2-3 days ago The CSAC were about to vote to support the Muhammad Ali Boxing Revival Act (bill H.R.4624) - a federal bill which aims to make boxing function like the MMA market, in terms of removing leverage from fighters. It aims to institute a UBO model (Unified Boxing Organisation), which mirrors how organisations like the UFC work, where the promoter is also controlling the rankings, belts and matchmaking.
1:10:15-1:48:30 is where you'll hear the call-ins
Callers included Kajan Johnson (UFC fighter and pro boxer), Rachel Donaire (boxing manager), Mac Danzig (UFC fighter), Erik Magraken (combat sports lawyer), boxing/mma media members, other fighters and even one MMA fan.
15 callers and not a single caller supported the bill.
No cliffs (listen yourself if you want. It has mostly accurate captions available too), but the main points brought up were that:
-It removes leverage from fighters
-The positives of the bill are just window-dressing and often things that boxers already have
-It creates conflicts of interest if promoters control everything
-Top MMA fighters make far less than top boxers
-UFC fighters get locked into coercive contracts
-Managers in boxing can only negotiate with promoters properly because of the Ali Act
-if they want to help fighters and boxing, the CSAC should be supporting expanding the Ali Act to MMA, not turning boxing into the MMA model
-The CSAC commissioners knew very little about the UFC antitrust lawsuit. Callers urged them to look into it.
-The bill would turn boxing into a monopoly and monopsony like MMA
-The UBO/UFC makes fighters less safe because they can be coerced into taking fights
-UFC Paramount deal money won't go to fighters. UFC fighters are still begging for a few extra dollars.
-MMA fighters take 13-17% of revenue from MMA events, while boxers take 80%.
-The UFC model leaves athletes exploited. Other sports have already been through this.
-One caller said companies try to use whatever they can to make as much profit as possible as much profit as possible even if it exploits people and this is another example of that
-Companies try to get workers to sign away their future leverage by giving small benefits
-One caller said fighters often don't come from money, so already have a power disadvantage. The UFC model creates an even bigger power imbalance, compared to boxing.
-One caller brought up the UFC sponsorship deal (Reebok/Venum) that took away fighters' income between fights
-One caller said they support the pregnancy testing in the proposed bill, as it can prevent unknown miscarriages
-The Ali Act was brought in to prevent the practices of promoters like Don King or UFC
-Other commissions often follow what the CSAC does, so CSAC should look into the matter more before voting on whether or not to support the bill.
Originally there were only several callers, but more requested to speak as it was going on. A commissioner remarked that in their time on the panel they've never heard so many public statements for an issue before. With three callers waiting, one commissioner asked the moderator if they have to hear them or if they can cut it off. Thankfully the moderator only cut it off after the remaining three - there were some good, new points raised in those calls.
Just prior to the calls, a commissioner says he's ready to vote in favour of the motion to support the new legislation, based on the evidence presented to them by Andy Foster (CSAC executive director and former pro fighter), who seems like a TKO shill.
After hearing the calls, the commission decided to postpone the vote and instead set up a two-person committee to look into it further.
Read more:
https://www.boxingscene.com/article...xing-safety-act-as-negative-feedback-rains-in
Interestingly, Ronda Rousey's mom (PhD AnnMaria De Mars) is on the commission too:
https://www.dca.ca.gov/csac/about_us/commisnr_bios.shtml
