House subcommittee hears competing views on Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act

A House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Workforce Protections hearing examined HR 4624, the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, with witnesses and members splitting over whether the bill will protect boxers or hand too much power to large promoters.

Representative Brian Jack, the bill's sponsor, told the panel he introduced HR 4624 to "revive" American boxing and to amend the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 while preserving the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act. He said the bill creates an alternative framework of Unified Boxing Organizations, or UBOs, that would exist alongside current sanctioning bodies and give boxers "the freedom to choose" between systems.

Lawrence Epstein, senior executive vice president and chief operating officer of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, testified that UBOs would provide fighters with "more career opportunities, better pay, and greater health and safety protections." Epstein described UFC practices he called industry-leading, including accident insurance that covers training injuries, performance institutes, and year‑round, out‑of‑competition drug testing administered by third parties. He said the bill's national floor provisions'a $150 per round minimum and $25,000 minimum medical coverage per fight'would deliver protections to boxers nationwide.

Lonnie Ali, cofounder of the Muhammad Ali Center and widow of Muhammad Ali, endorsed the bill on legacy and safety grounds. She highlighted the bill's brain‑health provisions and told members that mandatory MRI/MRA testing "every 3 years" and the creation of performance and recovery centers would give boxers medical monitoring and access to specialists who could identify emerging problems earlier.

Patrick English, a longtime boxing reform attorney, cautioned that the measure, as drafted, risks allowing a dominant UBO to reintroduce conflicts the Ali Act sought to prevent. English warned the committee that the bill could weaken firewall protections and said routing positive drug-test reporting away from local commissions toward UBO‑controlled systems or third‑party databases could be "a formula for a problem." He expressed particular concern that a single, powerful promoter could gain outsized influence.

Andy Foster, executive officer of the California State Athletic Commission, supported the bill's minimums and safety standards but urged an amendment to add an automatic inflation adjustment for insurance and coverage minimums. Foster noted California's own reforms (including a $200 per‑round minimum) and told the panel that state athletic commissions would remain the linchpin of event sanctioning and regulatory compliance.

Members of the subcommittee pressed witnesses on several points: whether UBOs would displace existing protections, how state commissions would interact with UBOs, reporting and transparency for positive drug tests, and what oversight would exist to prevent anticompetitive conduct. Epstein told members the UFC had settled prior antitrust litigation but said "there was no finding of any liability" and reiterated that athletes would have a choice between systems. English urged the committee to preserve Ali Act guardrails that he said prevented promoters from controlling rankings and contracts.

Ranking Member Ilhan Omar (D-MN) welcomed parts of the bill but urged the committee to pause and consult state commissions, local gyms and boxers before moving the legislation, noting that several prominent fighters and promoters had expressed opposition in op-eds and letters entered into the record. The record includes letters and statements both supporting and opposing the bill, and members asked staff to review BoxRec data and ongoing research into brain injuries.

The hearing closed with members signaling interest in amendments and further bipartisan work to reconcile health and safety goals with protections against concentrated industry control.