By Jeffrey T. Donner, Esq.

I watched today’s Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the Ali Revival Act, and my takeaway is simple: this bill should pass.

Not because every promoter supporting it is a saint. Not because every corporation that might benefit from it should be blindly trusted. And not because every criticism of the bill is frivolous. It should pass because the current model of professional boxing is plainly not working, and at some point adults have to stop pretending otherwise. The Senate hearing on April 22, 2026 focused on whether federal boxing law still serves the sport, after the House already passed the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act and Senator Ted Cruz stated that he expects to introduce Senate legislation on the issue.

I like Oscar De La Hoya. I respect what he accomplished in the ring. He is one of the biggest stars the sport has ever produced. But let’s be honest about what happened today. Oscar was not just speaking as some neutral guardian of boxing purity. He was speaking as a promoter whose own business interests are threatened by a new structure that could reduce the leverage of the old promoter-sanctioning body model. His written testimony makes that unmistakably clear. He argued that a Unified Boxing Organization would create a closed system and would shift power away from traditional promoters like him. That is not merely principle. That is economics. He is fighting for his own wallet, and there is no point dancing around that reality.

Freedom Means More Options, Not Fewer

The best argument for this legislation is the one that should appeal to anyone who claims to believe in freedom: the Ali Revival Act creates more choices, not fewer. The bill does not abolish the existing boxing structure. It does not outlaw the alphabet-belt model. It does not require fighters to join Zuffa or any other company. What it does is allow an additional path to exist—an optional unified model alongside the fragmented legacy system. The bill itself says one of its purposes is to increase choice and opportunity for professional boxers, and Chairman Cruz described it in the same terms.

That matters. A lot. Critics talk as though this bill would force boxing into a monopoly. That is simply not what the legislation does. The supporters of the bill testified that participation in a UBO is optional and that more than one UBO could exist. Nick Khan expressly stated that the framework would not be limited to Zuffa and could be used by other promoters if they chose to comply with the law. In other words, this is not less freedom. It is more freedom. It is the government saying that the old structure no longer gets an exclusive franchise on how professional boxing must operate.

Nobody Is Forced to Join Zuffa

This point should end half the debate right there. Nobody is forced to join Zuffa. Nobody is forced to join a UBO at all. Fighters who want to stay in the traditional system can stay there. Promoters who want to keep doing business under the old fragmented model can keep doing it. The legacy structure survives. The difference is that it no longer gets to prevent competitors from building something different. That is not coercion. That is competition.

And once that is understood, the next point becomes obvious. If more lawful pathways exist, more professional athletes can exist. Some of those athletes may be second-tier fighters. Fine. They are still prizefighters. They are still professionals. Under the current broken model, many of those men are not getting meaningful fights anyway. They are sitting, waiting, being frozen out, or chasing opportunities that never materialize because the existing system is clogged by politics, sanctions, belts, promoters, and endless maneuvering. A more organized model can create more cards, more slots, more activity, and more paid work. That is how sports grow.

The Existing Model Is Failing Fighters and Fans

The defenders of the status quo always speak as though they are preserving something noble. They are not. They are preserving dysfunction.

Modern boxing has too many champions, too many belts, too many excuses, and too little actual fighting. The Senate hearing materials and the bill’s supporters described exactly that problem: the current system is fragmented, major fights are often delayed or never made, and multiple fighters can claim championship status in the same division at the same time. That is not a healthy sport. It is a mess.

Fans can see it with their own eyes. Too many “champions” fight once a year. Some take even longer. The best do not reliably fight the best. The titles are diluted. The rankings are political. The product is incoherent. And the people defending the current structure keep asking boxing fans to accept that this is somehow normal, or traditional, or inevitable. It is none of those things. It is a failed business model wearing the costume of tradition.

That is why I am not especially moved by romantic speeches about protecting boxing from change. Change is exactly what the sport needs. If the old model were working, Congress would not be here. The House would not have passed reform legislation. The Senate would not be holding a hearing on whether federal boxing law has “gone the distance or slipped the jab.” The hearing exists because the sport’s governance problem is real.

Boxing Is Prizefighting—And Prizefighters Need Fights

Here is the part many people are afraid to say out loud: boxing is not a poetry contest. It is prizefighting. It is dangerous. It is brutal. It is not supposed to be comfortable. Nobody has a constitutional right to become a champion while fighting once every 14 months and holding the division hostage.

One of the most important features of the Ali Revival Act is that it tries to force activity. Under the UBO provisions, a boxer’s contract must either provide at least one fight every six months or require compensation if the boxer is left inactive. The bill also limits contract length and gives fighters communication rights near the end of the contract term. That is not incidental. It goes directly to one of the sport’s core failures: too many fighters with too much leverage fighting far too rarely.

Now, of course, fighting more often is not always better for the athlete. Boxing is dangerous. Repeated camps, repeated blows, repeated wear and tear—that is real. But this is still prizefighting. The sport cannot survive as a major professional attraction if champions fight once a year, marquee matchups take years to make, and the public is constantly asked to pay premium prices for thin calendars and delayed events. A professional fighting career is not supposed to function like tenure.

The Bill Also Raises Basic Protections

There is another point worth making. This is not just a market-structure bill. It also includes meaningful protection provisions: minimum compensation floors per round, contractual safeguards, insurance and medical requirements, anti-doping measures, and activity-related protections for fighters. Timothy Shipman of the Florida Athletic Commission testified in support of the safety and regulatory components of the bill and stated that it aligns with, and in some areas exceeds, strong state standards. That matters because the debate should not be caricatured as freedom versus safety. The legislation attempts to offer both.

My View

My view is straightforward. The Ali Revival Act should pass because it gives boxing something it badly needs: a lawful alternative to a broken status quo.

It gives fighters more options. It gives promoters more options. It gives the market more options. It may create more opportunities for professional athletes who otherwise would not get real fights under the legacy structure. It may produce more activity, more coherent matchmaking, and more accountability. Most importantly, it stops treating the current alphabet-belt chaos as though it is the only legitimate way the sport can function.

I understand why Oscar De La Hoya opposes it. I just do not agree with him. The current system has had decades to prove itself. It has produced too many belts, too many delays, too much inactivity, and too little clarity. At some point, defending that structure stops being about protecting boxing and starts being about protecting the people who profit from the confusion.

Congress should stop protecting the old racket just because it is old. The Senate should pass the Ali Revival Act.