California commission forms subcommittee to study federal 'Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act' after wide public comment

The California State Athletic Commission on Sept. 8 voted to create a two-commissioner subcommittee to study federal legislation known as the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act (H.R. 4624) and return recommendations at the commission's December meeting.

Executive Officer Andy Foster told commissioners the bill would create a new licensed “unified boxing organization” (UBO) pathway and add federal medical, anti-doping, insurance and minimum-pay requirements. Foster said the UBO sections would require more frequent and broader medical screening for fighters signed to a UBO (including annual physicals, eye and blood testing and MRIs every three years for certain fighters), minimum event insurance of $25,000 for injuries, an anti-doping program administered by an independent third party, and minimum pay language (the draft bill sets a minimum of $150 per round). Foster said many of the new costs in the bill would be the responsibility of the UBO rather than the athlete.

Why it matters: commissioners said the proposal could raise medical and pay standards nationally but might also restructure how promoters, sanctioning bodies and fighters interact. Supporters say it could increase fighter pay and safety and attract new promoters to California. Opponents — including dozens of callers during the meeting’s public-comment period — argued it would grant excessive market power to UBO promoters, restrict fighters’ ability to compete across sanctioning bodies and risk reduced pay for top fighters.

Foster described technical differences between the draft bill and existing California rules: the UBO draft requires two ambulances minimum at matches and three ringside physicians for covered matches (California currently requires one ambulance on-site and two ringside physicians continuously present at matches), and the draft permits a UBO to publish and update its own prohibited-substances list rather than rely solely on the World Anti-Doping Agency list. Foster said the UBO draft also would require insurance that covers training periods in addition to event coverage, and that some medical testing costs would be assigned to the UBO.

Commissioner response and action Executive Officer Andy Foster and Vice Chair Dr. John Williams each described the medical provisions as largely consistent with or exceeding current California standards; Williams said he saw “no red flags” in the medical language. Multiple commissioners and the chair emphasized the need to protect fighters' safety and long-term financial interests while weighing whether the state should create a UBO license type if federal law passes.

After approximately a dozen commenters spoke — many warning that a UBO model could create a monopoly-like market and reduce fighters’ negotiation power — the commission appointed a two-member subcommittee to study the bill and report back in December. Chairman Peter Villegas named Commissioner (first reference) Commissioner Gurell and Commissioner DeMars to the subcommittee and asked staff to coordinate research and outreach to stakeholders. The chair said the subcommittee should work “closely with Andy” and provide findings at the December commission meeting.

Public comment and stakeholder letters More than a dozen callers addressed the commission on the bill. Public speakers included former and current fighters, managers and advocates. Many called the bill a risk to fighter autonomy and compared the UBO model to the mixed martial arts promoter model that critics say centralized market power. Foster said he had received letters supporting portions of the bill, including a letter from Loyola Marymount University and correspondence from TGB Promotions (Tom Brown) endorsing provisions that would raise minimum pay and medical coverage.

Next steps The commission’s subcommittee — comprised of Commissioners Gurell and DeMars, working with Executive Officer Foster — will review the bill language, stakeholder letters and public comment and return to the full commission with a recommendation at the December meeting. The commission did not take a formal position on the bill at the Sept. 8 meeting.