money and technical support for local programming also disappear. SDPB had just survived a funding fight in the South Dakota Legislature after then-Gov. Kristi Noem suggested cutting $3.6 million in state funding, also largely aimed at silencing NPR. Legislators were inundated with calls, and the result was an overwhelming restoration of funding. 'We know we are very important in people's daily lives,' Overgaard said. 'They trust us in moments of crisis and joy. This has nothing to do with whether we are a valued service. This is politics. I don't know that we ever had a chance to win this.' The only chance is for federal funding to be restored in the upcoming federal budget, perhaps absent taxpayer support for NPR and PBS. SDPB supporters will have opportunities to speak with their congressional delegates during the upcoming August recess. Looking at constituents in the eye can be uncomfortable. Trump puppets are not what we thought we elected. Thune, Rounds and Johnson, what have you become? EDITOR'S NOTE: Brad Johnson is married to a retired former employee of the nonprofit Friends of South Dakota Public Broadcasting. This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: South Dakotans in Congress betray their state with votes that could kill SD Public Broadcasting

ITT Second Quarter 2025 Earnings: Revenues Beat Expectations, EPS Lags
ITT Second Quarter 2025 Earnings: Revenues Beat Expectations, EPS Lags

Yahoo

time6 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

ITT Second Quarter 2025 Earnings: Revenues Beat Expectations, EPS Lags

ITT (NYSE:ITT) Second Quarter 2025 Results Key Financial Results Revenue: US$972.4m (up 7.3% from 2Q 2024). Net income: US$121.0m (up 1.1% from 2Q 2024). Profit margin: 12% (in line with 2Q 2024). EPS: US$1.53 (up from US$1.46 in 2Q 2024). We've found 21 US stocks that are forecast to pay a dividend yield of over 6% next year. See the full list for free. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period ITT Revenues Beat Expectations, EPS Falls Short Revenue exceeded analyst estimates by 2.5%. Earnings per share (EPS) missed analyst estimates by 3.8%. Looking ahead, revenue is forecast to grow 5.6% p.a. on average during the next 3 years, compared to a 4.3% growth forecast for the Machinery industry in the US. Performance of the American Machinery industry. The company's shares are up 1.6% from a week ago. Balance Sheet Analysis While earnings are important, another area to consider is the balance sheet. We've done some analysis and you can see our take on ITT's balance sheet. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Sign in to access your portfolio

One Reading International Insider Raised Stake By 44% In Previous Year
One Reading International Insider Raised Stake By 44% In Previous Year

Yahoo

time6 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

One Reading International Insider Raised Stake By 44% In Previous Year

From what we can see, insiders were net buyers in Reading International, Inc.'s (NASDAQ:RDI ) during the past 12 months. That is, insiders acquired the stock in greater numbers than they sold it. Although we don't think shareholders should simply follow insider transactions, we do think it is perfectly logical to keep tabs on what insiders are doing. This technology could replace computers: discover the 20 stocks are working to make quantum computing a reality. The Last 12 Months Of Insider Transactions At Reading International The insider, Steven Lucas, made the biggest insider sale in the last 12 months. That single transaction was for US$54k worth of shares at a price of US$1.36 each. That means that an insider was selling shares at around the current price of US$1.33. While insider selling is a negative, to us, it is more negative if the shares are sold at a lower price. Given that the sale took place at around current prices, it makes us a little cautious but is hardly a major concern. Steven Lucas was the only individual insider to sell over the last year. Douglas McEachern bought a total of 41.50k shares over the year at an average price of US$1.75. You can see a visual depiction of insider transactions (by companies and individuals) over the last 12 months, below. If you want to know exactly who sold, for how much, and when, simply click on the graph below! Check out our latest analysis for Reading International Reading International is not the only stock insiders are buying. So take a peek at this free list of under-the-radar companies with insider buying. Reading International Insiders Are Selling The Stock The last quarter saw substantial insider selling of Reading International shares. In total, insider Steven Lucas dumped US$54k worth of shares in that time, and we didn't record any purchases whatsoever. This may suggest that some insiders think that the shares are not cheap. Does Reading International Boast High Insider Ownership? I like to look at how many shares insiders own in a company, to help inform my view of how aligned they are with insiders. A high insider ownership often makes company leadership more mindful of shareholder interests. Our data indicates that Reading International insiders own about US$6.3m worth of shares (which is 14% of the company). We do note, however, it is possible insiders have an indirect interest through a private company or other corporate structure. We do generally prefer see higher levels of insider ownership. So What Does This Data Suggest About Reading International Insiders? An insider hasn't bought Reading International stock in the last three months, but there was some selling. In contrast, they appear keener if you look at the last twelve months. But insiders own relatively little of the company, from what we can see. So we can't be sure that insiders are optimistic. So these insider transactions can help us build a thesis about the stock, but it's also worthwhile knowing the risks facing this company. Be aware that Reading International is showing 5 warning signs in our investment analysis, and 1 of those can't be ignored... Of course Reading International may not be the best stock to buy. So you may wish to see this free collection of high quality companies. For the purposes of this article, insiders are those individuals who report their transactions to the relevant regulatory body. We currently account for open market transactions and private dispositions of direct interests only, but not derivative transactions or indirect interests. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store