The APBC expresses that they “strongly oppose” the modifications proposed under the “Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act,” introduced by Representatives Brian Jacks (R-Georgia) and Sharice Davids (D-Kansas).
“It is evident that both the members and board of the APBC stand together in their dissent toward this atrocious act, which will undo much of the positive impact the original Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act had for safeguarding boxers against unprincipled managers and promoters,” declared APBC President Albert Low.
“The original Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the subsequent Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 were meticulously crafted to prevent entities like the T.K.O. Group from gaining unchecked authority, thereby ensuring boxers’ protection from the very conflicts of interest that the recent T.K.O. amendment may reintroduce.
We need to learn from previous errors. We must stop this shameful act from becoming law.
— ALBERT LOW, PRESIDENT OF ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL BOXING COMMISSIONS
“The Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act prohibited promoters from acting as managers and mandated complete financial openness from promoters and sanctioning bodies. It aimed to maintain integrity in the boxing business or at the very least ensure transparency, providing fighters with the information and liberty to make informed choices for their careers.
“Yet, this supposed Revival Act is appalling as it will permit self-interested ‘Unified Boxing Organizations’ (UBOs) to function beyond the existing sanctioning framework, effectively allowing a single entity, in this instance T.K.O. Group, to oversee both regulation and promotion under its own name.
“In essence, this will enable T.K.O. to operate within professional boxing as it already does in mixed martial arts — that is controlling the talent, the titles, the schedules and the compensation.
“We need to learn from previous errors. We must stop this shameful act from becoming law, or else boxers may face exploitation, unfair contracts, and insufficient pay transparency moving forward, which are the inherent risks of allowing one company to dominate the market.”
