Combat Sports Law

This week news broke that the protections professional boxers enjoy in the US under the Ali Act are under serious threat with the introduction of the Ali “Revival” Act. You can click here for some background on this topic.

Today Patrick English, a US attorney well versed in the legalities of professional boxing, penned an open letter calling the Ali Revival Act a “betrayal” of everything the Ali Act stands for. Below is his letter in full. It is worth reading to understand his concerns of how this bill undermines the Ali Act and the threats it can pose for professional boxers.

______________________________________________

As an individual who was heavily involved in the drafting of the Professional Boxer Health and Safety Act and the Muhammad Ali Act and  who has an extensive boxing resume I feel that I am uniquely qualified to comment on the proposed amendments to the Acts.

When John McCain and his staff drafted the Acts there was no agenda but one. That Agenda was to make boxing better, safer, and more fair to boxers. There was no intent at all to favor any single promotional entity. That is not the case here. The clear intent is to favor a single promotional entity. The bill was substantially drafted by lobbyists for that entity, to wit Zuffa and its various subdivisions.

The bill does something that McCain expressly disavowed. There had been a history of coziness between certain promoters and ratings organizations. For background on this read Jack Newfield’s book, “Only in America: The Life and Crimes of Don King” and read about the indictment and ultimate conviction od Bob Lee, then the IBF President. The Act was intended to create, among other things, a firewall between ratings organizations and Promoters. The proposed amendment destroys that firewall as to a selected entity which will be awarding in house championships based upon ratings which excludes boxers not affiliated with that entity. This is a betrayal of the current act  and of what McCain and those who worked with him were trying to accomplish.

In addition to the basic and fundamental flaw in the proposed act, we note the following:

• The proposed Act betrays fighters by exempting what will be a single Zuffa controlled entity from the following provisions designed to protect fighters would not be subject to the following  :

(1) Protection from Coercive Contracts (Section 10 of the Ali Act)

• Note that Section 10(B) could not be applicable to a Zuffa Entity, but Section 10(A) could be as the bill is currently drafted

(2) Required Disclosures for Promoters (Section 13 of the Ali Act)

• Includes both required disclosures to Boxing Commissions and required disclosures to the fighters
• Rules applicable to sanctioning bodies that protect fighters are not applicable undr the proposed amendment.  For example:
  • No requirement to create “guidelines for objective and consistent written criteria for the ratings of professional boxers.”
  • No requirement that the Zuffa controlled entity provide a “written explanation of the organization’s criteria, its rating of the boxer, and the rationale or basis for its rating” as part of an appeals process
  • No requirement to publish an explanation of change in ratings
• With regard to sanctioning bodies, while they may not properly follow the above, fighters have legal recourse  if a sanctioning body is not complying with its rules and regulations regarding rankings/title fights.  Under the proposed Amendment he idea is for a Zuffa Controled entity to operate as both a promoter AND a sanctioning body, they should be subject to the requirements for both as set forth in the Ali Act.
• There is no justifiable reason for there to be different language regarding the firewall between promoters and managers established by the Ali Act.  It’s not clear from parsing the differences in language what benefit could be gleaned, but the same firewall protections should apply to the Zuffa Entity’s in its capacity as a promoter (again, under the notion here that the entity is both promoter and sanctioning body).
• The Enforcement portion of the amendment is oddly worded.  My reading is that this is an additional enforcement mechanism, not a limitation, but why not just make a Zuffa controlled entity’s violation akin to an anti-exploitation, sanctioning body, or disclosure violation?
• The reporting of drug violations (PED’s) is dangerously weakened. Under the current system test results are reported to  the Promoter and the local Commission and the ABC and the opponent. In the current bill results go to the promoter or the local commission or the ABC. The difference between the word “or” and the word “and” had huge consequences. Under the proposed amendment  legal responsibilities would be fulfilled  if only the Promoter got the results. The potential for the hiding of results is obvious.
• Fighters very often to negotiate  to have regular pre bout testing, typically with VADA and  at the cost of the promoter. It is unlikely that this can happen with the Zuffa. contracts.
• Further the proposed  law is vague as to what is to be tested for. Some years a   the ABC adopted the WADA list of prohibited substances and enhancement methods. The WADA standards are not incorporated into the proposed amendment.
• There is no requirement that participants in all title bouts be tested.
• The hypocracy of the proposed Act is that it excludes MMA fighters. If this was an honest attempt at revision of combat laws it would include MMA fighters

• To qualify  under the act it may be practically speaking impossible for any entrant who is not a Zuffa controlled entity.  Two most notable examples are:
  • (1) Requirement of Equipment and Facilities for Training and Rehabilitation. This sounds good, but most boxers prefer to train in their own gyms with their own trainers.
  • (2) Comprehensive Anti-Doping Program. Again, this sounds good but it is ill defined. Does participation in the WBC and WBA’s random testing programs constitute a comprehensive program ?

I do not pretend that the Ali Act or the Professional Boxer Health and Safety Act is perfect. There is room for improvement. However the proposed Amendment is not the way to go. It lessens protections for boxers and  is designed for a single purpose – to allow the new Zuffa boxing entity to avoid restrictions  designed to protect boxers. This is an ignoble goal.

Pat English