Previously, CSAC Executive Officer Andy Foster (pictured) said he was on board with supporting the motion to make changes.

In July, US representatives Brian Jack and Sharice Davids motioned to introduce the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, paving the way for the new TKO group to make a significant splash in the sport through Zuffa Boxing, with the support of Saudi Arabian financier Turki Alalshikh. 

But as the calls rained down on the commission, it became clear that the changes were not welcomed.  

“This is the most feedback we’ve received in a commission meeting since I’ve been involved,” said one commissioner.

It was decided that a sub-committee would be created to obtain further feedback, with a view to making a recommendation for the CSAC to decide in December.

Each speaker was allocated two minutes to talk.

“The major thing that I see happening is whether the fighters are going to be able to compete for multiple titles. If they’re restrained because they’re with the UBO, then what’s going to happen? The exact same thing that you have nowadays with the sport of MMA, which is not structured as a sport. It’s monopolised by one company,” said one.

A UBO is a Unified Boxing Organization, and they would be similar to the UFC business model, with set pay scales, similar pay for men and women, no sanctioning fees, no belt fees, no supervisor fees and no purse bids.

They also include requirements around fighter safety and drug testing, although it is not known who would test, what would be tested for, how often, or whether the results would be made public.

One caller pointed out some of the positives within the proposed changes, including drug testing and minimum pay of $150 per round, but added: “Nobody is talking about what this leads to, which is one company dominating the entire sport.”

Another caller said the Muhammad Ali Revival Act was “a smokescreen.”

“I think the fighters are going to get the short end of the stick,” they said.

One cited that the Ali Act had been successful in preventing a monopoly, fighter exploitation and conflict of interest.

Among those called to talk were journalists, attorneys, former MMA fighters, content creators and fans.

Canadian combat sports lawyer Erik Magraken said California would be endorsing “coercive contracts” if it were to support the bill, and he continued: “The UBO model will allow the promoter to dictate who the fighters fight, so they get to call the shots of who you fight, where you fight and when you fight, and if you don’t play ball they could freeze your contract, they could stall your career, they could hurt you financially…”

One caller said the perceived improvements at the lower pay scales and enhancements linked to fighter insurance was “window dressing” and another said the changes represented “restraint of trade” and that fighters would be “locked up in a very exclusive, coercive contract… There will be no ability to get out…. Fighters will be abused by the control of the ranking.”

There were more than 50 people on the call and around 15 spoke.

“The original Ali Act was there to protect the fighters and let their voices be heard and be able to speak out and give more options for them to be there, and I think this really restricts things for fighters and puts them in a rough spot and overall the fighters are going to make less,” added another.

Several pleaded for the commission to take time and seriously consider the motion rather than allow it to pass, and one said the amendment benefits were “illusionary”.

Carla Duran, co-founder of the Athlete’s Voice Committee, a sub-committee of the ABC, insisted the Ali Act should be strengthened to incorporate fighters from other disciplines, including MMA, “not weakened.”

Also on the call, Rachel Donaire – trainer, manager and wife of legendary champion Nonito – said: “Why are we even letting a brand new player in and dictating the rules to us in sport they haven’t built? They haven’t earned the right… That law’s the only reason managers like me can sit across from promoters and know we’re not being completely railroaded. It forces transparency, prevents conflicts of interest, it’s the legal shield that prevents fighters from being owned outright. The UBO is junk, the Muhammad Ali Act is sacred. One robs fighters of leverage, the other protects their rights and their pay. You can’t claim you care about boxing while pushing a belt and ripping down the one law that actually protects the people stepping into that ring.”

BoxingScene’s Jake Donovan, who spoke of his respect for commission boss Andy Foster, said he was disappointed because the commission was acting as lobbyists for the bill rather than applying critical thinking.

With three left to talk, Foster actually asked whether those three voices had to be heard or whether they could cut the meeting off. 

The feedback had been a landslide, but Foster said there had been letters of endorsement, including from Tom Brown, of TGB Promotions, and Foster claimed Brown had said that the changes would “allow the sport to flourish” while encouraging “competition and accountability.”