April 5, 2004

Nevada Senator Harry Reid took direct aim at HBO and Showtime Wednesday on Capitol Hill. Implying that networks are circumventing the requirements placed on a promoter under the Ali Act, Reid said "Many broadcasters control when the fighters fight, who they fight, where they fight, and how much they are paid. This is the role of the promoter, and the media companies are acting as the fighters' de facto promoters...this legislation will require the broadcaster to make certain disclosures to the USBC similar to what promoters must do. Broadcasters will have to provide to the USBC statements of fees paid and owed to promoters, copies of all contracts, and a list of the sources of income they receive from the broadcast of the match." The Senate yesterday unanimously passed a bill that would create a national boxing commission.

Below is Reid's complete statement with minor edits for flow and clarity:

"This legislation has been long in coming. Senator McCain and I have worked on this for months. I think it is a tremendous step forward. It is a perfect example of how we have to cooperate with each other. This is not everything that Senator McCain wanted, it is not everything I wanted, but it is legislation that now is going to pass the Senate. It is something that has been needed for some time. It is the Professional Boxing Safety Act, but it also will take a very close look at promoters, including those who are the networks, HBO, Showtime. It sets up a national boxing commission. It is important.

"This is a multimillion-dollar industry, and it needs Federal oversight as a result of deaths that occur with boxers. We had a death of a person from Nevada who went to Utah to fight. He had been knocked out 21 times. He went to Utah to fight and got knocked out again and died.

"As many of my colleagues know, I come to my work on boxing with a perspective that was formed both inside and outside the ring. Before I entered the political arena, I personally was a boxer. I also worked ringside as a judge in hundreds of fights, in all weight classes, and have judged championship fights. As a lawyer in private practice, I also represented professional fighters.

"My State of Nevada hosts most of the premier boxing matches in the world. Nevada's state-of-the-art resorts provide fight venues that are unmatched in any other part of the world, and Nevadans take great pride in the historical role the State has played in boxing. The Nevada State Athletic commission is the most respected boxing commission in the world. It has led our country and the world in implementing terms of boxing safety and ethical treatment of fighters, promoters, and ringside personnel. Nevada's commission, under the outstanding direction of Marc Ratner, serves as a model for a national commission and has guided my work on this legislation.

"Is there a need for the establishment of a national commission patterned after Nevada's commission to regulate boxing throughout the United States? The answer is a yes.

"Last July, a boxer named Brad Rone fought in Utah and died at the age of 35. While Brad lived in Las Vegas, he had been banned from fighting in Nevada for more than three years. The Nevada Commission felt that he was at risk of getting seriously injured every time he stepped into the ring. Unfortunately, this ban didn't prevent him from fighting in other States. So despite the fact that he lost 26 consecutive fights, Brad was allowed to step into the ring in Utah to fight Billy Zumbrun. After only one uneventful round of what was to be an eight-round fight, Brad passed out and died. He wasn't knocked out. He was hit once and started to walk away and collapsed. An autopsy later revealed that Brad technically died of a heart attack, but many acknowledge that the continual physical abuse inside the ring contributed to his untimely death.

"Unfortunately, the rules governing professional boxing and the enforcement of those rules vary widely among States. This legislation today will help avoid future tragedies like Brad's, and ensure a vibrant future for the sport of boxing and the Nation's boxers. If this legislation had been enacted before Brad's death, it would have required that his fights be approved by a Federal Commission after either his 10th defeat or fifth consecutive knockout.

"This bill creates the United States Boxing Commission, USBC. The USBC will prescribe and enforce uniform regulations for professional boxing in order to protect the health and safety of boxers and ensure fairness in the sport. While it will not supercede States with higher standards, like Nevada, it will establish minimum standards and conformity for all States. The USBC will also have the ability to defer its authority to States with strong commissions when deemed appropriate.

"Among other things, the USBC will maintain a national computerized registry for the collection of specific information on professional boxers and boxing personnel as well as certify for each boxing match the participating boxers' medical histories. It will require sites to have both an ambulance and emergency medical personnel with resuscitation equipment continuously present. There are some places today that have only one ambulance. Once a boxer is hurt, and the ambulance takes him away, there is no remaining personnel or equipment for the other fights on the card. This poses unnecessary and sometimes fatal risks to boxers and ring personnel. The USBC will also review plans submitted by all State athletic commissions for uniformity.

"This uniformity will discontinue the use of forum shopping that we witnessed in 2002 with the Mike Tyson v. Lennox Lewis fight. That fight was originally scheduled to take place in Las Vegas, but the Nevada State Athletic Commission declined to grant Tyson a license to fight because of his violent behavior, both inside and outside the ring. The Association of Boxing Commissions, ABC, recommended that other State commissions honor Nevada's decision not to let Tyson fight. However, the ABC acts only as a quasi-federal agency and has no enforcement authority. Obviously, the ABC's recommendation was ignored, as Tyson was permitted to fight Lewis in Tennessee.

"Another important problem this legislation begins to remedy is broadcasters acting as de facto fight promoters. Broadcasters who effectively operate as promoters ought to be held to the same standards and scrutiny as traditional promoters. They should be regulated in the same manner. This is only fair. Many broadcasters control when the fighters fight, who they fight, where they fight, and how much they are paid. This is the role of the promoter, and the media companies are acting as the fighters' de facto promoters. However, despite the fact that these companies are acting as promoters, they are not regulated by boxing commissions. While traditional promoters are regulated under the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, Ali Act, and State athletic commission laws, the media companies have been virtually free from regulation.

"This legislation will require the broadcaster to make certain disclosures to the USBC similar to what promoters must do. Broadcasters will have to provide to the USBC statements of fees paid and owed to promoters, copies of all contracts, and a list of the sources of income they receive from the broadcast of the match.

"Additionally, the bill requires the USBC to study for one year the definition of a promoter and report back to Congress their proposed revised definition, speculatively, to include broadcasters as appropriate. When Congress enacted the Ali Act, one of the main goals was to protect boxers from being unfairly treated by promoters. The Ali Act provided contractual reforms that prevented exploitive business practices that at that time allowed for coercive and lengthy contracts tying a fighter to a promoter for years. Today, many fighters are entering into promotional agreements directly with the broadcaster. Thus, in order to really give the Ali Act any weight, it is necessary that those who are conducting the business of a promoter comply with the regulations set forth in the Ali Act. The broadcasters should not evade the restrictions placed on promoters by the Ali Act simply by slipping through some technical loopholes.

"The USBC should focus on two particular issues when making this important promoters decision. Both, I believe, strongly suggest that broadcasters be included in the promoter definition. First, it should examine the situation that exists when a broadcaster or network hires another individual or entity as the per se ``promoter'' to stage a boxing event. While the broadcaster pays this local promoter a fee, the broadcaster contracts to retain the boxer's rights to the fight, for example, the right to sell, distribute, exhibit, or license the match or in some cases several matches, and retains the right to choose dates, sites, and opponents. In this scenario, the broadcaster is really acting as a de facto promoter and should be subject to the regulations and disclosure requirements imposed by the Ali Act. However, since the local promoter is contractually charged with complying with federal and state laws, he is the only one required under current law to file financial disclosures with the boxer. The broadcaster who hires this local promoter does not have to disclose to the fighter how much the broadcaster is earning for the fight. Since conventional promoters determine when a fighter fights, where he fights, who he fights and how much he is paid, the broadcaster is doing all the work of a promoter yet circumventing the requirements of the Ali Act. It is the fighter who is left in the dark.

"This situation I have described is illustrated by the roles of HBO and Showtime in the Lennox Lewis vs. Mike Tyson fight. Lewis was under contract to HBO and Tyson was under contract to Showtime. These two media companies signed an agreement to promote the Lewis/Tyson fight and a possible rematch. However, neither HBO nor Showtime was required to file their agreements with the two fighters or with a State athletic commission since they are not technically ``promoters'' under the Ali Act. Instead, they hired a local promoter to ``stage'' the fight, and because the local promoter was not a party to the master agreements for the fight, those agreements may have never been filed with the commission. Furthermore, the disclosures under the Ali Act which require a promoter to inform the fighters how much revenue is to be earned by it from the event may not necessarily have been provided since the "promoter" was only being paid a fee to stage the fight. Oftentimes, the ``multi-fight'' agreements which these broadcasters have with their fighters may contain terms beyond those permitted by law to promoters.

"The second scenario the commission should examine is where the broadcaster contracts directly with the boxer or with the boxer's representative. By ``boxer's representative'' I am talking about any entity or company that employs the boxer or to whom the boxer has transferred the rights to his boxing services. Even if a broadcaster only obtains rights to the boxer through this entity, the broadcaster should still be deemed a promoter and be subject to the Ali Act because in essence, they are contracting with the boxer. Here is an example. When Tyson and Lewis fought, HBO contracted with Lion Promotions. Lion Promotions is--for all practical purposes--Lewis's company, yet legally, Lewis may or may not own or be employed by Lion Promotions. However, when HBO contracted with Lion, they effectively contracted with Lewis directly. Thus, the contractual protections given the boxer in the Ali Act should apply in this type of situation.

"In determining whether a broadcaster is acting as a de facto promoter, the USBC must study the contracts between broadcasters and such entities and any attached ratifications by the boxer him/herself; the contracts with local promoters; the contracts between the local promoters and the boxer; and the contracts between any involved broadcasters. The USBC is also directed to look at the sources of income received from the broadcast of a fight and examine the amounts received from each of these sources. Effectively defining the role of a promoter requires looking at who is contracting with a boxer for the rights to the boxer's service. These rights include the rights to sell, grant, convey, distribute, exhibit, and license the match or matches.

"Conventional promoters control the rights to a fighter's boxing career and the right to exploit the boxer's name and image in connection with his/her boxing matches. By determining who is circumventing the requirements placed on a promoter under the Ali Act and thereafter including them within the definition of a promoter, the USBC will protect the fighter from exploitive business practices, regardless of the source.

"It is envisioned that the commission created under this legislation, the USBC, will monitor the boxing world, creating an environment that will enable both the sport and its participants to thrive. I am proud of the work that Senator McCain and I have done to help in the reform of this great sport."

This article originally appeared on FightNews.com on April 1, 2004.
 

©2003-2007 Joint Association of Boxers
P.O. Box 2662
New York, NY 10108
Eddie Mustafa Muhammad
(202) 437-5755
info@boxersunion.org