Oscar De La Hoya Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act testimony highlights a growing fight over who controls boxing, with major implications for fighter pay, safety, and the future of Latino athletes.
When Oscar De La Hoya sat before the U.S. Senate on April 22, 2026, his message was direct. The future of boxing, he argued, is at a turning point. Speaking on behalf of Golden Boy Promotions, De La Hoya urged lawmakers to reject proposed changes to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, warning that new legislation could shift power away from fighters and toward large corporate entities.
At the center of the debate is the proposed Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, backed in part by TKO Group Holdings, the parent company of Ultimate Fighting Championship. The proposal would introduce a new model for boxing built around centralized organizations that manage promotion, rankings, and championships under one structure.
De La Hoya told lawmakers that this model risks undoing decades of reform. “The Ali Act was created to protect fighters from conflicts of interest,” he said during testimony. “We cannot go backward.”
He was joined by Nico Ali Walsh, grandson of Muhammad Ali, who also voiced concern about preserving the law’s original intent.
The original Ali Act, passed in 2000, was designed to prevent exploitation by requiring transparency in fight contracts and separating promoters from ranking bodies. According to the U.S. Congress, the law aimed to give fighters more control over their careers and earnings.
The proposed Revival Act would allow the creation of Unified Boxing Organizations, or UBOs. These entities could sign fighters to long-term exclusive contracts, control rankings, and promote events all at once.
Supporters, including executives linked to World Wrestling Entertainment, argue that boxing needs a more structured system similar to mixed martial arts. They say it could bring consistency, minimum pay standards, and guaranteed health coverage.
But critics see a different outcome.
Bob Arum, a longtime figure in the sport, has warned that consolidating power could reduce competition and limit fighter leverage. De La Hoya echoed that concern in his testimony, arguing that fewer options for fighters often translate into lower pay and less negotiating power.
Why Latino fighters are paying attention
For Latino communities, boxing has long been a pathway to opportunity and visibility. From neighborhood gyms in Los Angeles to global arenas, the sport has produced generations of champions and economic mobility.
Changes to the structure of boxing could directly affect future fighters coming from these communities. Long-term exclusive contracts, for example, could limit the ability of young boxers to negotiate better deals or switch promoters.
Sports economist Andrew Zimbalist of Smith College has noted in broader research that centralized sports leagues often control athlete earnings more tightly. In boxing, where independent promotion has historically allowed top fighters to command high purses, that shift could reshape the financial landscape.
The debate now unfolding in Washington is not just about regulation. It is about who controls boxing’s future.
Supporters say modernization is overdue. Critics argue the risks are too high.
For De La Hoya, the issue is personal. “Fighters deserve transparency, freedom, and protection,” he told lawmakers.
The Senate has yet to make a final decision. But one thing is clear. This fight, far from the spotlight of the ring, could determine how the next generation of fighters builds their careers and their futures.
Boxing Legends Reap Big Rewards: 200 Retired Mexican Boxers Eligible for California Pensions
