Senate Ali Revival Act Mandates $200 Per Round and 90-Day Contract Windows

The Senate's Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act guarantees fighters one bout every six months and a minimum pay of $200 per round.

Bipartisan sponsors Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Jacky Rosen (D-Nevada) introduced the Senate version of the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act on Thursday, July 30, 2026. This legislation guarantees professional boxers a minimum payment of $200 per round and mandates at least one covered fight every six months. While the House version of the bill passed in March, the Senate's iteration introduces a 90-day window for fighters to negotiate new deals prior to contract expiration, tripling the 30-day period proposed by the House.

Under the Senate framework, a boxer’s initial contract with a Unified Boxing Organization (UBO) is capped at a maximum of three years, provided the athlete has not previously signed a promotional agreement. Subsequent contracts are permitted to span up to six years. Senator Rosen noted these provisions aim to prevent teenage athletes, aged 17 or 18, from being locked into decade-long agreements that could encompass their entire professional careers. If signed into law, the act would take effect 180 days after enactment, a significant extension from the 30-day implementation timeline found in the House bill.

Structural Differences in Title and UBO Regulation

The Senate bill diverges from the House version by removing a provision that would have streamlined boxing titles to one championship per weight class for each sanctioning body. Furthermore, the Senate text allows UBOs to recognize titles and rankings from other organizations, including the four existing major sanctioning bodies. This specific inclusion facilitates the crowning of undisputed champions through cross-organizational matchups.

Regarding athlete welfare, the Senate version stipulates that UBO fighters must have access to training and rehabilitation equipment at reasonable costs near their primary residence. This contrasts with the House bill, which required facilities to be operated specifically by the UBO. Both legislative versions maintain identical requirements for support services, including medical coordinators and insurance coverage during both training camps and active bouts.

Oversight and Regulatory Compliance

To prevent financial conflicts of interest, the Senate bill preserves the barrier between boxing managers and UBOs, mirroring the original 2000 Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act. UBOs are explicitly prohibited from charging fighters fees for title contests. Unlike the House version, the Senate bill mandates disclosure and compliance reviews conducted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Association of Boxing Commissions. These reviews will focus on the boxer rating process and establish a formal avenue for appeals.

Nico Ali Walsh, grandson of Muhammad Ali, provided testimony regarding fighter protections during an April 22 hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee. This committee, chaired by Cruz, also heard testimony from TKO board member Nick Khan. Proponents of the bill include UFC CEO Dana White, who founded Zuffa Boxing alongside Turki Alalshikh, the chairman of the Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority. It is anticipated that Zuffa would transition into a UBO should the legislation pass.

Legislative Timeline and Reconciling Chambers

The House and Senate have until early January to reconcile their respective bills before the current Congress expires. Failure to do so would require the legislative process to restart from scratch with a new Congress. Following the August recess, the Senate version may receive additional amendments. If the bill secures Commerce Committee approval, it will move to the full Senate floor.

Current federal regulation of the sport relies on the 1996 Professional Boxing Safety Act and the 2000 Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act. Proponents argue the new Revival Act will modernize safety standards and improve pay to address the sport's declining popularity. However, critics suggest the creation of UBOs could potentially strip away existing protections against coercive contracts or allow promoters to gain disproportionate profits relative to the athletes.