MMA journalist and analyst Luke Thomas spent considerable time dissecting the Senate Commerce Committee hearing on proposed amendments to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act. His criticism focused on the specific arguments made by TKO Group Holdings and its representatives on Capitol Hill as they pushed their version of the legislation.
Thomas began his critique by acknowledging the sheer lobbying power behind TKO’s efforts.
“Not only are TKO very well equipped with the very best lobbyists that money can buy in Washington DC,” he said. “They’ve got all of the firms and all the players in those firms who are used to shepherding legislation across the finish line.”
He emphasized that their influence goes beyond simple spending.
“They have a rolodex inside of DC that goes in ways you could not possibly imagine,” he continued. “They’re not just paying for a lot of lobbying. They’re paying for extensive lobbying.”
Turning to the financial transparency argument presented by Nick Khan, who cited TKO’s status as a publicly traded company with quarterly earnings calls as proof of openness, Thomas pushed back directly.
“What they don’t tell you on those quarterly calls, and what that information available to the public does not show, is the per-event breakdown,” he said. He explained why that detail matters for boxers. “What is the event pulling in so the boxer can then see the results of this, see what they’re worth, what they’re generating, and use that as information maybe for the next negotiation.”
Thomas also challenged the claim that expanded licensing and merchandising deals could improve boxer compensation. He referenced Khan’s example of toy deals for wrestling legends as a potential model.
“You might get a more distributed sense of income,” he said. “You get a little bit from merchandising deals, you get a little bit from likeness deals, you get a little bit from a video game deal or something like that.”
However, he argued that the overall financial picture could still worsen for fighters. “But they’re going to make less under that than they are currently going to make,” he added.
On the issue of championship belt proliferation, where Khan suggested boxing suffers from too many belts and claimed there is effectively no middleweight champion, Thomas pointed to what he viewed as a factual flaw in the argument. He referenced the historic reign of Marvin Hagler to illustrate his point.
“I looked it up,” he said. “Hagler was the WBA, WBC, IBF, and Ring Magazine champion simultaneously.”
He clarified that the lack of confusion during Hagler’s era came from unification, not the absence of multiple titles.
“To the extent that there wasn’t confusion when Hagler was champion was only because he had unified all the different titles simultaneously,” Thomas explained. “It wasn’t that there weren’t different titles.”
He then addressed the implication of the argument.
“That actually doesn’t mean there’s no middleweight champion,” he said. “It just means there’s not a unified champion.”
Thomas also highlighted what he saw as a contradiction in TKO’s stance on championship belts.
“You’re saying that there’s too many belts in the sport but now you want to add more,” he said, pointing to the proposed structure. He noted the silence from other figures involved in the discussion. “And then Oscar says nothing about this.”
Thomas also pointed to comments made by boxer Nico Ali Walsh as one of the stronger moments from the hearing. Thomas noted that Walsh raised meaningful points about compensation and the pay structure across combat sports.
“As I mentioned, Nico Ali Walsh, I thought was pretty good,” he said. “You know, he certainly brought up, for example, the antitrust lawsuit for the UFC. He talked about compensation.”
However, Thomas argued that the rest of the panel failed to build on that discussion in a meaningful way. “But, you know, nobody on that panel could make arguments about pay and why the boxing model paid more,” he said.
He then highlighted what he considered Walsh’s most compelling observation about market behavior in combat sports. “Nico Ali Walsh was right, and this was a great thing that he said,” Thomas explained. “He said that, you know, listen, if how can boxing be broken if MMA figh ters are looking to improve their paydays by getting boxing fights.”
Looking at the legislation more broadly, Thomas argued that key protections historically tied to boxing governance were being overlooked or potentially weakened.
“Rankings are independent,” he said. “Not anymore. Belts are independent. Not anymore. Titles are independent. Not anymore. There has to be financial transparency. Not anymore.”
He then issued a direct challenge to supporters of the proposal.
“Give me an argument for why taking those specific things away is an improvement for the boxer,” he said.
Thomas also stressed that the historical foundation of the law was largely absent from the hearing’s discussion. He outlined why the Ali Act exists in the first place.
“Why does the Ali Act exist?” he asked. “Because there was a bunch of problems at the time of 1996 and 2000.”
He connected the legislation to earlier government intervention in boxing.
“It’s the inheritance from when the Department of Justice broke up boxing monopolies in the 1960s,” he said. “The 1996 Professional Boxing Safety Act was for health and safety measures and then the Ali Act was for labor protections.”
He summarized the relationship between the two laws in simple terms.
“It’s two sides of the same coin for athlete welfare,” Thomas said. “No one made this point today.”
Thomas concluded by acknowledging that parts of TKO’s proposal, particularly those related to health and safety, have genuine value. However, he warned that the structure of the bill could carry significant unintended consequences.
“There are health and safety improvements in that Ali Act bill by TKO that are pretty good,” he said. “But the argument is not that everything is fine.”
He ended with a characterization of the proposal’s potential risks.
“This is a Trojan horse or a poison pill,” Thomas said. “And those are the problems that need to be articulated.”
