Technical corrections only. The two versions of H.R. 4624 are substantively identical, with no changes to the legislative text. The differences are limited to the procedural notations indicating the bill's passage in the House and referral to the Senate.
Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Jack, Brian [R-GA-3]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 25, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to improve boxer safety and economic opportunities by establishing a new, more regulated organizational structure for professional boxing while also updating existing industry-wide safety standards.
What it actually does
The bill amends the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 to create a new regulatory framework for "unified boxing organizations" (UBOs). It allows UBOs to operate an alternative system for professional boxing matches, provided they meet enhanced safety, medical, anti-doping, and financial standards. It also updates general boxer safety and industry standards, including minimum payments, insurance, and medical examination requirements, and simplifies championship titles across the sport.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill provides boxers with increased choice and opportunity by allowing participation in a more structured and safer alternative system. They contend it enhances safety precautions, improves medical care, ensures financial protections like minimum payments and insurance, and addresses long-standing issues of boxer exploitation and inconsistent safety standards across the sport.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that introducing a new "unified boxing organization" framework could create a two-tiered system, potentially marginalizing boxers who do not contract with UBOs or leading to market consolidation. Concerns could also be raised about the administrative burden and costs associated with the new requirements, potentially stifling smaller promoters or organizations, and whether the Federal Trade Commission is the appropriate body for oversight.
The bill is moderately detailed, requiring careful reading to understand the new UBO framework and its implications, which may exceed the time typically allotted for quick review.
Section 3, adding new Section 24 to 15 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.
Creation of Unified Boxing Organizations (UBOs)
This provision establishes a new type of entity called a "Unified Boxing Organization" (UBO). A UBO can be deemed compliant with existing boxing safety laws if it meets a new set of enhanced requirements for its contracted boxers and organized matches. This creates an alternative regulatory pathway for boxing organizations that centralize their operations, including title belts and rankings, without relying on independent sanctioning bodies.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provides a more structured and accountable environment for boxers, offering better protections and career stability compared to the fragmented traditional system. It allows for innovation in boxing organization.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this could lead to a monopolistic or oligopolistic structure in boxing, limiting competition and potentially reducing opportunities for boxers outside the UBO system.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for enhanced boxer welfare and streamlined regulation against concerns about market concentration and potential reduction in independent promotional opportunities.
Section 3, adding new Section 24(b) and (c).
Advanced Medical and Safety Protocols for UBOs
UBOs must implement stricter medical requirements, including additional brain health examinations for boxers suffering knockouts, supplemental physicals for boxers aged 40 and older (including chest X-rays, metabolic panels, and urinalysis), and increased medical personnel presence at ringside (two ambulances, two licensed physicians). Ringside physicians must also be certified by the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) in partnership with the Association of Ringside Physicians (ARP) after two years.
Section 3, adding new Section 24(d).
Comprehensive Boxer Support and Training Insurance
UBOs are required to provide contracted boxers with access to training and rehabilitation facilities, an insurance policy covering injuries sustained during training (in addition to existing match insurance), and a medical coordinator to assist with licensing and medical requirements.
Section 3, adding new Section 24(e).
Mandatory UBO Anti-Doping Protocols
UBOs must implement a comprehensive anti-doping program, including in-competition testing for at least half of boxers in an event (between weigh-in and match), and optional no-notice testing during contract periods. An independent third-party must conduct all testing, determine results, and report positives to the UBO, relevant boxing commission, and the ABC. UBOs must publish prohibited substances and penalties annually.
Section 3, adding new Section 24(f).
Boxer Contract Protections and Minimum Payments
Contracts between UBOs and boxers cannot exceed 6 years. Boxers must be paid a minimum of $200 per round. UBOs must ensure boxers fight at least once every 6 months or are paid 10 times the minimum round payment, unless specific exceptions apply (injury, refusal to fight, inability to travel, licensing issues). Boxers cannot be prohibited from communicating with other UBOs or promoters in the last 30 days of their contract.
Section 3, adding new Section 24(g).
Anti-Gambling and Information Sharing Policy
UBOs must implement a policy prohibiting boxers and "covered individuals" (including household members, coaches, managers, medical staff, UBO employees, and agents) from betting on covered matches or sharing non-public information for betting purposes. UBOs must also establish monitoring and enforcement procedures.
Section 3, adding new Section 24(h).
UBO Conflict of Interest Prohibitions
UBO officers, employees, or representatives are prohibited from having a financial interest in boxer management, employing or paying a boxer's manager (with exceptions), or receiving fees from boxers related to ranking or participation in matches (excluding reasonable reimbursements for medical/travel expenses).
Section 4(a), amending Section 5 of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996.
Universal Enhanced Boxer Safety and Medical Requirements
This section updates existing law to mandate more specific and frequent medical examinations for all boxers (e.g., annual physicals, dilated eye exams, heart exams, antibody tests, brain health exams, pregnancy tests for female fighters), specifies validity periods for these exams, and requires two ambulances and two licensed physicians at ringside for all matches (not just UBO matches). It also increases minimum health insurance coverage to $50,000 for injuries and $15,000 for accidental death, with premiums not being the boxer's responsibility.
Section 4(a), adding new Section 5(b).
Universal Minimum Payment Per Round
All promoters or unified boxing organizations must pay a minimum of $200 to each boxer for each round in a match in which the boxer participates.
Section 4(a), adding new Section 5(c).
Single Championship Title Per Weight Class
Sanctioning organizations and unified boxing organizations are restricted to awarding only one championship title per weight class. Interim championship titles can only be awarded in specific circumstances, such as injury, illness, or refusal/inability of a reigning titleholder to defend their title.
Clarifies that a "physician" must hold a Doctor of Medicine (MD) or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) degree and be legally authorized to practice in the state where functions are performed.
Section 3(c)(1), amending Section 2(7) of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996.
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to update definitions, but crucial for ensuring medical qualifications.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures a consistent and high standard of medical expertise for all medical professionals involved in professional boxing, directly impacting boxer safety.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision because it clarifies existing expectations for medical professionals.
Estimated impact: Ensures qualified medical personnel, potentially preventing unqualified individuals from performing critical medical functions.
Requires UBOs to submit identifying information (incorporation state, business address, website) to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC), or alternatively, maintain a public, easily accessible website with this information. The FTC can charge a fee for processing.
Section 3, adding new Section 24(k).
Why it matters:Standard administrative reporting requirement, but the internet alternative is a notable flexibility.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures transparency and public accountability for UBOs, allowing boxers, commissions, and the public to easily access key organizational details. The internet alternative provides flexibility.
Case against: Some might argue the FTC fee could be an additional burden, or that requiring a public website might be challenging for smaller, nascent organizations.
Estimated impact: Increases transparency for UBOs, facilitating oversight and public access to information.
Expresses the "sense of Congress" that uneven standards by boxing commissions have led to boxer injuries, and that the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC), in partnership with the Association of Ringside Physicians, should publish and maintain a model legislative/regulatory code, best practices, and an annual report card on commission conformance.
Section 4(b)(2), adding new Section 7(c).
Why it matters:"Sense of Congress" provisions are often used to express legislative intent or encourage action without creating enforceable law, making them less prominent.
Case for: Supporters argue this provides clear guidance and encouragement for state and tribal boxing commissions to adopt higher, more consistent safety standards, leveraging the expertise of industry associations without imposing a federal mandate.
Case against: Critics might argue that a "sense of Congress" is insufficient to address the problem of uneven standards and that stronger, binding federal requirements are needed to ensure compliance.
Estimated impact: Provides strong moral suasion for commissions to improve standards, but lacks direct enforcement power.