Oscar De La Hoya came to Capitol Hill this week with a warning: the push to overhaul boxing's federal rules could strip fighters of their power and hand it to executives and foreign investors hunting for profit.
At a Senate hearing on Wednesday, the former champion and now-promoter clashed with executives backing a bill that would reshape how boxing operates. The legislation, already passed by the House, would allow creation of centralized "Unified Boxing Organizations" alongside the current system where multiple promoters and sanctioning bodies compete for control.
The divide was stark. Backers argue the new model would simplify matchmaking and attract major investment. Critics say it would concentrate power in ways that hobble fighter leverage and income.
"This proposed act is made for billionaires, not boxers," said Nico Ali Walsh, a professional fighter and Muhammad Ali's grandson, during testimony before the Senate commerce committee. "It will certainly give more money to the shareholders, not the fighters."
The debate centers on a fundamental question: whether boxing should remain a decentralized marketplace or move toward a single entity controlling rankings, matchmaking, and title shots. Nick Khan, a board member of TKO Group Holdings, the parent company of the UFC, framed the current setup as broken. He noted that multiple fighters claim championships in the same division.
"There is no middleweight champion. There are at least four different people who say they are," Khan said.
But Walsh rejected that premise. "Boxing is not broken," he countered. "If it were, UFC champions would not be actively targeting boxing fights because of the fair pay."
The bill would allow the creation of new unified systems while keeping the existing framework intact. On paper, fighters could choose where to compete. In reality, critics warn the distinction may dissolve once one model dominates.
Under the proposal, unified organizations could act simultaneously as promoter and governing body, a departure from the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act that specifically separated those roles to prevent conflicts of interest. This mirrors the structure used in mixed martial arts, where a single company controls matchmaking, rankings, and fighter pay.
The legislation is widely expected to clear the path for Zuffa Boxing, a venture backed by TKO and Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund. Dana White, UFC president and Trump ally, is leading the effort to build the new promotion.
De La Hoya cast the push in geopolitical terms. He pointed to LIV Golf, the Saudi-funded golf breakaway that imploded after funding dried up, as a cautionary tale.
"Zuffa Boxing is fully funded by the Saudis," De La Hoya said. "We should be honest about what is happening here. That was sportswashing, a clear effort to use sport to reshape reputation. It should serve as a warning."
Walsh highlighted a revenue disparity that could worsen under the new model. UFC fighters typically receive under 20% of the revenue generated by their fights, he said, compared to as much as 80% in boxing. The proposed changes risk pushing boxing toward the lower end.
Documents reviewed during the hearing revealed that some proposed agreements would grant promoters broad control over fighters' careers, including the power to assign opponents and restrict outside competition. In some cases, promoters could count a bout as fulfilled even if a fighter withdraws due to injury, without paying the full purse.
The proposal also includes reduced financial disclosure requirements, potentially limiting fighters' ability to understand revenues from their bouts or negotiate freely.
The Senate hearing comes as the UFC remains entangled in broader antitrust scrutiny. In 2024, the promotion agreed to a $375 million settlement with hundreds of fighters over claims it suppressed wages and limited competition. The company denied wrongdoing, and related claims remain pending in a separate lawsuit.
Critics argue the boxing proposal mirrors key elements of that system: unilateral control over matchmaking, long-term exclusive contracts, and concentrated power in a single operator. Current federal boxing law was specifically designed to prevent such structures.
De La Hoya argued that fighters' bargaining power would inevitably erode under the new model.
"If this bill passes, fighters will have fewer choices, less leverage, and less control over their careers," he said. "Fighters deserve real protection and real opportunity, not have to fight the system as well."
Khan, representing the corporate side, framed the proposal as offering fighters an additional pathway, not a replacement. He pointed to ongoing delays in making major fights under the current system, citing the six-year wait for the 2015 Mayweather-Pacquiao super-fight.
"How many fans were lost in those six years?" he asked.
Senate commerce committee chair Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, appeared to frame the debate in purely economic terms. The push toward consolidation, he suggested, followed the same logic as other sports consolidation efforts: more money.
"That is the argument," he said. "A crap ton more money."
Author James Rodriguez: "The irony is sharp: backers claim the new model gives fighters choice, but the real question is whether choice means anything once monopoly power takes hold."
Comments