Bob Arum Slams Ali Revival Act Proposal

Arum: Proposed UBOs Would Strip Away Fighter Protections

In a two-page letter submitted to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Arum argued that the bill creates a regulatory loophole big enough to swallow the fighter protections enshrined in the 2000 Muhammad Ali Act.

“As presently drafted, the conditions required for an entity to qualify as a UBO do not include the protections for fighters set forth (by the original Ali Act),” Arum wrote.

He listed several alarming omissions:

Under the proposed bill, a UBO would NOT be required to:

• Avoid coercive multi-year, exclusive fighter contracts

• Provide financial disclosures regarding event revenues, purses, or expenses

• Maintain a firewall preventing promoters from acting as managers

Arum emphasized that these protections are the cornerstone of the Ali Act. Which was intended to prevent promoters from exploiting fighters financially or controlling their careers without oversight.

“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.”

Critics Warn the Act Could Create Boxing Monopolies

Supporters of the Ali Revival Act including TKO’s leadership argue the bill would:

• Streamline governance in boxing

• Improve match quality

• Enhance fighter health and safety

• Reduce fragmentation caused by the alphabet sanctioning bodies

But critics, including Arum, warn that the legislation would do the opposite by effectively granting UBOs monopoly-like control over the sport.

A promoter-run ranking system controlled by a single company would allow the organization to decide who fights for titles, who enters the rankings, and when fighters are allowed to compete elsewhere. Arum called the bill “incredibly problematic and entirely unjustifiable.”

He added: “There is no reason for Congress to actively remove these protections for those fighters who choose to sign with a UBO, and no reason for a UBO to be exempt from complying with these protective measures.”

The Larger Battle: Boxing Regulation vs. MMA-Style Centralization

The conflict highlights a deep philosophical divide in combat sports:

Create a single, UFC-like structure for boxing centralized, promoter-controlled, and built around exclusive deals with fighters.

Arum and Traditional Boxing Promoters’ Position:

Maintain fighter independence and regulatory checks that prevent promoters from owning both the contract and the rankings.

The debate comes at a pivotal moment for boxing. As the sport navigates shifting broadcast landscapes and increased competition from MMA, bare-knuckle organizations, and crossover events.

What Happens Next?

Congress is still reviewing proposed language for the Revival Act. But amendments are expected, especially given resistance from major promoters, fighter advocates, and industry watchdog groups.

For now, Arum’s letter places a spotlight on the bill’s potential risks and pushes back against the UFC’s most aggressive attempt yet to reshape the boxing world in its image.