Boxing’s Crossroads: The Fall of American Broadcast and the Fight for Revival
By Rayshon Ellis
American boxing stands at a pivotal moment. Once a staple of prime-time television and a cultural cornerstone, the sport has seen its mainstream visibility dwindle. Yet, a new legislative proposal—the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act—could signal a turning point, offering a controversial path toward revitalization.
The End of an Era
In July 2025, ESPN aired its final Top Rank boxing event, marking the end of an eight-year partnership and the sport’s last major presence on linear television. With HBO exiting in 2018, Showtime in 2023, and Fox Sports deals expiring in 2022, boxing has effectively vanished from traditional broadcast platforms. Today, fans must turn to streaming services like DAZN, Netflix, and Amazon Prime to watch elite-level bouts.
This shift has left boxing without a consistent mainstream outlet, contributing to its declining popularity. Critics argue that fragmented promotions, mismatched fights, and delayed marquee matchups have eroded fan engagement.
The Revival Act: Reform or Rebranding?
Introduced in Congress in July 2025 by Representatives Brian Jack (R-GA) and Sharice Davids (D-KS), the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act (H.R. 4624) aims to amend the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and supplement the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000. The bill proposes the creation of Unified Boxing Organizations (UBOs)—entities that would manage their own rankings, champions, and matchmaking, similar to the UFC model.
Supporters, including Lonnie Ali (widow of Muhammad Ali), argue that UBOs could streamline the sport, reduce fragmentation, and offer fighters better safety standards and compensation. They envision a future where boxing regains its cultural relevance, echoing the golden eras of Ali, Tyson, and Jones Jr.
The Controversy
However, the proposal has sparked intense debate. Critics—including fighters, promoters, and legal experts—warn that the Revival Act could undermine key protections established by the original Ali Act. That landmark 2000 legislation was designed to shield boxers from exploitative contracts, opaque rankings, and promoter-manager conflicts of interest.
Opponents fear that the UBO model could centralize power in a few organizations, reduce fighter autonomy, and replicate the UFC’s criticized pay structure, where athletes reportedly earn just 15–20% of event revenue. Former UFC CFO Nakisa Bidarian called the Revival Act “bad for fighters,” warning that it could create monopolistic conditions.
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar echoed these concerns during a recent hearing, pressing UFC executives on how they would ensure fair pay and contract transparency under the new system.
A Fork in the Road
The central question remains: Will fighters trade financial independence for the promise of a more unified and visible sport? The Revival Act offers choice, not compulsion—boxers could opt into UBOs or remain under the current system. But as the sport grapples with its identity and future, the stakes are high.
Whether this legislation becomes a catalyst for boxing’s resurgence or a cautionary tale of corporate overreach will depend on how it balances innovation with integrity.