Muhammad Ali's Grandson Defends Boxing In Congressional Hearing

Muhammad Ali's grandson, Nico Ali-Walsh, was one of four to testify before a hearing chaired by Senator Ted Cruz regarding the House-passed Muhammad Ali Boxing Revival Act. 

Cruz convened the hearing on Wednesday to address proposed reforms to the existing Ali Act of 2000, reasoning that he wanted to bring American boxing back to a unified direction for the benefit of the sport both for fighters and organizations. 

Also present at the hearing were TKO and Zuffa Boxing representative Nick Khan, Golden Boy Promotions' Oscar De La Hoya, and Florida State Athletic Commission Executive Director Timothy Shipman.

"I'm here as someone whose name is directly tied to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, not just as a fighter affected by it, but as part of the legacy that law represents," Ali-Walsh opened his testimony. "Fighters are labeled independent contractors. As a result, people will say fighter's have options. That we can just go elsewhere. But when the same company controls who you fight, how you are promoted, and whether fans ever see you, it's not much of a choice."

He continued, "When one system controls access, choice becomes theoretical, not real. The Ali Act was built on a simple principle: the people controlling fighters should not also control the entire marketplace those fighters depend on. That separation exists to prevent conflicts of interest and exploitation. The new Muhammad Ali Boxing Revival Act would undermine that principle."

Ali-Walsh reasoned that allowing one entity to operate promotion, management, and matchmaking for a fighter removes independence and the ability to negotiate. 

He pointed to the UFC as an example of that: "This type of centralized system is already seen in mixed martial arts, particularly in the UFC... In that model, fighters typically receive 20% of the revenue. Compared to boxing where fighters can earn up to 80%. The newly proposed Revival Act pushes that centralized model onto boxing, behind the claim that boxing is broken." 

Ali-Walsh continued to push back on the idea that boxing is broken, making the case that so many former UFC fighters trade the Octagon for a squared circle. 

"Boxing is not broken," he affirmed. "If it were, UFC Champions at the height of their careers would not be actively targeting boxing fights because of the fair pay. That movement is rarely seen in reverse due to the UFC's centralized pay structure."

He continued to say that when all competition has been consolidated to one system, leverage disappears and as a result, so does fair market value. He argued that while the proposed legislation covers provisions for fighters, there are already provisions within the current legislation that he himself as a fighter have benefited from. 

"Protection should be strengthened, especially around health and safety. But not used as justification to restructure the sport in a way that removes power from fighters," he said, before going on to simply say his grandfather's name has no place on the proposal as it stands. 

"The bill that the House has passed should not be adopted. We could protect fighters more effectively than we do today without concentrating control over them. If this bill is passed in its current form, it should not have my grandfather's name on it."

He said it would betray the principles that the Ali Act was created to protect, and fighters should not have to choose between their careers and their rights. 

Ali-Walsh later touched on what Zuffa Boxing has already shown itself to be, and he feels it is just trying to replicate the UFC model in a boxing setting. 

"I don't know if you've seen the Zuffa Boxing events. But if you have seen the events, it, from my perspective, looks very plain. It looks very corporate," he opined. "In current boxing you have the freedom to have those sponsorships. Unlike in Zuffa where you're forced to wear their trunks, or you're forced to not have certain amount of sponsors of whatever their rules they may be in their contract."

He said as a fighter he knows having those sponsorships, and the autonomy over which and where, provides the opportunity to make more money. 

He concluded, "They're moving that same UFC model over to boxing. You can see it in their events already. And if that model was truly for the fighters you wouldn't see the $375 million antitrust lawsuit that the UFC had to settle. You wouldn't see former UFC fighters complaining about pay. You wouldn't see current UFC fighters begging for raises in their pay. If that model truly worked and it was truly for the fighters, you wouldn't be hearing so much about money from these UFC fighters."

Fighter pay has been a constant discourse for UFC over the past few years in particular, given the company's consistently touted commercial success. Officials have always pushed back against that narrative, but the likes of former UFC Heavyweight Champions Francis Ngannou and Jon Jones have both had public falling outs with the promotion over it. 

Ngannou in particular went on to fight in boxing against former World Heavyweight Champions Anthony Joshua and Tyson Fury. He will be fighting Philipe Lins on the MVP MMA card streaming on Netflix on May 16, headlined by Ronda Rousey against Gina Carano. Both of which have their own grievances with the UFC after failed negotiations.