U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

91–859 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 107–1098

FEDERAL REGULATION OF BOXING

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOREIGN 

COMMERCE AND TOURISM

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 22, 2002

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MAX CLELAND, Georgia 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director 

MOSES BOYD, Democratic Chief Counsel 

JEANNE BUMPUS, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOREIGN COMMERCE

AND TOURISM 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 22, 2002 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Dorgan ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Ensign .................................................................................. 12

Statement of Senator McCain ................................................................................. 4

WITNESSES

Ali, Yolanda and Muhammad, Greatest of All Time, Inc. .................................... 6

Dibella, Louis J., President, Dibella Entertainment Inc. ..................................... 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20

Jones, Jr., Roy, Professional Boxer ........................................................................ 7

Lueckenhoff, Tim, President, Association of Boxing Commissions ..................... 22

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24

Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada ....................................................... 2

Steward, Emanuel, President, Kronk Boxing Team ............................................. 17

Sugar, Bert Randolph, Boxing Historian and Author .......................................... 14

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14

APPENDIX

Atlas, Teddy, Boxing Trainer and Commentator, prepared statement ............... 39

King, Don, Chairman, President and CEO, Don King Productions, Inc., Prepared Statement ................................................................................................... 41

(1)

FEDERAL REGULATION OF BOXING 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2002

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOREIGN

COMMERCE AND TOURISM, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:05 p.m. in room 

SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator DORGAN. I’d like to call the hearing to order this morning. Senator McCain will be here momentarily but we wanted to 

begin in the interest of time. We are joined by Senator Reid from 

the State of Nevada. Let me make a couple of comments before we 

begin, and before we recognize you. I have long been interested in 

boxing. I think boxing in this country has given America a glimpse 

of some of the most wonderful athletes that one has ever seen and 

these athletes in the sport of boxing have given many Americans 

a great deal of enjoyment over time. But one of the concerns that 

many of us have had with respect to boxing is that there are so 

many, especially young men, who have pursued the career in boxing to end up essentially used up, misused and mistreated by many 

in the boxing industry. They end up with health problems. They 

end up having lost all of their money at age 32, 35, 40 years of age. 

And boxing is one of the few professional sports in our country 

in which there is not some kind of Commission or some kind of governing body in which that sport governs itself. In the sport of boxing, it is often the lowest common denominator of whatever regulatory process exists among the states that represent the governing 

process, and it is also a sport that many of us know as riddled with 

conflicts of interest. 

We have boxing commissioners who are supposed to be the ones 

that will make judgments about whether or not they license a fight 

who are actually out there trying to promote getting a fight to their 

area. This is an industry with big money and it is also an industry 

in which some of the finest and most gifted young athletes are used 

and then misused by promoters and others. Many of us have felt 

for some long while that there ought to be some kind of Boxing 

Commission or boxing czar in which there is a central registry of 

fighters. There might then be a license to box in this country with 

centralized records. Then we could know that a boxer who is 

2

knocked out in Atlanta on a Tuesday night is not going to show up 

in Dallas on a Friday night and fight once again. We should have 

standards to protect the health and safety of boxers, and a way for 

boxers to save money or have a pension. 

We have discussed all these issues before in the Congress. There 

has not been much agreement on this, but I think most everyone 

understands that what is happening in boxing needs to be changed. 

The question is not whether, the question is how. We are going to 

hear from a number of people today. Muhammad Ali, of course, 

former heavyweight champion; Roy Jones, Jr., a professional boxer; 

Emanuel Steward, President of Kronk Boxing Team; Bert Sugar, 

boxing historian and author; Mr. Lou DiBella, President of DiBella 

Entertainment; and Mr. Tim Lueckenhoff, President of Association 

of Boxing Commissions. 

I will introduce Senator McCain for a statement when he appears. I think in the interest of time, I want to recognize our colleague, Senator Reid. Senator Reid comes from a state with a rich 

boxing history, I might say, since the state of Nevada hosts many 

fights. Senator Reid himself was a Golden gloves boxer, I am told. 

I do not know his record, but perhaps you will share that with us. 

In any event, we are pleased that Senator Reid has joined us. You 

may proceed, Senator Reid. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator REID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The fact that we are 

holding a hearing on this great sport represents an interest in seeing its success as an organized form of professional athletics. Nevada is home to, as you have already mentioned, some of the premiere boxing matches hosted in the United States, not only presently, but in the past. Nevada’s state-of-the-art resorts provide a 

venue for the fights that is unmatched in any part of the world. 

Nevadans take pride in the historical role this state has played in 

the sport of boxing. They care about the sport and about its integrity. I have both a personal and professional interest in the sport 

of boxing. 

As you have indicated, I have fought in the past. I have served 

as a ringside judge in hundreds of fights, and all weight classes 

and judged championship fights. As a lawyer, I represented a number of boxers. All these experiences have provided me a unique perspective of the sport of boxing. 

Senator Dorgan, as I sit here and reflect, I can remember as a 

young man, I was an amateur fighter, but I fought professionals. 

They did that because they would call them, they would call these 

fights ‘‘exhibitions,’’ and I would, because I was a good boxer, we 

would do OK in these fights, but you know, I can’t imagine how 

that was the right thing to do. I spent most of my time in Nevada, 

went to school in Utah. I would come and do these exhibitions. I 

can still remember some of the names of the professional fighters 

I fought. I am sure they weren’t great fighters, but it is an indication that there needs to be now and then some overseeing of this. 

I was on a radio station last time I was in Las Vegas a week or 

so ago and as I am coming out, there is a man there, a tall man 

with graying hair, a black man and I said hello. And they said this 

3

is Ron Lyle. Oh man, Ron Lyle, I know Ron Lyle. I watched him 

fight. He fought one of my friends. I said, do you remember Gary 

Bailey, I remember Gary Bates. I believe he fought a lot of these 

fighters. I asked Ron Lowery if he remembered him. I said I remember. I said he broke all my ribs. I am sure that is an exaggeration. But he said that he finished dealing at Caesar’s Palace at 4 

one morning, flew to Reno, drove to Lake Tahoe, fought Ron Lyle, 

got $4,500, went back to work that same night with his ribs broken 

and among other things broken. 

That is the way his experiences were in the fight game, and so 

there really does have to be something done about this. The focus 

of today’s hearing is primarily on three issues, one, the current 

state of Federal law covering boxing, and two, whether these laws 

are being meaningfully enforced and there is a need to be a stronger Federal role in protecting the integrity of the sport. I am not 

confident that existing laws are sufficient. 

I believe the Committee needs to take action on the legislation 

I introduced last year with Senator McCain. I believe our legislation, the National Boxing Commission Act, is a step in the right direction toward improving the state of boxing. The national Boxing 

Commission could best protect what all of us agree needs protection; the health, safety and general interest of fighters. Our legislation would provide the sport with uniformity of regulations it so 

desperately needs. 

Among other things, it would require the Commission to maintain a national computerized registry for the collection of specific 

information of professional boxers and boxing personnel. One of the 

things my friend Gary Bates told me just a few days ago is one of 

the toughest fights he had was somebody who fought basically 

around the country every week. He went from state to state fighting. He made quite a bit of money fighting every week or 2 weeks, 

fought often. But there was no checking to find out whether or not 

he did or did not have those fights. 

I represented a fighter who fought around the country using different names. And I was 40-some-odd years old, and Nevada Athletic Commission found out about this and I was there to try to get 

him a license to try to continue fighting, which he did and it was 

probably not one of the good things I did in my life was helping 

him get a license because after that he took some serious beatings. 

And as I said, he used to fight all over using different names. 

The Commission would certify for any boxing match information 

publicized on the participating boxer’s medical history, would review plans to be submitted by all state athletic Commissions for 

uniformity. Some action has to be taken. I am certain a Commission could more adequately and efficiently remedy the current 

problems. It is a multi, multi, multimillion dollar business. We 

should have oversight. Associations play an integral role in almost 

every other sport there is today. They are so well-known many are 

recognized by acronyms. NFL, PGA. I can go on. Soccer has a governing body. There is a role that could closely monitor the activities 

and controversies of this sport. 

Unfortunately, since the Muhammad Ali Act was signed in law 

the problems have not abated. They have grown worse. The side 

shows spectacles of a Mike Tyson press conference says a lot of the 

4

state of this sport. I am today more convinced than ever that we 

need to move in the direction of creating a federally recognized 

panel to oversee this sport and provide it with a much needed uniformity of regulations governing fights. Until we have uniformity 

of regulations governing this sport we will continue to see the kind 

of forum shopping we are witnessing today with Mike Tyson. Different states have different rules and simply waiting and hoping 

for state legislature act is a recipe for disaster. 

Future legislation must address the issue of a level playing field 

in the treatment of promoters. The business of boxing is growing 

with the expansion of technology. More and more people have access to pay-per-view processing. They will tell you today the broadcasters have become de facto promoters. This may not necessarily 

be a bad thing. That is something for this Committee to decide but 

as a matter of fairness, they ought to be held to the same standards of accountability and scrutiny as our promoters. I voiced this 

opinion a few years ago. I believe it more than ever now. 

Boxing is a sport rich in history. Like the U.S. Senate, it dates 

back to the days of ancient Rome. It is a sport blessed with myth 

and legend. Unfortunately, too, it is a sport which knows no political affiliation. That is why I am trying to work with Senator 

McCain in trying to reform this great sport. I am hoping to achieve 

something this year so we can enjoy the annals of history. Mr. 

Chairman, I would also ask unanimous consent that a statement 

from Don King that I received from his lawyer, Charles Lomax, 

may be made part of this record. 

Senator DORGAN. Senator Reid, you did not see it but just a moment ago the Champ almost took you out. 

Senator REID. I am glad I did not see it, because I would be running out of here now. 

Senator DORGAN. Before I ask a question or two, let me call on 

Senator McCain. There is no one in Congress who has worked 

harder or been more relentless of trying to deal with the issues of 

professional boxing. And he just today introduced legislation that 

I am proud to co-sponsor. But I am really pleased with the work 

Senator McCain has done. He has done a great service. Do you 

have a statement for opening? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you, Senator Dorgan and I thank you 

for chairing this hearing. I want to thank my friend, Senator Reid. 

He is a great representative from the State of Nevada. I believe he 

can be proud of the performance of the Boxing Commission in the 

State of Nevada. If every Commission had lived up to those standards, I do not believe we would have what we have today. Senator 

Reid has been involved in those issues and I am grateful for that. 

I’d like to welcome the greatest champion of all time, Muhammad 

Ali, who is going to speak very briefly. I know that Senator Reid 

has responsibilities on the floor to get through the Republican 

agenda, and I understand that that is why he asked to leave. 

Senator Dorgan, I just would like to say since 1996, the Committee has worked to improve the sport of boxing by passing two 

legislative measures with your active assistance. The Professional 

5

Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform 

Act of 2000. The laws need to be fixed to assist boxers, and to better protect them from business managers and sanctioning organizations. However, while these laws have had a positive impact the 

sport remains beset with a variety of problems. 

As you mentioned, today you and I introduced the Professional 

Boxing Amendments Act of 2002, which would strengthen existing 

Federal boxing laws but also create a Federal regulatory entity to 

oversee the sport. The United States Boxing Administration 

(USBA) would be headed by an administrator appointed by the 

President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The primary 

function of the USBA would be to protect the health, safety and 

general interest of boxers. It would, among other things, administer 

Federal boxing laws, coordinate with other Federal regulatory 

agencies to ensure that these laws are enforced, oversee all professional boxing matches in the U.S., and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the status and standards of 

the sport. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, professional boxing is the only 

major sport in the United States that does not have a strong centralized association or league to establish and enforce uniform rules 

and practices for its participants. The only sport in America. There 

is no widely established union of boxers, no collective body of promoters or managers, no consistent level of state regulation among 

either the state athletic commissions or tribal organizations and I 

might add, there is no pension system, which is a terrible, terrible 

disgrace. I note the presence of probably pound for pound the 

greatest fighter in the world today, Mr. Roy Jones, Jr., who has 

agreed to come here. We are honored that you are here again and 

thank you for your commitment to the sport, but also for your independence from some of the less savory influences in the sport in 

which you excel. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would have a lot more to say but 

far more importantly, I would like to hear from our witnesses 

today. 

Senator DORGAN. Our first panel will be, as Senator McCain indicated, the greatest champion of all time, Muhammad Ali, who is 

accompanied by Yolanda Lonnie Ali. We would like you to come forward and be seated. And also Mr. Roy Jones, Jr. who is, and I 

agree with Senator McCain, one of the greatest boxers of our time. 

We very much appreciate your being here. 

As you are getting seated, let me just say to you, all of us have 

our own interests in boxing. Mine began with a grandfather who 

really enjoyed boxing and he gave me a subscription to Ring magazine. As a young boy, I would read of Nate Fleisher, and listened 

to Sugar Ray Robinson fights on radio. I remember listening to 

them round by round, AP descriptions over a radio of the Lewis 

Tung/May fight. 

Boxing has a rich history in our country. But as Senator McCain 

says, there is much to be done to clean up boxing so that fighters 

are not used and misused. So let me thank you both for being here. 

I believe Mrs. Ali, you intend to speak for the Champ, but let us 

thank both of you for being here. 

6

STATEMENT OF YOLANDA AND MUHAMMAD ALI, GREATEST 

OF ALL TIME, INC. 

Ms. ALI. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain and 

Members of the Committee for your invitation to have us here this 

afternoon and testify. And I will say this in the words of Muhammad, if that is OK. 

Mr. MUHAMMAD ALI. The Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act 

represents an important first step in the effort to improve professional boxing and in particular, to protect the rights of the professional boxers. I commend Senator McCain and this Committee for 

this historic measure and their continued efforts to enhance the 

image of professional boxing in America. 

In preparation for my appearance here today, I asked my representatives to make contact with the athletic commissions in California, Nevada and elsewhere, and to speak with some of my 

friends in the boxing industry. My statement here today is based 

on the results of their findings and my own experience and observations. 

The Act represents a long overdue effort to improve boxer safety, 

reduce conflict of interest, discourage coercive contracts, and create 

a uniform set of standards and procedures. There is, however, still 

much room for improvement. Too many fighters without representation are still signing agreements which are unfair and lacking 

adequate safeguards. Although the Act affords a private civil remedy, many boxers lack the resources and sophistication to understand or take advantage of these procedures. 

Promotional agreements remain largely unregulated. Uniformity 

of standards have not been attained and some Commissions refuse 

to assume jurisdictions over violations of the Act. I believe our attorney, Ron DiNicola, has had some experience with that in representing some boxers. As such, I make the following recommendations. 

First, the Association of Boxing Commissioners should extend the 

use of uniform standards for bout and management agreements to 

promotional agreements and Congress should insist on the use of 

these forms nationwide. Second, uniform standards applicable to licensing in general and medical requirements in particular are 

needed to eliminate fraud, inefficiency, and confusion in a sport 

where most fighters can expect to fight in multiple states and jurisdictions in any given year. 

Subsidies may be necessary to ensure that fighters who fight at 

the club level have access to affordable medical screening. Third, 

uniformity in scoring, combined with the national rating system in 

order to judge the judges should be considered as a means of reducing controversial and questionable decisions. 

Fourth, Federal legislation should mandate compliance with 

these uniform standards, provide for impartial binding arbitration 

in a form convenient to the boxer and, at a minimum, expressly authorize Commissions to assume concurrent jurisdiction to address 

violations of the Federal law. 

Fifth, the time has come for the creation of a national oversight 

body. This is necessary to ensure compliance with the spirit and 

the letter of the Act and other legislation designed to improve the 

sport and protect its participants. federally mandated supervision 

7

is the only way to enhance the integrity of the sport and restore 

public confidence. 

In conclusion, those of us who love boxing believe that it can and 

it should be saved. The power to save it rests with you, Mr. Chairman, and with your esteemed colleagues. 

Boxing gave me a place and a purpose in the world. It gave me 

fame and fortune and provided me a livelihood to support my family. Beyond that, it gave me relationships and memories that I will 

cherish all the days of my life. Boxing gives to young men and 

women a chance to dream big and reach for the stars. Or as Robert 

Lipsyte wrote many years ago, to climb as high as your heart and 

legs can carry you. 

All boxing asks of its participants is hard work, determination, 

courage and discipline. Those are great values for our time, indeed 

and for any time. It is left to us to preserve the sport that allows 

those values to shine brightly. Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. Mrs. Ali, thank you very much. Champ, thank 

you very much for your presentation. Let me next call on Mr. Roy 

Jones, Jr. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Could you identify your companion? 

STATEMENT OF ROY JONES, JR., PROFESSIONAL BOXER 

Mr. JONES. This is Mr. Mario Francis, my assistant trainer. He 

pretty much knows this sport. First of all, the sanctioning organizations is probably the major problem. I feel you can lead certainly 

things basically requiring the organizations to tell how they handle 

the rankings so that people could understand and could also require financial disclosure of all aspects of the organization. However, the answer to all of this is to get a fair board who would do 

the ranking such as college football or basketball and to have a 

separate organization handle the sanctioning. The private sector 

should be able to do this. 

There was something such as the sense of Congress requesting 

the private sector to do this, we think it could be established. The 

second thing we see is the judging and officiating and this goes to 

the state boards that control boxing. The problem here is that the 

executive director of the state boards determines who the judges 

will be, who the referee will be, if the judges and referee do not 

please the executive director, they do not work. 

There could be legislation requiring each state to list the names 

and address of all officials and to provide a procedure on how the 

officials are selected and to provide a purpose, provide a purpose 

to keep the victim of a serious accident from receiving a tremendous amount of money and then being subject to all kinds of pressure to invest or throw money away. 

Similar legislation should be available to a professional boxer. 

We need to simplify, we need to simply follow the provisions for 

structured settlements for accident victims and this would allow 

the promoter to create an annuity that would pay the boxer a 

monthly amount over his lifetime. The law would prevent the boxer 

from encumbering any future payment in order to make this attractive to the promoter, you might give the promoter a little extra 

8

tax writeoff as an incentive for creating one of these structured settlement annuities. 

Also, I feel that there are issues that go on with the networks 

that control boxing right now. These people seem to have a monopoly on the sport and they deal with certain promoters, which 

doesn’t allow up and coming young fighters to step out and do 

things that they want to do or to be protected. When I come here 

and speak, a lot of guys do not want to come and speak out because 

they know that in the future with people here such as HBO or 

Showtime or the people who are in control right now when they 

hear you are speaking out against them, these guys feel their livelihood is in jeopardy. Boxing is the only way out, they believe. 

I do not care. I am trying to help make the future better for others. That is why I come here. I feel right now as though the networks that control boxing are not really doing it the way that they 

should be doing it because they are going as far as to be promoters, 

try to do what the sanctioning body should do, which is telling you 

who your No. 1 contender should or should not be. I don’t think 

that is not fair either. If it is not television or something good for 

the network they feel that we are not going to be a part of it where 

everybody they pick is not going to be good for their television network. I have to defend my title against whoever the contender is. 

In closing, I would like to see those things I spoke about. You all 

could do something to handle those problems if we start at the root. 

Do not get me wrong, the Muhammad Ali Act has made things 

more visible. They always got ways to try to go around it. If we can 

handle these people, start with the television people, I think we 

can handle the issue. Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Jones. In your statement, you 

mentioned that sanctioning bodies are a major problem. How many 

championships have you held? 

Mr. JONES. I have held probably nine. 

Senator MCCAIN. Nine. And when there are four or five or six or 

10 different bodies that are all bestowing a championship belt, 

couldn’t that diminish the fact that you are ‘‘champion of the 

world’’? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, it does. And right now it is the same thing because you want to give the titles up and fight, just fight whoever 

comes, but at the same time the network will tell you well, if it is 

not a championship fight, they do not want it. Some guys are 

afraid to get rid of those belts. They use it best when it is for them. 

If it is to your advantage, they are not going to use it. When it is 

to their advantage, they will use it. 

Senator MCCAIN. If you are a champion in the WBC, you may 

not even be ranked in the top 10 in the WBA or another alphabet 

soup organization. 

Mr. JONES. Which is totally crazy. 

Senator MCCAIN. Which is the most insane thing that I have 

ever seen in my life, and it is not justifiable. 

Mr. JONES. Exactly. That will force people like Darius to fight. 

Now he can talk about fighting me to make people think he really 

wants to fight me and it makes me bad because I won’t go over 

there to my country. I have tried to get every title in my weight 

9

class so the people would understand there is one champion. However, he keeps eluding me because they won’t rank me in his championship organizations. 

Senator MCCAIN. I wish we could pass a law tomorrow to stop 

that, Mr. Jones. I guess my other point here, and it is just a point, 

is that if you are a champion (and I hate to pick on any of them, 

but I see this with the WBA a lot as well as the WBC), some obscure person, maybe from somewhere in Asia, is now ranked No. 

1, even though nobody has ever heard of this fighter. And, yet, you 

have to fight that individual in order to maintain your No. 1, championship ranking. And, there is a sanctioning fee, which I think, at 

least once, you have refused to pay. 

Mr. JONES. Yes. I have refused to pay on a couple of occasions 

because I mean it is ridiculous. 

Senator MCCAIN. How much money are you talking about? 

Mr. JONES. 3 percent of your purse. The smaller guys, they are 

not asking that kind of money. They are trying to survive. At the 

same time when those guys come up at HBO or people promoting 

you, they do not know those guys either. Either I fight a guy who 

nobody knows and wants to stay, or I give up my titles that I 

worked all this time to get. What do you do? 

Senator MCCAIN. I have seen a number of fights lately where the 

decisions have been extremely questionable. Have you? 

Mr. JONES. Horrible decisions. 

Senator MCCAIN. How do you account for that? 

Mr. JONES. You do not. That is once again I feel part of the promoters controlling boxing because a promoter could have a particular fighter who looks like he could make better paydays tomorrow. Perfect example is Barrera wasn’t represented by a great 

fighter, but Morales was. It went to Morales because that same 

promoter who had the fight represented Morales. 

Senator MCCAIN. I have seen several in the last few months. 

Mr. JONES. Oh yes. For sure. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, one of the things about being a Senator 

is you do not have to pass an IQ test, but it does give us a little 

license from time to time. And one more question: When are you 

going to fight Bernard Hopkins? 

Mr. JONES. There is another issue which Don King delivered Don 

Hopkins, which I understand. I delivered Roy Jones. He wants me 

to take a 50/50 split with Hopkins. A guy I already won before. Don 

King wants 30 percent off the top. 

Senator MCCAIN. How much? 

Mr. JONES. 30 percent. Is that fair to me? 

Senator MCCAIN. Don King wants 30 percent off the top of your 

purse if you fight Bernard? 

Mr. JONES. Off the top of the entire purse and I fight Bernard 

Hopkins and he wants me to split 50/50 with Bernard Hopkins. 

Senator MCCAIN. A 30 million fight, you and Bernard would have 

to pay for training fees, plus all the other expenses, none of which 

Mr. King pays for. 

Mr. JONES. Exactly. And it started worse than that. It started 

where he wanted me to take 50 percent. He takes 29 percent of my 

50. He is taking 20 percent of Bernard’s 50 percent. People say why 

won’t you fight Bernard Hopkins. That is ridiculous. When I fought 

10

Montel Griffin in a rematch, I did not care how much money I 

made. I wanted to prove I could beat the guy. I took probably 25/

75. This guy saying he wants 50/50. He did not beat me the first 

time. I beat him. Why does he deserve 50/50? He doesn’t. And why 

does Don King deserve 30 percent off the top. He says he is saying 

that because he delivered Bernard Hopkins. Somebody delivered 

Roy Jones, too. Maybe I would think about 60/40 after that. That 

is just logical because I have beat him once. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, I think it is just remarkable that 30 percent would go to a promoter off the top. 

Mr. JONES. That is what I am saying. 

Senator MCCAIN. That is a sign of the corruption in boxing today. 

Mr. JONES. And also though the media, HBO is included in this, 

too, go out making Roy Jones, Jr. as such a bad guy. He doesn’t 

want to fight these guys. Would you give a promoter 30 percent 

who has done nothing for your son when your son is the draw. People don’t want to see me fight Bernard Hopkins to see Bernard 

Hopkins. If they did, he could go fight anybody and people would 

want to see him. That is not the case. 

Senator MCCAIN. I have exceeded my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. Senator McCain, it looks like you have another 

career: Matchmaker. Let me again thank both of you for your testimony. Let me ask Mr. Jones, you have answered it in part, but 

who calls the shots in boxing today? 

Mr. JONES. Right now, the networks are calling the shots. The 

networks, along with the promoters, and that is the——

Senator MCCAIN. HBO and Showtime? 

Mr. JONES. Basically. If they do not like you. I am a promoter 

here. I promote young guys to try to give them a better start and 

I have a guy right now that he is a contender a couple of times. 

They had two decent fights but because I did not do HBO once I 

can never get an HBO date. 

I am glad to have this guy in this testimony here, Lou DiBella, 

a former worker at HBO. I do not want to pick on him but at the 

same time, whatever he did, he stopped working at HBO. Not fired, 

yet he still has probably more dates than any other promoters in 

the country at HBO. If I used to work for you and you come back 

and give me something to quit working for you, I still really work 

for you. We are still working together, but they are saying it is not. 

Yet I can’t get a date to promote my fighters on HBO. He can. And 

it is not right. 

I do not mind him promoting, it is just that as a matter of fact, 

a lot of other promoters have having this issue, too because the 

smaller promoters are getting beat on. They are like me. If you are 

not playing their game you do not get fights. It is like I got guys 

who when it is a world champion, he has no contender which he 

fought twice but still the guy is a good fighter. Why is he not fighting, why won’t they take the fight? It happens. 

Senator DORGAN. Let me ask, you have testified before the Congress previously. In fact, before the Commerce Committee I believe 

at Senator McCain’s invitation. Were there any repercussions as a 

result of your testimony? You are a fairly independent guy. You 

have not been willing to be under the thumb of some promoters 

11

who insist you have to be under their thumb in order to get various 

fight and you have been known as an independent fellow and wonderful champion. But you are pretty outspoken as well, and you 

came before the Senate Committee. Were there any repercussions 

from that? 

Mr. JONES. No. They were probably a little afraid to really bother 

me. I am pretty sure repercussions will come from this one, because I am speaking for the main people. They are not representing 

me right. The way they are getting me is they do not do the bad 

decisions or the bad judges because I keep that out of their hands 

as much as possible. When I won’t take a stupid scenario like I 

said with Don King, they say how I am not dedicated to the sport, 

how I won’t fight big fighters or I won’t fight the guys who I should 

be fighting. They try to make me look bad so I will do something 

stupid and fight a guy. Here is the network encouraging me that 

that is a good deal for me that Don King wants. 

Senator DORGAN. We did ask Don King to deliver testimony 

today. He declined. We are joined by Senator Ensign. I was on a 

Committee here in the Congress and we had testimony from 

Sammy ‘‘the bull’’ Grafano, who was associated with John Gotti, 

and it was the hearing was about corruption in boxing, and he described a circumstance where he traveled to Las Vegas at one point 

and met with one of the presidents of one of the boxing organizations. I don’t recall which one. But they had a fighter that they 

wanted to fight Rinaldo Snipes. 

They wanted to set up a fight in order to move this European 

into a bigger fight and Snipes at that point was not ranked so he 

testified that Mr. Gotti sent him to Las Vegas to meet with this 

boxing sanctioning group in order to get Rinaldo ranked. In his testimony he said that the fellow from the boxing organization said 

for $10,000 we would be willing to rank him seventh and then he 

explained he was here on behalf of John Gotti. He said well then 

we would be willing to rank him 7th for $5,000. That was, of 

course, coming from North Dakota. I was pretty stunned by that 

testimony. That was testimony by Sammy ‘‘the bull’’ Grafano in 

this corruption hearing. 

Tell me what your assessment is of the rankings process. That 

testimony described just out and out corruption? 

Mr. JONES. It is the same thing now today. Here’s a guy, Clinton 

Woods and he is ranking more for my WBC total. How? I do not 

know a guy that he has beaten yet. He is my No. 1 contender? 

How? It has to be the same thing going on. What happens is these 

guys, I know how they do it because I watch them. I had a promoter who does the same thing. In a sense he did not have to do 

that for me. I watched him with other fighters because I like the 

way you get them is to get on their side and see how they work. 

He wouldn’t probably pay them, but he knows how to ease his way 

under them, so I call and say I got a guy being ranked, he can 

probably do that. I would never need anything like that because I 

am doing it my way and the reason I do it my way is so I do not 

get caught up into nothing like that. These guys do that same 

thing right now today. 

Senator DORGAN. Let me, as I turn to Senator Ensign, say to Muhammad Ali and Mrs. Ali that your willingness to lend your name 

12

and credibility to the efforts to reform boxing and to legislation 

that specifically would make life better for these young athletes is 

really quite a remarkable thing, and I commend you for it. You not 

only gave me and many Americans many, many thrills as we 

watched your career over the years, but you now provide your 

name and your reputation to helping make life better for young 

boxers, and I just tell you, I deeply appreciate that. I think it is 

quite a very special thing you are doing. Let me call on Senator 

Ensign. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 

holding this hearing. I represent the state of Nevada and boxing 

is very important to my state. I think that over the years that boxing and Nevada has been a good partnership and that is one of the 

reasons that I have such great concerns about the current condition 

of boxing. I am a big fan of boxing, and have been since I was a 

little kid. 

The first professional fight I ever saw was Muhammad Ali and 

it was part of his comeback when he fought Bob Foster. I think Bob 

was the light heavyweight champion of the world at the time and 

the fight was held at the Sahara Tahoe way back when I was a 

kid and when I first became a fan of the sport. I am very concerned, though, about the claims of corruption and when you are 

watching a fight. I may not be an expert on how to score a fight, 

but some fights are pretty obvious when the fix is in, especially 

when all of the professionals on the side lines agree that some of 

the decisions are completely outrageous—especially with the fight 

that happened up in New York State. We do not have to give 

names, but we all know what fight we are talking about. 

It is completely outrageous for those things to happen to such a 

great sport that may eventually bring the whole sport down. I applaud both of you for appearing before the Committee today. Muhammad Ali is a great Ambassador for the sport. Over the years, 

it is wonderful for you to lend your name to our efforts at improving the sport. Mr. Jones, for you, I think you are showing a lot of 

courage being here today. I think there is a great chance for you 

to have repercussions in the future. That has happened to athletes 

not just in boxing but in other sports that have been willing to 

stand up and speak out, and so I applaud you and I applaud both 

my colleagues for calling this hearing today. I have not completely 

reviewed their legislation, but I know that their legislation is attempting to clean up some of the problems that are happening in 

boxing. I do not have any questions other than just to say that I 

applaud you for trying to clean up the sport. 

It is a great sport. It needs to be cleaned up so that when fans 

pay to watch a boxing event, whether it is on pay-per-view or 

whether it is in person, that they know it is a legitimate fight, that 

those fighters have both earned their way into the ring, that those 

fighters are healthy and they have passed the physical requirements to be in there to keep the sport from having people injured 

unnecessarily. 

13

It is a violent sport. We know that. But healthy people in the 

ring is absolutely necessary to handle the type of physical contact. 

We need to make sure all of those things are met as we go forward 

in the future. 

Senator DORGAN. Senator Ensign, thank you very much. Let me 

make one comment, Mr. Jones, as you leave. I shouldn’t, but I can’t 

resist. In 1984, I called the Olympic trial folks and asked if they 

would consider inviting a young fighter to the Olympic trials. They 

did that and it was Virgil Hill. He won the silver medal in the 

Olympics. He was heavyweight champion for 9 years. Wonderful 

fighter. I regret he did not get in the ring with you at age 24, 25. 

When he did get in the ring with you, it did not last all that long. 

He was a great fighter. Virgil was one of the best. Let me thank 

you, Mr. Jones, for the courage of coming forward today and being 

part of this hearing. And as always, Champ, and Mrs. Ali, thank 

you so much for your participation today. 

Senator MCCAIN. Could I just also thank Muhammad Ali again, 

without whom the Muhammad Ali Boxing Act would never have 

been enacted. It has made some positive changes. We all agree we 

have got a long way to go, but without Muhammad Ali’s active participation in that legislation, we would have never gotten it passed. 

I wonder if he wanted to say anything before we call on the next 

panel. 

Mr. ALI. Write me a check. 

Senator MCCAIN. Write me a check. Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. Champ had it right. I said that Senator 

McCain would be a great promoter. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you. I would like to thank everybody that is 

here, especially Muhammad Ali, too because Muhammad Ali was 

one of the main reasons that I got into this sport. I saw him do 

more things with his mind, not only with his fist. Because he was 

so strong, and stood up for what he believed, I stood up for what 

was right. Today I take a lot of the hits over the head because I 

stand up for what is right. I beat fighters such as Virgil Hill who 

you know was one of the best heavyweights of all time. I did what 

was necessary to make the big fights happen when I could. In closing, I would just like to thank everybody for being a part of this. 

I hope we can come together and consistently make things better 

for younger boxers in the future. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Jones, thank you very much. We thank you 

for being here and we will ask the next panel to come forward. You 

are excused. The next panel will be Mr. Emanuel Steward, President of Kronk Boxing Team, and he just flew in from out of town. 

Mr. Bert Sugar, boxing historian and author; Mr. Lou DiBella, 

President of DiBella Entertainment; and Mr. Tim Lueckenhoff, the 

President of the Association of Boxing Commissions, in the Missouri Office of Athletics in Jefferson, Missouri. If you would come 

forward and take your position at the witness table, we would appreciate it. 

What we would like to do is take the statements from the four 

of you first and then we will ask questions. Let me say that your 

entire statement will be a part of the record. You may summarize 

as you wish. You want to start, Mr. Sugar? Why don’t you proceed. 

14

STATEMENT OF BERT RANDOLPH SUGAR, BOXING HISTORIAN 

AND AUTHOR 

Mr. SUGAR. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain. I just would like to 

tell you that boxing today if it could be epitomized reminds me of 

the time that my daughter came down the stairs after the cat had 

given birth to a kitten in her closet. It was a real grouping of kittens and said daddy, holding one, the cat fell apart. Well, today 

boxing has fallen apart. It has fallen apart in more ways than one. 

We are here to protect yes, the boxer, but we must also protect 

the sport itself and in doing so, protect the Americans standing in 

the sport itself. By that I mean there were when we were kids and 

Senator Dorgan, you were mentioning back when there were fights 

and there were eight champions and there were eight divisions and 

each was a world champion. Because of these alphabet soup groups 

whom I named back in 1979, there are now as many as four accepted champions in 17 weight classes. I think you and I, Senator, are 

the only two people that do not have a belt. It has gotten to the 

point where nobody knows what is happening in the sport. And it 

is even worse for the United States because somebody, a columnist 

named Dave Anderson in the New York Times once asked the head 

of the WBC why doesn’t the United States have a voice? And he 

said because they speak in 50 voices. 

They do not have one say at the international tables. We have 

no say. We produce 60 percent per of all fighters, 70 percent of all 

champions and 80 percent of all money and we have a de minimis 

say. In order to protect the American boxers, we need to have a 

strong voice in the boxing program. This means that somehow, 

some way, somewhere, we do not even give full faith and credit to 

another state. It has been alluded to, I think, Mr. DiBella will and 

I will let him go into, it but Mike Tyson is turned down in one 

state and they are standing in line to give him licenses in others. 

I mean, it just is, it doesn’t work the way it is working. 

So while I accept and look forward to Senator McCain’s addendum, his amendment to make it work with the USBA, we can also 

look to other areas to give us a voice so we can protect these fighters. Whether it is something called the united conference on commissioners on uniform state laws, they can come out with the UCC, 

they have come out with the Probate Act. They ensure full faith 

and credit among states and just came out incidentally with the 

Uniform Athletes Agents Act so that they are in sports and they 

make it feasible. For what we must do in each case before boxing 

is cutoff worse than Chuck Wittner is to make sure that we protect 

the boxers by being one, the United States one, then we can sit at 

the table and we do not have to listen to what Senator McCain said 

somebody we never heard of from some athletic company challenging Roy Jones, Jr. unless we have a say, and I guess that is 

all I have to say. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Sugar follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BERT RANDOLPH SUGAR, BOXING HISTORIAN AND AUTHOR

To understand the sport of boxing, one must first understand its roots. Unlike 

many of today’s sports, boxing did not spring full-blown from the brow of an inventor, as basketball did from the brow of Dr. James Naismith in 1896, nor date back 

15

to the happening of some specific occurrence as rugby did when, in 1823, a soccer 

player at Rugby school picked up the ball and ran with it. 

Instead, boxing’s roots are buried in antiquity, traceable, at least in part, to the 

practice of a form of the sport as we now know it by the ancient Sumerians approximately five thousand years ago. From there it was a short hop, skip and overhand 

right to other places throughout the ancient world, finally surfacing in ancient 

Greece around 900 B.C.. As practiced by the Greeks, the sport became less of a sport 

and more of a brutal spectacle, the ‘‘hands and arms enveloped in ponderous gauntlets,’’ as Virgil wrote in the Aeneid, ‘‘stiffened in rigid coils, insewn with lead and 

with irons.’’ The object was not only to win but to win by stretching (the opponent) 

hurt to the death on the yellow sand’’ of the arena. Not content with mortal hurt, 

the lead and iron were replaced with spikes to insure death. 

With the conquest of Greece by the Holy Roman Empire, boxing became an integral part of Rome’s ‘‘bread and circuses’’ pageantry, trained gladiators taking part 

in exhibitions, usually held following the chariot races and immediately preceeding 

the wrestling and running events. Finally tiring of the wanton brutality and waste 

of life, Emperor Theodoric ended the gladiatorial contest in A.D. 500, allowing only 

fighting with bare fists. Those, too, were soon banned, and boxing all but disappeared from the face of the globe. 

Twelve centuries were to pass before boxing resurfaced in what had once been a 

Roman colony, England. Like Greece and Rome before it, England, in the early 

eighteenth century, considered sport an honorable, even noble pursuit. The manly 

sport of boxing befitted the Englishman’s concept of himself and his country as a 

molder of men as neatly as a well-tailored waiscoat. Indeed, poet John Milton, in 

his Treatise on Education, recommended boxing for young men as an excellent athletic exercise and builder of character. 

However, the sport of boxing was hardly the sport we know today, resembling 

more organized king of the mountain than boxing, with wrestling, choking and 

gouging an integral part. It remained for one man, James Figg, to bring order out 

of chaos and a small smattering of science to barbarity. 

Figg opened an Amphitheatre on Tottenham Court Road dedicated to the teachings of ‘‘the manly art of foul play, backsword, cudgeling, and boxing.’’ From the day 

it opened in 1719 it was liberally patronized by many royal and noble parsonages—

‘‘the fancy’’—who supported his exhibits with their presence. Boxing, as taught by 

Figg, was a mere interlude to the entertainments given by exponents of cudgel play, 

backsword, quarterstaff, and other practices of the day. 

Time has a way of mis-bestowing its memorial garland now and then. And so it 

is that the name James Figg endures fallaciously in the history of a sport that honors him. For even though Figg is known as the ‘‘Father of Boxing,’’ his fame might 

have the same mythic trappings as that of Abner Doubleday, who is wrongly credited with ‘‘Inventing’’ baseball. Figg, who professed to teaching his students the art 

of ‘‘scientific boxing,’’ was in reality teaching them nothing more than the art of 

fencing with the two weapons with which nature and God had endowed them, their 

hands. His methods, indeed even his technical terms, guards, acts, and the positioning of the feet and hands, were borrowed from fencing. 

The true science of boxing had its foundation and beginning in the teachings of 

Jack Broughton, who pioneered in the modern art of self-defense. According to 

Pugilistica, ‘‘The successor to Figg in popularity, Boughton far exceeded that stalwart crudgeler in fistic science and application of those principles which srtipped 

the practice of boxing of any of those features of ruffianism and barbarity with 

which the unregulated contests of mere bruisers had invested it.’’

By the 19th century all of England had embraced the sport of boxing, so much 

so that they celebrated it in chauvinistic verse:

Since boxing is a manly game 

And Britons recreation, 

By boxing we will raise our fame 

‘Bove any other nation. 

Throw pistols poniards swords aside. 

And all such deadly tools. 

And boxing be the Britons pride 

The science of their schools.

However, by the beginning of the 19th century the sun was already imperceptibly 

setting on the English boxing empire, the result of ‘‘Yankee-doodle-dom,’’ the influx 

of Americans drawn to England, thus creating the international sport of boxing. 

But just as James Watt’s newfangled steam-powered ships were bringing American fighters over to England, they were also bringing boxers back across the AtlanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:36 Dec 22, 2004 Jkt 091859 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\91859.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
16

tic—now an even smaller pond, due to Mr. Watt’s invention—in effect fueling what 

would be the start of boxing in America. 

Soon American boxing ‘‘rings’’—then actually rings drawn in the sand—would be 

filled with immigrants from England and Ireland, all seeking to escape their hardscrabble roots and find fame and fortune. 

Throughout the next century-and-a-half boxing has continued to be the refuge of 

those seeking to escape their roots as youngsters from the tenements, the ghettos, 

the projects and the barrios all used the sport as a social staircase out of the mean 

streets that formed their limited existences, with first the Irish, then the Jewish, 

Italian, African-American and Latino boxers attempting to gain full fellowship into 

our society by the only means of escape they possessed: their fists. 

And, as they turned to boxing, many also turned their lives around, much as 

former middleweight champion Rocky Graziano of ‘‘Somebody Up There Likes Me’’ 

fame did. Speaking in his native New Yorkese, peppered with more than a few 

‘‘dems’’ and doses,’’ Graziano would say of his less-than-exemplary behavior: ‘‘I never 

stole nuthin’ unless it began with a ‘A’... ‘A’ truck, ‘A’ car... ‘A’ 

payroll . . . ’’ And then, in a telling indication of just what the sport meant to him, 

would add, ‘‘If it wasn’t for boxing, I woulda wounded up electrocuted at Sing Sing 

Prison.’’

But even as they fought in hopes of finding a way out of places which offered 

them little presence and less of a future, they did so alone, almost naked, save for 

a pair of boxing trunks and two gloves. As Buster Mathis Sr. once said of his manager and trainer when they continued to use the pluralistic ‘‘we’’ once too often, 

‘‘Where do they get that ‘we’ s--t? When the bell rings they go down the steps and 

I go out alone.’’

It is for these warriors, boxing’s most precious commodity, that we must seek 

help—help they are often denied in the world outside the ring, where they can least 

defend themselves. And help as well for the sport itself which provides them with 

their sole hope of gaining admittance to full fellowship into our society. 

For while each and every boxer struggles to gain his place at the top of boxing’s 

mountain, their climb is made all the more difficult by our country’s inequality at 

the international boxing table. 

It is an inequality that was best articulated by WBC president Jose Sulaiman, 

who, when asked by New York Times columnist Dave Anderson, ‘‘Why doesn’t the 

United States have more of a ‘say’ in the world of boxing?’’ answered: ‘‘Because 

they’re unorganized and speak with 50 voices.’’

That lack of organization by the powers-that-be who run boxing, so to speak, has 

made our country—which can boast of supplying 60% of all boxers, 70% of all champions and 80% of all money in boxing—a second-rate power in the sport. And allowed those groups which I call ‘‘Alphabet Soups’’ to control the sport, most from 

outside the U.S.. 

It is for that reason that American boxing needs a way of becoming organized to 

the point of having one voice at the international boxing table. And why the Muhammad Ali Bill is an important first step. 

For the Muhammad Ali Bill is the first piece of meaningful legislation ever to 

come out of Congressional hearings—most of which have been little more than faultfinding hearings about the sport, like the Roth investigation of the controversial decision in the James Toney-Dave Tiberi fight a few years back. 

However, I happen to agree with the bill’s sponsor, Senator John McCain, who 

is quoted as having said, ‘‘So many people have said I want a federal commission 

with ultimate authority. That would be a last resort. I’m a fundamental conservative, I want to limit government.’’

In keeping with Senator McCain’s stated goal, we do not have to re-invent the 

boxing wheel; the mechanism to organize the sport is already in place. And it is 

called ‘‘The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.’’

This is a group that was organized in 1892—not incidentally, the same year as 

the John L. Sullivan-James J. Corbett fight, the fight which brought in modern boxing as we know it today, with three-minute rounds and gloves under the Marquess 

of Queensberry Rules. 

The stated purpose of The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform 

State Laws is ‘‘to ptomote uniformity in state law on all subjects where uniformity 

is desirable and practable, by voluntary action of each state government.’’

As such, The National Conferencce of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has 

drafted uniform laws in many fields and then encouraged states to adopt them on 

a state-by-state basis as law—including such diverse laws as the UCC, the Probate 

Act, the Anatomical Gift Act, and the Interstate Family Support Act. 

And why do we need uniform laws? My colleague, Michael DeLisa, making a 

speech to a group known as the Association of Boxing Commissions back in 1994, 

17

cited the case of former heavyweight champion Bob Fitzsimmons who, in 1914 at 

the age of 50, applied for a license in the State of New York and was turned down 

by the New York State Athletic Commission. His appeal was denied by the New 

York Supreme Court (NY Supreme Court 146 New York Supplement 117 (1914) ), 

and two days later Fitzsimmons went over the border and fought in the State of 

Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania, in its infinite non-wisdom, gave neither reciprocity nor full faith 

and credit to the New York State decision—and Fitzsimmons fought in the state 

twice after being turned down by New York and having that denial upheld on appeal. 

But one state failing to recognize another state’s refusal of a license to a boxer 

is hardly limited to the case of Bob Fitzsimmons. In fact, it happened again this 

year when, after the State of Nevada refused to grant Mike Tyson a license to fight 

Lennox Lewis other jurisdictions lined up, with licenses in hand for Tyson—one 

State, Georgia, requiring only $10 for the license, less than it costs for a dog license. 

In a manner similar to the time my daughter’s cat went into her hall closet and 

gave birth to kittens and she came down the stairs hollering, ‘‘The cat just fell 

apart,’’ boxing has fallen apart, with no uniformity nor reciprocity for its rules and 

regulations 

The world of boxing today is like the old wild, wild west, with an anything-goes 

as far as the boxing rules of the several states regulating the sport. 

This lack of uniformity can best be seen by comparing the very definition of the 

word ‘‘boxing’’: While Hawaii defines it as, ‘‘A contest in which the art of attack and 

defense is practiced with gloved fists by two contestants,’’ the State of Florida defines it as a ‘‘Means to compete with fists,’’ with nary a word about gloves contained 

therein. 

Then there’s the difference, on a state-to-state basis, on such things as scoring, 

with Montana giving a 10–9, not 10–8, round to a boxer who knocked down another, 

with the other boxer getting up right away, thus showing he’s not hurt, while Florida will make it a 10–9 round if the fallen fighter takes a 9-count, which shows his 

‘‘ring generalship,’’ as opposed to one who gets up immediately in a groggy condition. (And here, words like ‘‘ring generalship’’ are almost impossible to define, even 

by General George Patton.) 

And so, while the Muhammad Ali Bill is the correct first step, it still does not 

provide for the state-to-state uniformity needed to conduct boxing in the United 

States, nor for the United States to be able to conduct itself as a single entity—

not 50 different ones at the international boxing table. 

Instead this august Committee should urge The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (or the Association of Boxing Commissions) to draft 

a bill which every state could then adopt. 

(And here, let it be known, that after years of not wanting to be involved in 

sports, finally in 2002, The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State 

Laws approved and recommended for enactment in all states of the Uniform Athlete 

Agents Act.) 

I believe it time the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign 

Commerce and Tourism urged the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Laws to draft a uniform law covering the sport of boxing, one which would 

make boxing a uniform sport within our borders. And thus ensure that the noble 

and high-minded goals contained in the Muhammad Ali Bill become the law in all 

50 states. 

Thank You, 

Bert Randolph Sugar

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Sugar, I am sure there is much more than 

that, and we will dig it out in questioning. Mr. Steward, why don’t 

you proceed? 

STATEMENT OF EMANUEL STEWARD, PRESIDENT, KRONK 

BOXING TEAM 

Mr. STEWARD. First of all, I am very interested in coming here, 

was interested because boxing is such a unique sport. It is unlike 

other sports that we have where we can regulate so easily the football, the baseball. First of all, they are just national. There is a 

similar background of all of the athletes. They pretty much have 

went through the same school system and recruitment, whatever. 

18

But in boxing it is really truly an international sport and that lies 

a lot of the problems alone. The fact that most people who are 

internationally and other countries involved primarily think and 

act according to what is best for their country or their countrymen 

for the most part. I think that regardless of all of that boxing is 

at an all-time high in terms its popularity as far as I am concerned. 

I was just recently about a year ago having a lunch at Spago’s 

on a Monday afternoon. No one was in the place except for four or 

five customers. Two ladies came over to the table to say you are 

Emanuel Steward, are you not. I said yes. They said we would like 

to ask you a question, our husbands over there are too bashful. I 

said what is your question. She says who is going to win between 

Trinidad and Roy Jones. I said people today are so into boxing 

where it used to be just the men. Women, everyday people are into 

boxing. They invited their cousins to come over. We talked boxing. 

Based on television and a lot of things in broadcast systems and 

exposure, so many people know who Roy Jones is. They know who 

Morales is. Years back it was mainly Muhammad Ali and one or 

two. I think boxing hass a tremendous chance to go to a big level 

because of the interest that is broader than ever. We have great 

boxing matches coming up scheduled already, potentially maybe 

Roy Jones as he was speaking of with Hopkins and Lennox Lewis, 

Mike Tyson. But just as well as we are going to set and regulate 

and protect the boxers, I think we have to start doing things that 

regulate and protect the fans because when you have megamillions 

of dollars that are being poured out today into watching these 

fights and you are having some of the worst decisions and even in 

the big fight we have coming up with Lennox Lewis and Mike 

Tyson it is so difficult for me to train a boxer to not only take care 

of himself and do things according to the rule books but all of the 

illegal tactics that are implemented, and the fact that the tactics 

are expected more so than they are going to be unexpected. 

This is where we have to do things to regulate this. Not so much 

for the protection of the boxers, but also the fans. I think at 

present they are probably being abused as much as the boxers, and 

we have to set up systems to take care of some of these horrible 

decisions that is coming up and a lot of people are being turned off, 

totally off of just those decisions alone saying it is no longer where 

one has taken a dive but just a fact that officials can render decisions is totally out of order from anyone else and do not have to 

answer to anyone. 

And I think that this means that we will have, and I hope to be 

a part of what will help change some of those things and some of 

the unfair practices that boxers may suffer from promoters and 

sometimes promoters get screwed by boxers also. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Steward, thank you very much. Next we 

will hear from Lou DiBella. Lou is President of DiBella Entertainment, and used to be with HBO for over a decade. 

STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. DIBELLA, PRESIDENT, DIBELLA 

ENTERTAINMENT, INC. 

Mr. DIBELLA. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and senators. Boxing is a great sport and viewed with compelling drama and the 

ability to capture the imaginations of tens of millions of people. The 

19

overwhelming majority of fighters are decent young men who have 

been undereducated. Unfortunately, the prevailing system of state 

regulation of the sport is woefully inadequate to protect them. The 

system of governance in boxing by profit for profit world sanctioning organizations is subject to manipulation and inappropriate 

influences and often results in inequities in the ranking of fighters. 

State Commissions are generally underfunded and dominated by 

political patronage appointees with virtually no knowledge of the 

sport who are incapable of understanding the business, let alone 

policing it. State Commissions are asked to enforce and administrate antiquated state laws that fail to address the realities of the 

industry today. These laws were written prior to the proliferation 

of big money televised boxing. They were written before the advent 

of nuclear imaging. The majority of states do not adequately safeguard against permanent neurological damage. 

In short, these laws and the definition within them do not work. 

When state boxing laws were enacted, managers were actually directing the careers of fighters. A manager negotiated with the promoter to determine the purse the promoter would pay his fighter. 

From this purse the manager trained. The revenue was from the 

ticket sales. The promoter speculated on revenue and was the 

money behind the event. As the person negotiating for the fighter 

with the promoter the manager had a fiduciary duty to the fighter. 

All state boxing laws that I have seen reflect this paradigm. This 

paradigm doesn’t work in the age of television dollars and site 

guarantees. 

The promoter, not the manager is now the entity negotiating 

with the money. The money is now primarily television dollars. 

This is troubling since the promoter has no legal duty. The manager now relegated to middleman may legally take as much of a 

third of the fighter’s money before expenses are taken out. Effectively the definitions of manager and promoter are redundant and 

workable. Does a fighter need both? I think Roy Jones can answer 

that question. 

Consider that mismanagement is blatant. State laws actually 

provide a framework for the financial exploitation of fighters. While 

the Ali Act was a positive step, there were two major problems 

with it. It accepts the present form of antiquated state regulation 

and nobody is enforcing it. A new national boxing law must be 

written in the national Boxing Commission established. Prize 

fights are notorious for questionable judgment. Polls taken in the 

wake of the controversial first fight between Lewis and Holyfield 

showed that the majority of the American people thought the fight 

was fixed. The plethora of past investigations focused on the inequitable scoring of fights have consistently failed to find a smoking gun. There wasn’t any. No envelopes of cash need be legally 

passed to buy decisions. Since the operations of the world sanctioning bodies and existing laws allow manipulation and the exercise of clearly improper economic interest. 

Sanctioning bodies require judges to be licensed by the sanctioning body itself, pay annual fees and attend organized events. 

The sanctioning bodies involved with state Commissions in determining who will judge a title fight often involve doling out plum 

assignments. The sanctioning fees that are paid are based on a perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:36 Dec 22, 2004 Jkt 091859 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\91859.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
20

centage of the fighter’s purses. The more popular and highly paid 

the fighter, the more money the sanctioning body makes. This provides a great incentive to favor big name fighters. 

Judges learn by the quality of the assignments they are given, 

the class of air travel and hotel provided to the judge and per 

diems paid to him are paid for by the promoter without any required standardization. The promoter can choose to entertain 

judges the way he sees fit. Would anyone tolerate Abe Pollin entertaining referees during the basketball playoffs? 

Until there is a new national boxing law which makes sanctioning bodies and promoters out of the system of selecting and reimbursing judges, biased decisions will continue to abound and discredit the sport. On June 8th the circus is coming to Memphis. The 

scheduled Lewis Tyson heavyweight title fight is more reality television than it is sport, but in this reality show it is unlike any in 

the long run that there will be a survivor. Tyson’s life has been a 

litany of abhorrent behavior with criminal activity, serious verbal 

abuse of women, shocking instances of unsportsmanlike conduct of 

the ring and the recent meltdown and biting of his opponent at a 

press conference. Still, scores of individuals and TV companies and 

other corporations have lined up to make and/or recoup their 

money from him. Tyson is correct in stating that no one cares 

about him and that even he is being exploited. 

When Nevada correctly denied Tyson’s boxing license, the commissioners made Tyson face his inability to control his demons. The 

Commission threw reciprocity out the window and to align with 

greedy local politicians, no redundancy intended, to provide Mr. 

Tyson with a venue. Can you imagine the commissioner of a major 

sport allowing an athlete with Mr. Tyson’s recent history to compete? When you invite the circus to town, you shouldn’t be surprised when clowns and wild animals appear. 

The power of the dollar in existing boxing regulation and the 

general status of boxing is the Dodge City of sports. No matter 

what happens on June 8th, the scheduled occurrence of Lewis–

Tyson provides a compelling argument for the establishment of a 

national Boxing Commission empowered to enforce a new, workable coherent Federal boxing law with the assistance of the states. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. DiBella follows;]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. DIBELLA, PRESIDENT, DIBELLA ENTERTAINMENT, 

INC. 

Good Afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Senators. My name is Lou DiBella and I am 

the president of DiBella Entertainment. My company creates sports and entertainment programming and represents and counsels professional boxers with respect to 

matchmaking, television distribution of their bouts and marketing. It is the mission 

of DiBella Entertainment to create a business model that shifts the balance of 

power from promoters to fighters and to establish a legacy of matchmaking excellence. Prior to opening my company in the spring of 2000, I spent over a decade 

as a senior executive at HBO Sports, the world’s preeminent telecaster of professional prizefights. There, I was primarily responsible for purchasing the boxing 

matches to be televised on HBO and for recruiting and signing a bevy of boxing 

stars to multifight HBO contracts. 

Boxing is a great sport, imbued with compelling drama and the ability to capture 

the imagination of tens of millions of people worldwide. The overwhelming majority 

of fighters are fine athletes and decent young men who are, generally, socio-economically deprived and under-educated. They are deserving of our attention and 

21

protection. Unfortunately, the prevailing system of state regulation of the sport is 

woefully inadequate to protect them. The system of governance in boxing by private, 

for profit, world sanctioning organizations is subject to manipulation and inappropriate influence and often results in inequities in the ranking of fighters, the determination of mandatory challengers for titles and the judging of prizefights. State 

and federal regulation of the sport has not been successful in curbing these inequities. State commissions are generally under-funded and dominated by political patronage appointees with virtually no knowledge of the sport, who are incapable of 

understanding the business, let alone policing it. To compound the problem, state 

commissions are asked to enforce and administrate antiquated state laws, rules and 

regulations that fail to address the realities of the boxing industry today. These 

laws were initially written prior to the proliferation of big money televised boxing, 

casino sites, and significant sponsorship dollars. Unfortunately, they were also written before the advent of nuclear imaging and modern neurological testing; the majority of states do not adequately safeguard against head injury and permanent neurological damage. In short, these laws and the definitions within them no longer 

work. 

When state boxing laws were enacted, managers were actually the people directing the careers of fighters. A manager negotiated with a promoter to determine the 

purse that the promoter would pay to the fighter for the fighter’s participation in 

a particular prizefight. From this purse, the fighter paid his manager, trainer, 

cornermen and certain other expenses. The promoter’s primary source of event revenue was from the ticket sales; the promoter speculated on ticket and secondary 

revenue and was the money behind a boxing event. As the person negotiating for 

the fighter with the promoter, the source of money, the manager had a fiduciary 

duty to the fighter. The promoter was simply bound by contract. All state boxing 

laws that I have seen reflect this paradigm. 

This paradigm no longer works with respect to big time boxing, which generates 

television dollars and site guarantees. The promoter, not the manager, is now the 

entity negotiating with the money; the money is now primarily television dollars 

and secondarily site revenue. This is troubling, since the promoter has no legal duty 

to maximize a fighter’s money and the promoter’s share of revenues is not limited 

by law. The manager, who is now relegated to middleman, may legally take as much 

as a third of the fighter’s money before expenses. Effectively, the definitions of manager and promoter, found in virtually every state boxing law, are now redundant 

and unworkable. Does a fighter need both? Considering that blatant conflicts of interest between managers and promoters are rampant and totally unpoliced, state 

laws actually provide a framework for the financial exploitation of fighters. While 

the Ali Act was a positive step, there are two major problems with it: it accepts the 

present form of antiquated state regulation and no one is enforcing it. A new national boxing law must be written and a national boxing commission established. 

Prizefights are notorious for questionable judging. Every boxing fan can name 

major fights memorable for seemingly inexplicable scoring and/or the wrong result. 

Polls taken in the wake of the controversial first fight between Lennox Lewis and 

Evander Holyfield found that the majority of Americans believed that this fight was 

‘‘fixed.’’ The plethora of past investigations, federal, state and local, which have focused on the inequitable scoring of fights, have consistently failed to find a smoking 

gun or evidence of criminal behavior. There was none to find. No envelopes of cash 

need be illegally passed to buy decisions. This isn’t necessary since the operations 

of the world sanctioning bodies, and existing federal and state laws, allow manipulation and the exercise of clearly improper economic interest with respect to the judging of fights. 

Sanctioning bodies require judges to be licensed by the sanctioning body itself, 

pay annual fees and attend organized meetings, conventions and seminars. The 

sanctioning body is involved with state commissions in determining who will judge 

a title fight, often doling out plum assignments and sought after trips to desirable 

locations. Unfortunately, sanctioning bodies are characterized by institutional biases. The sanctioning fees that are paid are based on a percentage of the fighters’ 

purses; the more popular and highly paid the fighter, the more money the sanctioning body makes. This provides a big incentive to favor big name, televisionfriendly fighters. Judges get the message by watching certain promoters and boxers 

being honored regularly at organizational meetings and conventions. They also learn 

whether or not they are in favor with their sanctioning organization by the quality 

of the assignments they are given. To compound this problem, the class of air travel 

and hotel accommodations provided to the judge and the per diems paid to him are 

arranged and paid for by the promoter without any required standardization. The 

promoter can choose to entertain judges any way he sees fit. Isn’t the promoter, in 

effect, lobbying for his fighter? Would anyone tolerate Abe Pollin or Peter Angelos 

22

entertaining referees or umpires during the basketball or baseball playoffs? No federal or state laws prohibit these behaviors and the system is easily corruptible without the necessity of criminal behavior. 

On back-to-back weeks last month, the Mayweather/Castillo and Tapia/Medina 

title fights resulted in controversial decisions and clearly questionable scoring. In 

my opinion, it is not surprising that the perceived stars won. Until there is a new 

national boxing law, which takes sanctioning bodies and promoters out of the system of selecting and reimbursing judges, biased decisions will continue to abound 

and discredit the sport. 

On June 8, 2002, the circus is coming to Memphis. The scheduled Lewis/Tyson 

heavyweight title fight is more reality television than it is sport. The world is waiting to see what Mike Tyson will do next, but in this reality show it is unlikely, in 

the long run, that there will be a ‘‘Survivor.’’ Tyson’s life in recent years has been 

a Greek tragedy in the making. It has been a litany of abhorrent behavior and personal disintegration. There has been criminal activity, incarceration, serial physical 

and verbal abuse of women, shocking instances of unsportsmanlike conduct in the 

ring and the recent meltdown and biting of his opponent at a press conference. By 

Tyson’s own admission, he is medicated, self-loathing and in despair. Still, he is the 

biggest generator of dollars in boxing, and scores of individuals and corporations 

have lined up to make and/or recoup money from him. Tyson is correct in stating 

that no one cares about him and that even he is being exploited. 

When the Nevada State Athletic Commission correctly denied Tyson his boxing 

license, commissioners addressed Tyson’s unwillingness to face his personal demons 

and his inability to control his behavior. They sought not only to protect boxing from 

Mike Tyson, but also to protect Mike Tyson from himself. It only took a matter of 

hours from the Nevada decision for other state athletic commissions to throw reciprocity out the window and to align with greedy local politicians to provide Mr. 

Tyson with a venue. Can you imagine the commissioner of a major sport allowing 

an athlete with Mr. Tyson’s recent history to compete? Tennessee, and the other 

states that attempted to lure Lewis/Tyson, should be ashamed. When you invite the 

boxing circus to town, you shouldn’t be surprised when wild animals and clowns appear. 

The June 8th event in Memphis is a monument to the marketability of bad sportsmanship and self destruction, the power of the dollar in boxing regulation and the 

general status of boxing as the ‘‘Dodge City’’ of sports. Even Mike Tyson has been 

victimized by the callousness of Tennessee and the other states that courted the 

event. No matter what happens on June 8th, the scheduled occurrence of Lewis/

Tyson provides a compelling argument for the establishment of a national boxing 

commission, empowered to enforce a new, coherent federal boxing law with the assistance of the states. 

Thank you for allowing me to present my views today.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. DiBella, thank you very much. Next we 

will hear from Mr. Lueckenhoff, president of the Association of 

Boxing Commissions, administrator of the Missouri Office of Athletics. 

STATEMENT OF TIM LUECKENHOFF, PRESIDENT, 

ASSOCIATION OF BOXING COMMISSIONS 

Mr. LUECKENHOFF. I am Tim Lueckenhoff, and I am the President of the Association of Boxing Commissions, an organization of 

46 state and four tribal boxing Commissions throughout the United 

States. My sincere appreciation is extended to this Subcommittee 

for this opportunity to present testimony. The information provided 

to you today will address current issues, problems facing professional boxing, the success of current Federal legislation, and the 

ABC’s recommendation for further legislative reform. 

The enactment of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 for 

the first time provided a Federal mandate as to certain minimal 

safeguards and requirements for every professional boxing contest 

held in the United States. In 2000, amendments to the Professional 

Boxing Safety Act were enacted through the Muhammad Ali BoxVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:36 Dec 22, 2004 Jkt 091859 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\91859.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
23

ing Reform Act. These amendments focused primarily on economics 

as opposed to safety reforms. 

One significant incident occurred in 2000 that I would like to 

bring to your attention. A sanctioning body threatened the state 

Boxing Commission 5 minutes before a nationally televised world 

title bout with the withdrawal of their sanction unless one of the 

member judges was allowed to judge the bout. The Commission 

under the threat allowed the unassigned official to judge the bout. 

In the written comments previously provided to you, significant 

benefits of this Act have been outlined as well as other specific violations. While the various provisions of the Federal legislation provide basis for major reform in the industry historically burdened by 

inequity and propriety and criminality, additional measures are 

needed, particularly as to enforcement. The ABC is not aware of 

any such court action having been brought by the U.S. attorney 

general or state attorney general regarding the Professional Boxing 

Safety Act. 

There appears to be a need for an administration of these Federal laws on a nationwide basis, while the ABC is in place and has 

potential to perform such a function, it has been and continues to 

be without source of funding. The measures that the ABC does 

take are performed by a handful of individuals who serve on respective boxing Commissions which form its membership. 

The needed administration of the Federal laws could be accomplished by either providing funding for the ABC toward this effort 

or creating a Federal boxing administration. In either instance, it 

would be imperative to maintain the autonomy of the state and 

tribal boxing Commissions but at the same time provide an entity 

to administer Federal laws in support of the respective boxing 

Commissions. 

In addition to these amendments to the existing Federal law, the 

ABC recommends additional provisions. I have provided you a detailed explanation of each of the provisions in my written comments, however, I will briefly outline each suggested change or addition. 

It is recommended that there be a Federal mandate that judges 

and referees are to be assigned to each boxing contest, including 

championship bouts solely by the Boxing Commission that is regulating the boxing event without any interference from a sanctioning 

organization. All boxing officials must be trained and tested by the 

ABC or Federal boxing administration to be sure the official possesses the necessary skills to perform effectively. 

Boxing contests held in states or on tribal land where there is 

not a Boxing Commission should not be permitted, should only be 

permitted if the promoter agrees among other things to provide liability insurance coverage for each member of the respected Boxing 

Commission whom is a member of the ABC and who will participate in the regulation of the boxing contests held in the state or 

Indian land without a Boxing Commission. There is a need to provide reciprocal enforcement of all suspensions imposed by a Boxing 

Commission. Currently this enforcement is applicable only to suspensions imposed on boxers for recent knockouts, injuries or a physician’s denial of certification. 

24

Mandatory licensing should be enacted. Such as the requirement, 

mandatory licensing guidelines should be enacted such as requirements that each Boxing Commission develop a criteria for review 

of each boxer’s record, suspensions, medical and administrative and 

other relevant matters which serve as a basis for licensure. There 

should be a Federal provision for the creation of a centralized medical data bank into which all medical examinations undergone by 

a licensed boxer are placed. With this information, it should be accessible to each boxing commissioner. Promoters should be required 

to post collateral such as a surety bond, an irrevocable line of credit 

or cash. The ABC does not imply that the adoption of these measures would constitute a solution as to the problems associated with 

professional boxing. 

However, the adoption of such measures outlined herein would 

significantly advance the economics and integrity of the sport of 

professional boxing. Thank you for your time and consideration. I 

would be happy to answer any questions you would have of me. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Lueckenhoff follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIM LUECKENHOFF, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF BOXING

COMMISSIONS

As the President of the Association of Boxing Commissions (‘‘ABC’’), an organization of 46 state and tribal boxing commissions located throughout the United States, 

my sincere appreciation is extended to this Subcommittee for this opportunity to 

present testimony. My testimony will address current issues and problems facing 

professional boxing, the success of current federal legislation and the ABC’s recommendation for further legislative reform. 

Professional boxing is the only major sport in the United States, which operates 

in the absence of any private sector association, league, centralized association or 

collective organization to establish and enforce uniform rules, business practices and 

ethical standards. Other than the federal laws discussed below, State and tribal boxing commissions have been left to enact and enforce laws and regulations, applicable 

only within the borders of their respective states and tribal lands, which provide 

certain safeguards to the boxers, both physically and economically. However, these 

state and tribal laws and regulations are varied with differing degrees of stringency 

and enforcement. 

The enactment of the Professional Boxers Safety Act of 1996, codified as 15 U.S.C. 

§ 6301, et seq. (hereinafter, ‘‘PBSA’’), for the first time, provided a federal mandate 

as to certain minimal safeguards and requirements applicable to every professional 

boxing contest held within the United States. One of the most significant and farreaching of these reforms was the requirement that a boxer secure, and produce, 

a federal identification card as a prerequisite to the boxer’s participation in every 

boxing contest held in the United States. This effectively eliminated such untoward 

activity as, for example: (1) a boxer being knocked out during a fight in one state 

on Friday night and, then, participating in a fight on Saturday night in another 

state under a false name; and (2) a promoter illegally transporting an individual 

across the U.S. border to participate in a fight under an assumed name, and, following the individual being knocked out in the first or second round (thus, enhancing the record of the boxer under contract to the promoter), dumping the beaten individual back into the country from whence he came. The PBSA also mandated 

minimal protective measures such as: (1) a physical examination of each boxer by 

a physician certifying whether or not the boxer is physically fit to safely compete; 

(2) the continuous presence of a ringside physician, as well as an ambulance or medical personnel with appropriate resuscitation equipment, at each boxing contest; and 

(3) health insurance for each boxer to provide medical coverage for any injuries sustained in a boxing contest. The PBSA also prohibited certain conflicts of interest; 

expressly barring, among other things, a member or employee of a boxing commission from belonging to, or receiving any compensation from, a sanctioning organization, a promoter or any other person having a financial interest in an active boxer. 

In the year 2000, amendments to the PBSA were enacted as the ‘‘Muhammad Ali 

Boxing Reform Act.’’ These amendments focused primarily on economic, as opposed 

25

to safety, reforms; specifically addressing disreputable and coercive business practices, pervasive in the boxing industry, such as: (1) unexplained and unjustified 

changes in the ratings of boxers by sanctioning organizations (in some instances 

premised upon the payment of briberous monies, as opposed to the record of a 

boxer), (2) questionable scoring by judges who are members of sanctioning organizations, (3) boxers being coerced into signing inequitable contracts with promoters as 

a condition of being able to participate in a boxing contest against a particular opponent, and (4) promoters unjustly deducting significant portions of a boxer’s purse for 

the promoter’s own use. In light of this legislation, sanctioning organizations are 

now required to, among other things: (1) annually submit to the FTC or, in the alternative, publish on the Internet, its written criteria for the ratings of boxers; (2) 

post on the Internet an explanation for changing the rating of a boxer previously 

rated among the top ten; and (3) provide boxers with notice that the sanctioning 

organization will, upon request of the boxer, provide the boxer with a written explanation of the organization’s rating criteria, its rating of the boxer, and its rationale 

for such a rating. Sanctioning organizations also are required to provide to the applicable boxing commission: (1) all charges it will assess a boxer participating in an 

event sanctioned by the organization; and (2) all payments the organization will receive for its affiliation with a boxing event from the promoter, the host of the event 

and any others. 

As to promoters, the ‘‘Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act’’ requires the promoter 

to make certain disclosures to the applicable boxing commission and to the boxer. 

As to the boxing commission, the promoter is to disclose: (1) a copy of any written 

agreement between the boxer and the promoter, as well as a statement, made under 

oath, that there are no other written or oral agreements between the promoter and 

the boxer regarding a particular boxing contest; (2) the amount of the boxer’s purse 

the promoter will receive, as well as all fees and expenses that will be assessed by, 

or though, the promoter to the boxer including training expenses; (3) the amounts 

of compensation or consideration the promoter has contracted to receive as a result 

of the boxing contest; and (4) any reduction in the boxer’s purse contrary to the 

terms of the contract. In addition, the promoter is to disclose to the boxer Items (2), 

(3), and (4), above. 

The ‘‘Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act’’ also requires judges and referees to disclose to the appropriate boxing commission a statement as to all consideration, including reimbursement for expenses, that the judge or referee will receive from any 

source for participation in the match. 

While the various provisions of this federal legislation provide the basis for major 

reform in an industry historically fraught with inequity, impropriety and, in some 

instances, criminality, additional measures are needed; particularly as to enforcement. Pursuant to the above-referenced federal laws, the Attorney General of the 

United States may bring a civil action in the appropriate U.S. District Court, based 

upon ‘‘reasonable cause,’’ including the seeking of injunctive relief or the obtaining 

of an order to restrain a person from engaging in any activity that constitutes a violation of these provisions. In addition, the ‘‘chief law enforcement officer’’ of a state 

who has reason to believe that a person or organization is engaging in practices that 

violate these provisions may seek an order of court enjoining the holding of a boxing 

contest in which the practice is involved; enforcing compliance with these provisions; 

and seeking the imposition of prescribed fines. Further, any boxer who suffers economic injury as a result of a violation of any provision of these federal laws may 

bring an action in the appropriate federal or state court and recover damages. 

Notwithstanding these enforcement provisions, the ABC is not aware of any such 

court actions ever having been brought by the U. S. Attorney, the chief law enforcement officer of a state, or a boxer. It is not known if the problem is in the nonreporting of violations by the boxers or others for fear of reprisal by unethical promoters and/or sanctioning organizations, the non-detection of violations by the respective boxing commissions, the non-involvement of law enforcement, or otherwise. 

Accordingly, there appears to be the need for the administration of these federal 

laws on a nation-wide basis. While the ABC is in place and has the potential to perform such a function, it has been, and continues to be, without any source of funding. The measures that the ABC do take are performed gratuitously by a handful 

of individuals who serve on the respective boxing commissions which form its membership. The needed administration of the federal laws could be accomplished by either: (1) providing funding for the ABC toward this end, or (2) creating a federal 

boxing administration. In either instance, it would be imperative to maintain the 

autonomy of the state and tribal boxing commissions, but, at the same time, provide 

for an entity to administer the federal laws in support of the respective boxing commissions. 

26

In addition to these amendments to existing federal law, the ABC recommends 

the following additional provisions. 

First, there should be a federal mandate that judges and referees are to be assigned to each boxing contest, including championship matches, solely by the boxing 

commission that is regulating the boxing contest without any interference from a 

sanctioning organization. The need for such a measure is evidenced by an incident 

which occurred last year in regard to a nationally televised, championship fight held 

in a mid-Western state. Well before the date of the fight, as to the officials who 

would ‘‘work’’ the fight, the sanctioning organization and the state boxing commission agreed that the sanctioning organization would designate the referee and one 

judge, and that the state boxing commission would designate the other two judges. 

Less than five minutes before the live nation-wide televised coverage was to commence, a representative of the sanctioning organization threatened a state boxing 

commission member with a withdraw of the organization’s sanction, reducing the 

status of the fight to a non-title one, if the state boxing commission did not agree 

to replace one of the judges designated by the state boxing commission with a judge 

designated by the sanctioning organization. The state boxing commission member 

capitulated. 

As a curative measure regarding championship matches, federal legislation could 

provide for the following procedure. Based upon certain prescribed criteria, the respective boxing commissions would submit to the ABC or a federal boxing administration a list of names of those judges and referees deemed to be worthy of officiating at a championship match from which a ‘‘pool’’ of such qualified judges and referees may be comprised. As a prerequisite to being placed on such a list, all judges 

and referees would be required to participate in mandatory training courses and 

then be tested by the ABC or a federal boxing administration to ensure that the 

official possesses the requisite skills necessary to effectively perform. The boxing 

commission where the championship match is to take place would then select from 

this ‘‘pool’’ of officials, again without any interference from a sanctioning organization, the judges and referee who would officiate at the championship match. 

Second, boxing contests held in a state, or on tribal land, where there is not a 

boxing commission should be permitted only if the promoter agrees, among other 

things, to provide liability insurance coverage for each member or representative of 

the boxing commission from another state who will participate in the regulation of 

the boxing contests held in the state, or on tribal land, without a boxing commission. This is necessary, as the sovereign immunity which may provide such protection when the boxing official performs such duties in his or her own state does not 

attach when the boxing official is functioning in a different state. 

Third, there is the need to provide for the reciprocal enforcement of all suspensions imposed by a boxing commission. Currently, such reciprocal enforcement is applicable only to those suspensions imposed on boxers for: (1) recent knockouts or a 

series of consecutive losses, and (2) an injury, ordered medical procedure, or physician denial of certification. If, for example, one boxing commission suspends a boxer 

for falsifying documents or for inappropriate behavior, the boxer should not be enable to totally negate the suspensive sanction merely by traveling to another state. 

Similarly, if a suspensive period is imposed on a licensee other than a boxer, such 

suspension, likewise, should be reciprocally enforced. 

Fourth, additional mandatory safety measures should be enacted, such as a requirement that each boxing commission develop criteria for the review of each boxer’s boxing record (win-loss-draw/knock-outs), suspensions (medical and otherwise) 

and other relevant matters which serve as a basis for licensure. 

Fifth, there should be a federal provision for the creation of a centralized medical 

data bank into which all medical examinations undergone by every licensed boxer 

is placed, with this information being accessible to each boxing commission. This 

would assist each boxing commission in determining if a license should be issued, 

and may avoid a boxer having to duplicate such medical exams in regard to each 

jurisdiction in which he or she seeks licensure. In this regard, a ‘‘medical information release’’ form should be signed by those boxers who agree to do so. 

Sixth, currently the federal law provides that ‘‘it is the sense of Congress’’ that 

certain ‘‘health and safety disclosures’’ be made to a boxer including the risks associated with boxing and the risk and frequency of brain damage. It is suggested that 

such disclosures be made mandatory, and that the disclosure be made at the time 

of the issuance of a federal identification card. The boxer should be required to sign 

a document acknowledging that such disclosures were made. 

Seventh, promoters should be required to post a collateral (e.g., surety bond, irrevocable letter of credit, cash) to ensure the payment of all purse monies and other 

expenses. 

27

While it certainly is not suggested that the adoption of these measures would constitute a panacea as to the problems attendant to professional boxing, the adoption 

of such measures would provide significant inroads toward improving the safety, economics and integrity of the sport of professional boxing.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Lueckenhoff, thank you very much. A vote 

has just begun. There is 10 minutes remaining in a vote over in 

the Senate. We would like to take a 10-minute recess. Senator 

McCain and I would go and vote and with your permission we will 

come back and ask questions. The Subcommittee will be in recess 

for 10 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Senator DORGAN. Let me begin with you, Mr. DiBella. Mr. 

Lueckenhoff described the sanctioning bodies 5 minutes before the 

fight. As I heard that, I was curious. Is not it the fact that HBO 

and Showtime, the television really runs the show here. How can 

a sanctioning body get by 5 minutes before the fight when the 

money is really in the hand and running through the hands of the 

television folks at this point? 

Mr. DIBELLA. Remember first, the television folks are not paying 

the fighters. The television folks pay the promoter. The promoter 

pays the fighter. Sanctioning regulations are unregulated by state 

law or Federal law other than the Ali Act which nobody is enforcing. The sanctioning bodies insist upon involvement in the selection 

of judges or they threaten to pull their sanction of the fight. The 

state athletic Commission goes along with them and there is usually a process in which the state Commission is symbiotic with 

these corrupt sanctioning organizations and determining what 

judges are there. As I think I tried to illustrate in my statement, 

these judges are inherently biased. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Sugar? 

Mr. SUGAR. Just to add to what Mr. DiBella said, it is also not 

of minor interest that two of the three major sanctioning bodies, 

these alphabet soups that Senator McCain thankfully used my 

phrase, are outside the boundaries of the United States. The WBA 

and the WBC which might be one of the reasons they were investigating the various and sundry sanctioning bodies, the only one 

they came down on was the IBF in the U.S. and not the WBA and 

the WBC. They get away with capital M murder. 

Senator DORGAN. Are the Sanctioning bodies by and large corrupt? 

Mr. SUGAR. They have been called Los Banditos. Would that be 

a good answer. If they are not corrupt, they failed their function. 

Mr. DIBELLA. Senator Dorgan, to complete the question you 

asked before, when I was at HBO we were doing a fight between 

McCallum, it was a world title fight between two champions. At 

the last moment, the sanctioning body of one of the champions was 

pulled from his organization, he was stripped by his sanctioning 

body for fighting another world champion and not the untalented 

No. 1 contender of the organization. At the time we went ahead 

and televised the fight any way. But the sanction was still pulled 

from that fighter by the sanctioning body. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Steward, you described the training of Lennox Lewis for the upcoming fight in June. You said that in addition 

to the regular type of training you would use to prepare a boxer 

28

for a fight, you are on this occasion having to prepare a boxer for 

more than that. We know that Mr. Tyson has bitten off part of the 

ear of a fighter. Describe what you are doing here. 

Mr. STEWARD. I won’t say I am preparing Lennox. In fact, this 

is the first time I have publicly even mentioned that. For the most 

part I am concentrating strictly on just the fight being a fight because I do not want to drift. It would take away from the fight of 

speaking too much about Mike Tyson’s unfair tactics, but I am 

doing things separate, not with Lennox so much, with officials and 

people to try to protect him. I get this on Lennox’s mind he won’t 

be able to function at all when he is worried about being bit or 

elbow being twisted. It is just bad enough to be fighting Tyson, who 

is a very devastating puncher, and one of the best in the heavyweight division. 

I would like to address something they were speaking on. We 

could have horror stories told the next 2 hours about the ruthless 

practices of the organization and I have had a lot of experiences 

myself. I think ultimately the only solution is going to be, and you 

hit on it in the beginning, the most powerful force really in boxing 

which I don’t think has been utilized right now is the networks, the 

broadcast places. The money, the revenue, the multimillions of dollars for the most part has been paid out and spent on financing 

this boxing game primarily is from the networks. And I think they 

are going to have to somewhere along the line get more involved 

and step up to the plate and have certain things that they have 

more power and start exerting their power. If they do not make 

this money available a lot of these things eventually won’t take 

place. But right now they are laying back and letting these other 

organizations do what they want. 

Senator DORGAN. You are suggesting the networks would use 

their power for good. It seems to me not just with respect to sports 

but generally, the networks are in a race to bottom here with respect to taste and character. You just look at the programming 

these days. My own impression would be that I wouldn’t expect the 

networks to come in and see if they can raise standards with respect to boxing. 

Mr. DIBELLA. Senator, are not the networks just televising what 

you and most of the public wants to see. 

Senator MCCAIN. Tonight on Fox, there Refrigerator Perry will 

fight Riddick Bo. 

Mr. DIBELLA. The ratings were extraordinary the last time they 

did celebrity boxing. The Mike Tyson fight in Memphis, which 

should not be taking place will probably do a tremendous amount 

of business. If you do not want to see it, don’t buy it. It is on payper-view television. If people were not to buy this fight, if it was 

not a likelihood that this fight was something to do something like 

$100 million worth of business, the states that were running and 

standing on line to host the site would not have done so. The only 

reason they stood in line was because of the almighty dollar and 

because of the public’s fascination with Mr. Tyson, who is now the 

Jerry Springer show. 

Mr. SUGAR. I will not be covering that fight in Memphis. The reason is, and Lou has alluded to it, that this sport which I am proud 

of and I am here to defend it and try to make what you gentlemen 

29

have done into some sort of biting law which is enforceable and has 

teeth. I came to defend both the sport and Mike Tyson. Mike Tyson 

has become the poster boy in boxing. He is as much that as Count 

Dracula is to the Red Cross blood drive. Boxing is a blood assault 

that has been legalized. 

The only reason that raises it to this level of a sport is its rules 

and regulations which we hear about to make them enforceable. 

Mike Tyson admits to none of those. He tries to, as Mr. Steward 

said, break elbows, bite ears, hit, you name it, with elbows, with 

heads, it doesn’t matter. Knock down referees. That was a good 

one. 

If on June 8th and I hope as Mr. DiBella said there will be a 

couple of me, at least two or three of me, if on June 8th I feel a 

growing need, an urge to see the home of Elvis, instead of going 

to Memphis, I am going to Cleveland, Ohio to see Elvis Grbac’s 

home. I am not going to Memphis and I wish people wouldn’t look 

at Mike Tyson as part of boxing. He is separate and distinct. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Sugar, thank you. Mr. Lueckenhoff, let me 

ask you, in your testimony you are not aware of any court action 

that has ever been brought by U.S. attorney, chief law enforcement 

officer of a state? 

Mr. LUECKENHOFF. That is correct. Since becoming president of 

the Association of Boxing Commissions, I have sent letters to attorneys general regarding violations of the law. No response. 

Senator DORGAN. Why will they not respond? 

Mr. LUECKENHOFF. Most of the time they are not aware of the 

law. It is small potatoes to them. 

Senator DORGAN. Are any of you aware of a fighter named 

Mouse? 

Mr. SUGAR. Bruce the Mouse Straus? 

Senator DORGAN. Yes. I read a lengthy piece in Sports Illustrated. I think it was called The Opponent and actually features 

him, among others. I do not know anything about him except what 

I read and saw, but he is a person who essentially falls through 

the cracks of everything because he is able to be knocked out in 

Atlanta one night, go to Dallas two nights later, get knocked 

throughout and nobody has any records of who he is. 

Mr. SUGAR. Sometimes he wins. Bruce the Mouse Straus. In fact 

if Bruce the Mouse Straus doesn’t like anybody, he will adopt their 

name so their name goes in the record book as a loser. 

Senator MCCAIN. Hasn’t that stopped with the ID card? 

Mr. SUGAR. No. Because he is also the promoter of the fights, 

and when a fighter doesn’t come, he fills in for them. He filled in 

twice one night on his own card and came down the aisle and he 

said you fought an earlier fight and he said that was my twin 

brother Moose. He is the one filling out the card. 

Mr. DIBELLA. Much more important on focusing on Bruce the 

Mouse Straus what happens to be one of the more amusing characters in the history of boxing. Focus on Stephan Johnson, who was 

found by the Canadian Boxing Commission to have a bleed on his 

brain and that information never traveled to a state athletic Commission in the U.S. which allowed him to fight. Based on him being 

allowed to fight in a state that had a sub par Commission and no 

ability to check on this guy’s health, he was later allowed to fight 

30

in the state of New Jersey, where he suffered a life-ending injury 

in the ring. That is the problem. 

Yes, Bruce the Mouse Straus is a nice funny story and yes he has 

fought under fictitious names and been knocked out four times in 

a month. But consider the fact that a young man lost his life because a state athletic Commission in this country could not receive 

information that was of record in Canada where he was fought and 

subsequent to the ending of the fight was found to have a bleed on 

his brain. That is completely unacceptable. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. DiBella, the point about Mouse is somebody who can get knocked out four times in a week is risking their 

health and risking their life. There is nobody that will stand up for 

fighters. The major thing is there needs to be something that protects fighters. We hope future steps will be taken to address those 

issues. Mr. Steward, one point and then I am going to call on Senator McCain. 

Mr. STEWARD. I would like to point out even though Bruce the 

Mouse Straus or whatever his name is, he is part of our botching 

folklore but he primarily operates in small locations, in the midwest. So the passbook is working for the most part. I know, as a 

manager and trainer that the passbooks was one of the best steps 

made I think toward getting consistency and regulation. For the 

most part, they are very effective. Still certain guys will find the 

Kentuckies and Indianas and Iowas. That is why we need a Federal law that can stop them from running anywhere in the cracks. 

He doesn’t go to the major cities. Not in Las Vegas, not in New 

York. And he was——

Senator DORGAN. Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. Just picking up on 

what our previous conversation, the ID card is not effective? 

Mr. STEWARD. It is effective. We should not discount that. It is 

always a little loophole. Primarily operates off the beaten path type 

towns. That is where he is operating at. But I think the idea is a 

very good system. I have had a lot of problems with fighters that 

couldn’t fight that night because he left it at home. The main event 

when he could not fight and in his own state where he was registered at so it is a very effective law. 

Mr. DIBELLA. It works, but there are some states that are so ineffectual in their regulation it is almost irrelevant. 

Senator MCCAIN. The ID card? 

Mr. SUGAR. The ID card I think will work and you can better it 

because there is a way technologically where you put it into a machine and you, it doesn’t punch out until the fight’s over and all 

of the material that is necessary is not only punched into that but 

bashes up on a central locale and this is going to be yes, suspensions, injuries, questions about injuries. 

Senator MCCAIN. Perhaps the ID card system should be expanded to honor suspensions for reasons other than physical injury. Maybe that was a mistake we made in the first law. Mr. 

Lueckenhoff? 

Mr. LUECKENHOFF. Yes. We are only aware of a couple of states 

where ID cards have been altered. But for the most part fighters 

fighting under false names have stopped. There is a problem with 

state boxing Commissions getting complacent to where they know 

31

the fighter and they do not require to look at the Federal ID card. 

That gets to be a real problem because of the expiration date on 

them. I want to leave you with the fact that the ID card has been 

one of the positive things coming out of the Federal law being in 

Missouri in the midwest and in Oklahoma, where Mouse Straus 

was fun. He did not fight many times in Missouri, but we had a 

real problem in the midwest with that and the ID card has taken 

care of that problem for us. 

Senator MCCAIN. I want to also say Mr. Steward, I appreciate 

you being here. You are the smartest man in boxing that I know. 

Mr. STEWARD. Thank you. 

Senator MCCAIN. The work you have done with a long line of 

fighters is pretty marvelous. I have watched you motivate your 

fighters on occasion and you are probably a pretty good student of 

how to motivate people. You would have made a great football 

coach, as well as what you have done in boxing. 

Mr. DiBella, I thank you and thank you for going against the 

grain quite often. It would have been much easier for you to get 

along by going along and you probably would have been wealthier 

today. 

Mr. Sugar, I have been enlightened and entertained by you for 

perhaps longer than you would like me to recollect. 

Mr. SUGAR. You do not mind if I do not repeat that to my bride, 

do you. 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you for being here. Mr. Lueckenhoff, I 

want to thank you and Mr. Greg Sirb, your predecessor. Mr. 

Lueckenhoff, would you support this legislation in its general form 

with some changes? 

Mr. LUECKENHOFF. Yes. The ABC would support with the preface 

that the state boxing commissions need to maintain their autonomy. 

Senator MCCAIN. Basically, Mr. Steward, what this would do 

would provide an administrator, appointed by the President, whose 

functions would be to protect the health and safety of a fighter 

while enforcing these existing laws. There has not been one single 

action brought by a state attorney general. 

Mr. SUGAR. In fact, Senator McCain, may I? There was a case 

in Puerto Rico in which a fighter named Hertado had to go to court 

to get out of an onerous option contract by Don King. He was the 

No. 1 rated contender and he was going to fight Randall Bailey so 

not even there, which is one of the premises of the bill. 

Senator MCCAIN. I will come to you in just a minute, Mr. Steward. Do you have to catch a plane? 

Mr. STEWARD. Yes. Two other things. Let me just make a couple 

of comments if I could. One, I think that this administrator would 

have a beneficial effect on these sanctioning organizations if you 

want to dignify them by saying that, because he could really lend 

credence to what a real champion is. We tried to do so today. One 

of them is management. The manager’s role is vague today. But I 

think a lot of people who are licensed as managers, do not qualify 

to be managers. And they should have some system set up where 

they have to go through certain tests and requirements, much like 

a lawyer or doctor. 

Senator MCCAIN. For example, the son of a promoter. 

32

Mr. STEWARD. Yes. Let me tell you another good example. Just 

recently we had a Don King situation, and I don’t fault Don. I 

think he had a fighter that was fighting, Carl Daniels. While they 

were negotiating back and forth trying to get done up to 800,000, 

900,000, there was a purse bid. Don had one of his guys place a 

purse bid. It may be a total of $2 million and so all he has to do 

according to the rules is to pay this man 25 percent really for 

25,000. 

I have been involved in two cases recently. Also one over in 

Spatafor, where these guys have got their wives as managers and 

they have got friends and they do not know the rules. Manager 

should know certain things about boxing and what the rules are. 

You are dealing with a person’s life. So life to some degree, and 

also in the suspensions medically. I have boxers who I see on the 

suspension who cannot fight for 90 days are in the gym in 2 weeks. 

Brain is still damaged. A lot of these guys are ruined for life. 

I said do not let Roberto go nowhere near a ring for 6 months. 

Roberto Duran has not been knocked down since then. I saw a 

young white girl looked like she was about 18 years old, weighed 

120 pounds, big strong guy beating her up. The guy said she wants 

to be here and be like the guys, she is going to have to learn to 

take a beating. These are things that we cannot regulate that goes 

on in these gymnasiums. Setting up some national guidelines, if 

you are under suspension you are not to be boxing if you are 

caught 20 or 30 days. A lot of these other loophole things that I 

think we can have a chance to have some input. 

Mr. SUGAR. There are two things. Mr. DiBella said it once and 

now Mr. Steward did and a thought occurred to me which I know 

is a breakthrough and that is why with the Uniform Athletes 

Agent Act already on the books are not these managers somehow 

some way considered to be agents and enforceable under that basis. 

Mr. DIBELLA. Why is no one doing simple math? A promoter is 

taking his money from the overall revenue. He doesn’t have to tell 

anybody what he is making. 

Senator MCCAIN. Disclosure. 

Mr. DIBELLA. By the way, I would also support disclosure by television networks because a fighter has the right to know the money 

that is being paid with respect to his services and that is a regulation of television networks that I think would be a positive. 

Senator MCCAIN. We will work on that. Why should a promoter 

get 30 percent of Roy Jones’ purse right off the top? 

Mr. SUGAR. For Don King that is low. 

Mr. DIBELLA. For most promoters, that is not so out of line. 

There is nothing regulating that. Hey, a manager who does virtually nothing now is allowed to take 33 percent prior to deduction 

of the trainer’s expenses, corner man’s expenses. 

Senator MCCAIN. Disclosure would shed some light on that. I do 

not know how you pass a law that dictates how much somebody 

gets, but certainly full disclosure is important. 

Let me mention a couple other things real quick and maybe I am 

just venting. I have watched the Mayweather–Castillo fight, I 

watched the Johnny Tapia and Medina fight. Both terrible decisions. 

Mr. SUGAR. I disagree with you on Mayweather. 

33

Mr. DIBELLA. You are right, Senator. 

Mr. SUGAR. Would you please after listening to Harold 

Letterman explain ring generalship. Even General Patton couldn’t 

do that, define it. 

Senator MCCAIN. I mean, I can list you some terrible decisions 

and there is one thing in common, if I might finish. That is, the 

fighter who is going to earn the most money is the one that won. 

Bert, it may have been that ring generalship, but would that ring 

generalship have counted if Castillo had been the one exercising 

the ring generalship? I just want some general comments about the 

quality of judging in boxing today and go ahead, Lou. 

Mr. DIBELLA. If you are a sanctioning body, and your profit, 

quote unquote on an event is based upon 3 percentage points of the 

fighter’s purses, who are you going to want to win? The guy that 

can generate $5 million to $10 million a fight. 

Senator MCCAIN. The guy from Mexico that beat Ayala in San 

Antonio. 

Mr. STEWARD. That is my main gripe coming here today. What 

I am saying is it is hurting the public. People are being duped 

when you are paying this kind of money watching pay-per-view, 

just HBO alone. Just recent fights. I think knowing the fact that 

the promoters are taking out officials the night before and they are 

not telling what all they are doing, I saw them put $5,000 in each 

of the judge’s pockets, have a nice dinner. They give you a beautiful 

girl for the night. Without being paid to fight, he is going to vote 

according to what is the best for that particular promoter. 

Mr. DIBELLA. The guy at the Four Seasons has a different agenda from the guy staying at Motel 6. 

Mr. STEWARD. We need to have some system set up where officials just like in basketball, baseball and football, we have a top 

line of officials and they are selected by this governing body and 

not letting officials being selected by the promoter. As long as you 

let that happen by individual managers and promoters picking individuals, just like for the Super Bowl, I don’t think you are going 

to have a certain team. I do not know how it happens. You need 

to have some system where certified qualified top officials like for 

this Tyson Lewis fight. They should be picked by this governing 

body and they should be certain if they make bad decisions that 

are so far out like the Taglia fight that they should be held before 

border review. Maybe the decision is not changed, but they should 

be maybe put on suspension, overwhelmingly approved by looking 

at it. They would make them accountable. Officials write and do 

what they want and never have to be accountable for anything and 

just walk away. That has to change. 

Mr. SUGAR. If your USBA exists with someone overseeing it then 

there are tests for officials whether we honestly disagree or not. 

The good ones go, the bad ones stay. I must compliment you on one 

thing, Senator. Unlike Senator Roth after the James Toney–Dave 

Tiberi fight, and he called it the gripes of Roth, whole investigation, the whole field was crooked because he disagreed with the decision. This is the valid place to have this forum. And I think if you 

do an overall USBA or, czar, or whatever it is, that can be the office of judging judges if you will. 

34

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Lueckenhoff, you can respond to this as 

well as the others. Julio Cesar Chavez a couple of years ago was 

at the end of his career. He wanted to fight Castillo in Las Vegas. 

Las Vegas told him: you are not qualified to fight. Guess who sanctioned the fight? The Boxing Commission in the state of Arizona, 

and you’ll recall Cesar Chavez was rendered unacceptable in the 

sixth round. Mr. Lueckenhoff, this is one of the things, at my embarrassment, my own state’s boxing commission, that motivates me 

to have this boxing Czar, which Senator Dorgan and I and others 

resisted for years, as we tried to find other ways to help this sport 

because of our, I speak for myself, personal dislike of government 

bureaucracies, bigger government, et cetera. You want to respond 

to that? 

Mr. LUECKENHOFF. Certainly I do. I agree with you. That upset 

a lot of the members of the ABC. As I mentioned in my statement, 

we want all suspensions to follow through and be carried through. 

Senator MCCAIN. He wasn’t suspended. Chavez wasn’t suspended. He just was not allowed to fight there. 

Mr. LUECKENHOFF. See, I agree. I think denials have to be involved there. Tennessee, if they did not have the law to deny the 

license and they have to let him fight obviously. I am not sure 

whether they do or not so I think all medical suspensions or denials need to, each state needs to follow those and that is where I 

think this national——

Senator MCCAIN. If Tennessee would have followed what Nevada 

did, there would not be a fight in Memphis, Tennessee. 

Mr. SUGAR. And Washington, D.C. and California and Texas and 

West Virginia and Georgia all stood in line. And do you know, Senator it cost $10 for Mike Tyson to get a license in Georgia. Which 

is less than a dog license, which might tell you something about 

this sport, or maybe Mike Tyson. 

Senator MCCAIN. It is a tragedy for a human being. 

Senator DORGAN. If you will yield on that point. The issue here 

is just one word. Money. It is all about money. Nothing else. After 

one state, Nevada, said we won’t sanction you to fight, other states 

in other areas jumped in line to see if they couldn’t attract the 

fight. Why? Money. 

Senator MCCAIN. We are not embarrassed about saying it is 

about money. 

Senator DORGAN. Not a bit. It is not about protecting the reputation of the sport. It is about money. And so I am sorry. You wanted 

to finish. 

Senator MCCAIN. No. No. This is what is motivating me to take 

action. Mr. Lueckenhoff, go ahead. 

Mr. LUECKENHOFF. I have one comment about the officials. We 

certainly support a pool of officials. In my written comments we indicate that officials need to be trained just like any professional 

does whether they be an accountant or a doctor or whatever, they 

need to have training and they need to be tested so the ABC has 

developed an officials training seminar that will be taught for the 

first time down in Miami and we think this is the way to go. 

Senator MCCAIN. Will every state be required to participate? 

35

Mr. LUECKENHOFF. We are sending out voluntary compliance, 

but we are looking for you to help us out. We feel that these officials need to be qualified and tested and educated. 

Senator MCCAIN. Go ahead. 

Senator DORGAN. Is the Lewis–Tyson fight likely to be the biggest money fight of all time? 

Mr. STEWARD. In addition to being the biggest money fight, it 

will probably be the most viewed live event in the history of the 

world. It could be a disaster for the sport, too, as well. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Steward, you will be involved in that fight 

on behalf of Mr. Lewis. Who at this point will judge and referee 

that fight? Do you know? 

Mr. STEWARD. Well, I made it very adamant that I had a sayso in the referee because I think the referee will be the most important referee in the history of boxing. I was able to convince them 

to get a guy, Eddie Cotton. Not too many to select from. You can 

choose among one hand. The other officials are pretty much left, 

but they had a strong commitment. Left for whoever just to pick 

whoever. 

Senator DORGAN. What do you mean by that? 

Mr. STEWARD. Who picks the judges? 

Senator DORGAN. It is a big deal. That is why I am asking the 

question. 

Mr. STEWARD. You have so many promoters around, like the 

Lewis Lennox fight. 

Senator MCCAIN. Who will have the final say? 

Mr. DIBELLA. You have two ratings organizations in tandem——

Mr. STEWARD. That is why we need to say the government can 

pick the officials. 

Mr. DIBELLA. Two sanctioning bodies will pick the officials with 

the state athletic Commission. That is my understanding. 

Senator DORGAN. But my point is this. This is going to be a very 

big fight. It is going to be a very big fight. It is now mid to late 

May. The fight is a few weeks away. Senator McCain suggested a 

recent history of fights with decisions that in some cases appear to 

be incompetent. In other places, and circumstances it is perhaps 

corrupt. But in any event, the question is who is going to be the 

referee and who are going to be the judges and who is going to select them for this fight. At this point, you say Mr. Steward that you 

do not know who the judges are? 

Mr. STEWARD. No system is set up. That is why we need to have 

a governing body and pick these officials, not have the promoters 

pick officials. We are going to favor them the most. Going back to 

Holyfield and Lewis which is a perfect example. They told me they 

had a woman they wanted to have named Jean Williams. They 

came up to my suite and I told them no. She was primarily into 

amateur boxing. I do not like it that much any way. I insisted that 

I did not want her. 

After 2 days they said look, Bob Lee has said that he wants her 

and Bob Lee through this connection and that connection, they had 

two or three other people come up to talk to me. I said I do not 

care. I do not want her in a fight of this type because I know her 

connections. They overrode me, said Evander, used to be the manager on this case. We are going to work her anyway. At the end 

36

of the fight, Lennox was cheering to the crowd, I cussed him out 

and nobody in the place ever knew why I was going crazy. If he 

hadn’t have went out and won the 12th round big, he wouldn’t even 

have got a draw, and that is because once again here is a woman 

that renders a bad decision, she is not accountable to anything. But 

still, this is what hurts boxing. 

Senator MCCAIN. Reports were that she had a significant debt 

that was paid off. 

Mr. STEWARD. Yes. The rewards for doing things that is good for 

the favorite promoter is you get other trips. You get more next 

fights. That is how you are rewarded. 

Mr. DIBELLA. When he says favored promoter, judges have to go 

to meetings by organizations where promoters get promoter of the 

century, of the decade, fighter of the year. Emanuel is not wrong 

when he says there is no system for making these judges. The system stinks. Three judges are all going to be affiliated with the 

World Boxing Council. IBF moved aside and all three officials will 

be WBC officials, is that correct? Yes. There are three officials, all 

of whom will be affiliated with the World Boxing Council. 

Senator MCCAIN. That is comforting. 

Mr. DIBELLA. They had to bring in a state commissioner from 

New Jersey and the referee will be imported from another state because they have nobody in the state of Tennessee that knows what 

they are doing when it comes to boxing. 

Mr. DIBELLA. The WBC is pretty good at this because in the 

Tyson–Douglas fight in 1990 when the referee who counted out 

Tyson but two rounds earlier had not counted out Douglas when 

he went down and would not change his opinion never got another 

refereeing job. I don’t think he was ever seen again. 

Senator MCCAIN. Fortunately, the Tyson fight is not going to go 

to the judges. That still doesn’t change the fact that it is just a 

sorry and sad situation. As you mentioned, having to import commissioners. How many fights are going on in the state of Tennessee 

that are basically unregulated and the fighters end up losing. I 

think Mr. Jones can testify as to the importance of the referee, 

though. 

Mr. STEWARD. There was a popular and influential person and it 

has been about 2 weeks Bill Clancy, Bill Clancy, and I told them 

I do not care what I am not going to accept him because he doesn’t 

have the experience in the big fight. But that shows there is no 

system, though. No system at all. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. DiBella? 

Mr. DIBELLA. Right now the New York staff commissioner job is 

open. Commissioner Ray Kelly stepped aside and now there is an 

open job. There is rumored to be an individual who is being considered for the job who is very politically connected person and basically got on the Commission vis-a-vis patronage. This person is 

likely to get the job. 

When Holyfield fought Lewis the first time in Madison Square 

Garden, there were inspectors that surrounded the ring. Inspectors 

that had been chosen by the Commission were inspectors with a 

great deal of experience. Unfortunately, an election occurred right 

around the time of this fight. And the person that is now being considered for the New York State commissionership was on record as 

37

moving those inspectors off their positions, replacing them by completely inexperienced inspectors from the new political party in 

control, and went on the record and basically said did you forget, 

when it was asked about switching inexperienced people for people 

who knew what they were doing said I guess you forgot who won 

the election. And that provides you with a lot of the reason that 

state regulation of boxing doesn’t work. 

Mr. SUGAR. Which also brings to mind the Czar, as we have commonly called him, being appointed by the President. He now is a 

political person, is he not? I mean by definition, he has to be, regardless of which party and I know I am talking to both of them. 

Senator MCCAIN. But I think you are talking about such a high 

visibility position that no President would politicize that. He would 

select the most qualified, as, for example, other government agencies that are ‘‘independent’’ agencies, and it would require confirmation by the Senate and so if it was a blatant political kind of 

a thing, the Senate would not confirm. And that is our check and 

balance appointment to any independent agency, and if you do not 

have a President appointed? Who do you have appointed. Do you 

see, Bert? 

Mr. SUGAR. Why not this Committee? 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, we would love to, but I think——

Mr. SUGAR. I know that is out of your purview but probably you 

would know more. He is going to have to come with your recommendation? 

Senator MCCAIN. In this bill is a list of qualifications that would 

be necessary in order to fulfill the job. But as important as Senator 

Dorgan and I are, I am the loser and I am not sure my judgment 

would be viewed more favorably than that of the President of the 

United States, although I am sure we would have an input because 

the nominee would have to go through this Committee process in 

that situation. 

Look, I have taken way too much of you all’s time, Senator Dorgan’s time, and everybody else’s time. I’d like to sit here for the 

next three or 4 hours and hear some very entertaining and interesting stories, but I think that the fact that you are here and the 

fact that we have made a record, is going to overcome a lot of bias 

and a lot of resistance within the states who see this as an erosion 

of their authority. The patronage jobs and the states are not willingly going to go along with this proposal and your testimony here, 

I think, has been extremely important and helpful in this effort. I 

do not believe that any of us who love boxing are satisfied with the 

state of professional boxing in America today. 

I thank you, Senator Dorgan, for holding this hearing and I consider it a great personal favor, you being so involved in this issue. 

Senator DORGAN. Senator McCain, thank you very much. I do not 

know whether there are bridges that you have not yet burned 

today, and hope that you are not having to travel soon over the 

bridges you have burned, but I think your testimony has been extraordinary. We appreciate your candor and your frankness. 

This has not been a good time for the sport of boxing and as I 

said when I began, we have some wonderful young athletes, some 

of the best athletes in the world who aspire to do good things and 

perform in this sport, and then discover that there are people out 

38

there who want to use them up and throw them away and we need 

to do better than that. 

I want to especially thank Mr. Lueckenhoff. Mr. Sugar, I have 

been listening to you for years. Mr. DiBella, thank you, Mr. Steward, thank you for what you have done to the sport and especially 

to Mr. Jones, who, the record should show, has stayed during this 

entire proceeding. I have deep admiration for not only your skills 

but also your character and appreciate what you are trying to do 

for the sport of boxing. 

We hope to make progress again on this legislation. We expect 

there will be some states who will not want to see any kind of consolidation of authority, but I think it is inevitable that we do that 

and I am pleased to work with Senator McCain’s lead on this and 

we will work hard to try to make some progress. Again, thank you 

all and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 3:05 p.m.] 

(39)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TEDDY ATLAS, BOXING TRAINER AND COMMENTATOR

The following is my testimony that would have been delivered at the May 22, 

2002 Hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee. Please understand any confusion regarding my appearance was not related to any lack of desire to assist in 

the difficult task before you. Instead it apparently originated out of misinterpretation of my reason in wanting to attend in the first place. I have obligations as a 

Commentator for ESPN and a commitment to my fighters. In no way do these commitments overshadow my desire to help the sport of boxing. I have not only been 

an advocate of the formation of a Federal Commission, but have also challenged 

politicians to stand up and help. Furthermore, in no way did my incentive relate 

to seeking publicity in such a forum, but instead solely to help the sport that has 

been a major part of my life for over twenty-five years. 

I have openly been an advocate of boxing reform as evidenced by my calling upon 

Senator McCain several times during our weekly Friday Night Fight broadcasts. 

The last time originated out of another poor exhibition of rule interpretations from 

another weak boxing commission. I can see that Senator McCain has not only heard 

the outcry, but has responded. I, too, will respond. The following is what my testimony would have been in regards to the responsibilities of a Federal Boxing Commission. 

Allow me to acknowledge that one of the other guests scheduled to attend your 

Hearing is the great Mohammed Ali. If there had been a Federal Commission in 

place when Mr. Ali was fighting, he would not have been allowed to fight and endure a horrific beating by Larry Holmes. If this had not taken place, then perhaps 

Mr. Ali would have been able to readily read his statement himself in it’s entirety. 

I am very thankful that this Hearing has been called to evaluate the formation 

of a Federal Boxing Commission. When this country was young (as in the case of 

an up and coming preliminary fighter), it had areas that were strong and some that 

were weak. Nevertheless, it recognized the weaknesses needed strengthening for all 

to succeed. Some of those areas were in the West, the Wild West, and the strength 

required was lawful regulation. Eventually, Billy the Kid and the like (WBC/WBA/

IBF) were removed. Today we do not have to do this in the same way as the Wyatt 

Erps and others took control. As sheriffs began to pop up in other towns, laws 

spread. However, every once in a while one of the smaller towns, beyond the prairies (like Tennessee), would fall a little short of the law! As the country continued 

to develop, the government understood the need to reach out and ‘‘blanket’’ states 

with more efficient rule. 

To further extrapolate to the sport of boxing, we not only need more efficient law, 

but we also need to know what the laws should be and have confidence that they 

will be enforced everywhere. We need to eliminate the ‘‘Dodge Cities’’ of boxing and 

chase out the ‘‘gun slingers’’ and create a town that can grow and flourish. We need 

a Boxing Czar appointed by the President, but only after a great search. 

We need the right person, not a political hack, but a man with care and understanding of the conventional and practical needs of boxing. This must be a man 

without ties to managers, promoters, but still a man familiar with the sport. It must 

be a man unafraid to make enemies, and a man sensitive to the realities of boxing. 

The sport needs an individual who can administrate; who is proactive with a vision 

and intellect for reform. I believe his term should be limited to help protect against 

familiarity and corruption, so often connected with the sport today. 

Committees and Subcommittees should be formed to oversee the various departments requiring close monitoring. These areas include, but are not limited to the 

following: 

I. OFFICIATING 

I suggest developing a panel to oversee and regulate officiating. This would include monitoring judges’ performances and even suspension of judges who have 

shown a predisposition or a pattern of either incompetence or corruption. FurVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:36 Dec 22, 2004 Jkt 091859 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\91859.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
40

thermore, there should be proper training/certification of these officials including clear criteria on scoring and refereeing. Other sports regulate and oversee 

the performances of their officials. Separate and eliminate the contact between 

officials and promoters/managers. It remains a common practice to see a manager, promoter, or world body entertaining officials at fancy restaurants and 

conventions before a fight. When is the last time anyone heard of George 

Steinbrenner taking the Umpires out for dinner prior to a baseball game with 

the Yankees? 

II. MEDICALS 

There must exist conformity as to what medical requirements are necessary for 

fighters. These minimum standards must be upheld from state to state. I suggest the right medical people come up with these answers such as Dr. Flip 

Homansky and Dr. Margaret Goodman from the State of Nevada. They are both 

experienced and have proven themselves to not only be competent, but also reform minded with a practical idea of application. 

III. RATINGS 

Hopefully with the formation of such a commission, the power of the corrupt 

organizations will have been completely eliminated (such as what took place 

with the IBF being found guilty of selling ratings). A panel then needs to be 

formed to actually rate the fighters. This has to be done by merit and not by 

relationships. I recommend regional boxing writers who routinely cover fights 

supplemented with some strong independent commissioners or former commissioners (such as Marc Ratner and Greg Sirb). This could be done through an 

advisory panel. 

IV. TRAINING/GYMS 

Trainers and managers should be tested more thoroughly before being allowed 

the responsibility of guiding a young fighter. There should be periodic drug testing of trainers and managers. Perhaps this would even eliminate some of the 

poor choices made in matchmaking and training. We also need monitors in the 

gyms to ensure fighters and trainers on suspension are not working. I suggest 

a hotline number for gym owners to confidentially report if a fighter/trainer is 

working while under suspension. I would even support a $10,000 fine for gym 

owners that do not report such infractions. This will help a tremendous amount 

in preventing potentially injured fighters from training too soon after a serious 

loss/ knockout. Fighters AND their trainers with 6 straight losses, or trainers 

(and their fighters) having three knockouts in a row be placed under a 2-year 

suspension. 

V. STATE COMMISSIONS 

The right people should be selected by the Federal Boxing Commission Czar to 

run the state commissions in accordance and in alliance with the Federal Commission. All politically appointed patronage jobs must be eliminated. A prime 

example is what has taken place over the last few years in the State of New 

York. We need people of merit with background in the sport. Stop insulting us 

with the status quo of individuals filling many of these positions throughout the 

country. We don’t allow this in legal firms and hospitals, as it would be unethical or dangerous. The same applies here. Let these people find ‘‘easy’’ jobs 

where they can’t hurt anyone. 

VI. TELEVISION/CONTRACTS 

Fighters require delegates or liaisons to assist in negotiations. Too often promoters or agents deal directly with television, and fighters are unaware of the 

‘‘full’’ deal. Incorporated along with this would be legal counsel available to act 

as a monitor, arbitrator to fighters in regards to management and promotional 

deals.

In conclusion, I would like to mention financing a Federal Boxing Commission. 

I do not expect the Federal Government to absorb the bill. Although I must say the 

lives that boxing influences and saves outnumber most of the political programs 

that fall short of the jobs they were intended to do when it comes to rehabilitation 

and saving our youth. The financing for this commission can come from the same 

monies that are now given to the Ratings Organizations for ‘‘Sanctioning Fees.’’ This 

contribution, as well as a 2% tax from large successful promotions, such as De La 

Joya-Vargas, or even Tyson-Lewis could assist in subsidizing the costs of running 

a commission. 

If these areas can be policed by the proper government support, as in the example 

set by other sports, then boxing can do what it does best when given the right opVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:36 Dec 22, 2004 Jkt 091859 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\91859.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
41

portunity. It can bring out the best in people; help them find themselves; and develop confidence and dignity through the tool of discipline and a structured road. 

Not all will become champions, but many will become better people. I would hate 

to think that the other more corporately amenable sports would be the only ones 

where there is enough care to structure and secure the athletes. That would mean 

that those participants are more worthy than the ones in boxing. I hope not. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DON KING, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, DON KING

PRODUCTIONS, INC. 

Ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your invitation to participate in your hearings today on the federal regulation of the sport of boxing. Nothing would please 

me more than to be with you today. Unfortunately, however, due to a prior commitment critical to my business, I am unable to appear personally. However, I have 

prepared this statement and offer it for the record. 

Boxing is alive and well. It is a global sport ranking probably second only to soccer. Major fights are televised to billions worldwide with audience levels comparable 

only to the Olympics and the World Cup. 

Unlike other popular sports in the United States, boxing’s simplicity is universal 

and the rules are easy to understand. It is an honorable tradition dating back to 

antiquity and more than any other sport, incorporates athletic prowess, bravery, 

courage, endurance, pageantry, excitement and compassion, all at the same time. 

Boxing is governed by four major world sanctioning organizations, viz., the World 

Boxing Council (WBC), the World Boxing Association (WBA), the World Boxing Organization (WBO) and the International Boxing Federation (IBF). The first three 

are controlled by Hispanics in developing countries and the last by an African American woman in the United States. 

Free Enterprise and Diversity 

While there is no question that boxing is big business, it has historically been one 

of the last bastions of free enterprise. The fact that my company is the most successful boxing promotional company in the world demonstrates the fact that pioneers 

and trailblazers like me can succeed in this land of opportunity. 

This is not to say that it has been easy for me. when I first entered boxing as 

a promoter and obtained the right to promote the fight between Muhammad Ali and 

George Foreman, because of the color barrier, I was forced to take the fight away 

from the country that I love and promote it in one of the poorest countries in the 

world, Zaire. Although that fight has come to be known as the ‘‘rumble in the jungle,’’ the posters for that fight carry the original name I gave it: ‘‘from the slave ship 

to the championship.’’ You may be interested to know that although I promoted the 

fight, I do not have any rights to it, since, being unsophisticated at that time, I unwittingly relinquished my rights to people I trusted. But it bought me my economic 

emancipation, and I have never looked back. 

I recognize that reform and progress are diametrically opposed to custom and tradition, and that being a maverick, I make some people uneasy. How is it that a 

black man from the ghetto, a former numbers man, a convicted felon no less, was 

able to come to such prominence in such a major sport? Is something going on? 

Given boxing’s sordid past, surely he must be involved in similar unsavory activity. 

The reality is that I am a victim of my own success. I am the gadfly, rocking the 

boat, and should learn to stay in my place. Simply, I am an American and I believe 

in America! 

I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they 

are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are 

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I live and breath these sacred and solemn 

words. They are my soul. I am part of the evolutionary process of this great nation. 

It is why I say ‘‘only in America could a Don King happen.’’

I also understand that while recent Congressional attempts at reform were made 

in the spirit of the betterment of boxing and the fighters, in my humble opinion 

Congress needs to take a serious look at the inequity of targeting boxing for specialized treatment as well as the unintended consequences of its reforms. 

No other major sport in the United States, be it baseball, basketball, football, etc. 

has the record of diversity that boxing has. While the participants in these sports 

are predominantly minorities, the teams and the sports themselves are controlled 

almost exclusively by non-minorities. Given the Congressionally enacted monopoly 

for baseball and the professional leagues for the other sports, it is almost impossible 

for minorities to gain a foothold in these sports. 

42

A short anecdote of mine illustrates this point. A few years back, I was offered 

the opportunity to purchase a major league baseball team. The owner was having 

some problems with the other team owners and told me point blank that the best 

way he could think of to get even with them was to sell the team to an African 

American. Nothing was more frightening to them than that and they accommodated 

his every whim and caprice and made him an offer he couldn’t refuse in order to 

prevent such an enormous calamity. 

As you know, even non-minorities have difficulty entering the market for other 

sports. The recent failure of Vince McMahon’s and Fox’s XFL football league demonstrates the difficulty of entering the other sports markets. We should be proud 

of boxing’s free enterprise history and do everything in our power to preserve and 

enhance it. 

The Media Companies’ Attempt to Control Boxing 

I say this with some trepidation, however, as there have been certain developments in recent years, particularly by the major media companies to control the 

sport. HBO which is owned by AOL Time Warner; Showtime which is owned by 

Viacom; and ESPN which is owned by Disney, all have begun signing exclusive 

multi-fight agreements directly with fighters. These companies are not regulated by 

any boxing commissions. 

Under these exclusive agreements which often contain terms beyond those permitted by law to promoters under current legislation, the media companies have 

begun acting as the fighters’ de facto promoters. They control when the fighters 

fight, who they fight, where they fight and how much they are paid. The questions 

must be asked: is it fair or even legal to regulate promoters and not the media companies as well? Does this really enhance free enterprise and the entrepreneurial 

spirit of this great nation? 

A few years ago when I was Mike Tyson’s promoter, I tried to promote a fight 

between him and Lennox Lewis, but was blocked by Showtime and HBO which had 

exclusive agreements with Tyson and Lewis, respectively. While the world sanctioning organizations have been much maligned recently by these same media companies, the reality is that the June 8th Tyson/Lewis fight only came about because 

the WBC had made Mr. Tyson the mandatory challenger to Mr. Lewis. This meant 

that if HBO and Showtime did not reach an agreement for the fight, the WBC 

would have put the fight up for a purse bid. Under the purse bid rules, the other 

promoters, like me, could have bid for the fight. The highest bidder would have obtained the right to promote the fight, and HBO and Showtime would not have necessarily had any rights to televise it. The bottom line is that it was due to the role 

played by a world sanctioning organization, the WBC in this case, that made this 

fight happen. 

But even more importantly, one need only look to what happens when any promoter is eliminated from the equation. The last real mega-fight equivalent to the 

upcoming Tyson/Lewis fight is the Holyfield/Tyson II fight on June 28, 1997, notoriously known as the ‘‘bite fight.’’ That fight generated 2 million pay per view buys 

and to date is the largest grossing fight ever in the history of the sport. 

When that fight was held, the pay per view universe in the United States consisted of about 33 million homes and the retail price per household for the fight was 

$50. For that fight, I guaranteed purses to Tyson and Holyfield totaling $63 million. 

Today, the universe is 50 million homes (more than 50 percent higher than the 

number in 1997), and the retail price for the fight is $60, $10 higher than in 1997. 

Yet, instead of fighting for more money, Tyson and Lewis are fighting for a combined $35 million in guaranteed purses, nearly 1⁄2 of what I paid 5 years ago. Again, 

the questions must be asked: is this what happens when the media companies are 

not only the broadcaster, but also the promoter? Is this good for the sport? Is it good 

for the public? Is this free enterprise at work? Or is it restraint of trade? Or vertical 

price fixing? 

It is my belief that allowing the major media companies to become boxing promoters is dangerous and that legislation should be enacted to protect the fighters 

and promoters from the predatory practices of the media companies. Just as it is 

important for a promoter to deal at arms length with a fighter’s manager, so too 

is it critical to the integrity of this sport that the licensees of rights to a fight be 

at arms length with the promoter. Combining the role of licensee and promoter is 

just as dangerous as combining the role of promoter and manager. 

While the traditional promoters are regulated under the Muhammad Ali Boxing 

Reform Act and state athletic commission laws, the media companies are virtually 

free from regulation. For example, HBO and Showtime are effectively acting as the 

promoter of Tyson/Lewis; however, they are not required to file their agreements 

with Tyson and Lewis with the Tennessee State Athletic Commission since they are 

43

not technically ‘‘promoters’’ under the Ali Act. Instead, if they hire a local promoter 

to work the fight and if the local promoter is not a party to the master agreements 

for the fight, those agreements may never be filed with the commission. Furthermore, the disclosures under the Ali Act which require the promoter to inform the 

fighters how much revenue is to be earned from the event may not necessarily be 

provided since the ‘‘promoter’’ will not truly be exploiting the rights to the fight. 

It is my view that the Ali Act should be revised to clearly make these de facto

promoters subject to the same rules as the traditional promoters. The playing field 

should be leveled for all promoters, even if these companies nominally call themselves broadcasters. 

Another fact which needs to be considered is that the media companies sign exclusive agreements with only the very best fighters. They are not interested in performing the traditional role of promoters in developing fighters. My company has 

approximately 140 boxers under contract. One of our primary objectives is to develop young and up and coming boxers. To do this, we effectively allocate part of 

the license fees being paid by the media companies to these many other fighters so 

that they can sustain themselves during the early part of their careers. 

While the media companies insist on televising primarily title fights which are 

sanctioned by the major world sanctioning organizations, they criticize them unmercifully and urge the fighters signed with their network to relinquish their titles if 

the media companies do not approve of the opponent. 

Congress must ask itself what will happen to all the young and up and coming 

fighters if the media companies are successful in putting the traditional promoters 

and the sanctioning organizations out of business. Will the sport be the better if a 

handful of huge corporate monoliths control the sport? 

The power of the media companies is awesome and my statements here today may 

be the beginning of my demise. However, I owe it to America and to the sport I 

love to tell it like it is. The reality is that as big as the media makes me out to 

be, I am a small fry compared to these giants, and Congress should be wary about 

their true intentions. In the end, they will control not only what we read and think 

about the sport, but they will control the sport and its makeup as well. That is what 

Congress must correct. 

The Pay per View Cartel 

Another area that I believe must be addressed by federal legislation is the unfair 

business practice that exists between the major media companies and the cable pay 

per view distributor, in demand. Many people do not realize that when they pay $50 

dollars to see a fight on pay per view, half the money, or $25 dollars, goes to the 

cable operators. 

While there are a number of cable operators in the United States (although I 

would note that there are fewer and fewer that are independent of the major media 

companies), they have gotten together and created a cartel called ‘‘In Demand’’. In 

Demand is owned by AOL Time Warner, AT&T, Comcast, Cox and Adelphia, although AOL Time Warner controls the company. Additionally, almost all cable operators in the United States are in demand ‘‘affiliates.’’ through its relationships with 

the cable operators, in Demand effectively controls the pay per view distribution of 

all boxing events in the United States and is able to extract an exorbitant 50 percent fee from promoters for itself and its affiliates. 

The reality is that when you purchase a movie over the same pay per view channel, the cable operators only get about $2. For roughly the same amount of broadcast time, a boxing promoter must pay 1,250 percent more. The American public 

and fighters are suffering as a result of this cartel because if a promoter did not 

have to pay half the money to the cable operators, the $50 pay per view price tag 

could be reduced for the consumer and there would be even more money available 

to the fighters. 

While there is no question that other sports such as baseball have difficulties with 

respect to cable distribution (the squabble between the YES network and Cablevision is a recent example), by and large, their problems pale in comparison to the 

ones plaguing boxing and for the most part resolve themselves through free negotiation and without coercion in a free marketplace. 

I know for a fact that if there is free competition, the amount that a pay per view 

distributor is willing to take to televise the program decreases dramatically. You 

may have heard of DIRECTV which is a satellite broadcaster. A few years ago, 

DIRECTV and a company Called United States Satellite Broadcasting (USSB) were 

distributing their programming over the same satellite system. We had been using 

USSB for our pay per view events and like the cable operators, USSB was taking 

about 50 percent of the retail price. 

44

Because the fights were coming over the same satellite used by both DIRECTV 

and USSB, even if you only subscribed to DIRECTV, you could still purchase a pay 

per view fight from USSB. The same was true if you only subscribed to USSB and 

not DIRECTV. This was materially different from the cable operators since each 

cable operator owns the cable line going into each home. 

When DIRECTV learned how much USSB was earning from the pay per view 

fights, they offered us a deal to be the exclusive distributor of our fights over the 

satellite system for substantially less than the 50 percent USSB was taking. When 

USSB discovered this, they countered with a very lucrative deal that they admitted 

effectively reduced their 50 percent share. 

This proved to me that if there was free competition, the amount that a cable or 

satellite distributor would be willing to take to distribute a pay per view fight was 

substantially less than 50 percent of the retail price. It is my view, therefore, that 

the in Demand cartel is hurting fighters and American consumers and must be regulated to enhance free competition. 

Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act Compliance 

With respect to the Ali Act, we have been told by a number of state boxing directors, including Marc Ratner (Nevada), Greg Sirb (Pennsylvania), Ray Locascio (New 

York), Chris Meffert (Florida), Billy Lyons (Mississippi) and Peter Timothy 

(Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation), that my company is the only one that has 

complied with the full letter of the law. I understand that I was the principal target 

of this law, but the reality is that it is the law of the land and if my company has 

to file all its agreements and disclose how much revenue it is earning from the fight, 

it is only fair and just that the other promoters (including the television companies 

which are acting as de facto promoters) should also have to comply. 

Coercive Agreements 

Now as we look back at the Ali Act, one of our principal concerns is that the fighters could use it to attack an otherwise valid agreement because the law itself is extremely broad and subject to different interpretations. 

Specifically, the Ali Act prohibits a promoter from having a promotional agreement with a fighter for more than one year if the agreement is ‘‘coercive.’’ A coercive 

agreement is defined as one the fighter signs as a ‘‘condition precedent’’ to getting 

a fight with another fighter who is already under contract to the promoter. While 

I entirely support the policy behind this provision, the reality is that it is being used 

by boxers to circumvent deals which they voluntarily entered into with the advice 

and consent of competent legal counsel. Since there are criminal penalties involved, 

my attorneys have advised me that prior to signing a fighter to a three year promotional agreement, I should obtain an affidavit (signed by the boxer under the 

penalties of perjury and only after review by his attorney), that he is voluntarily 

entering into a promotional agreement with my company and not as a ‘‘condition 

precedent’’ to getting a fight with another fighter. The realty is, however, that even 

with these affidavits, some fighters are trying to use the Ali Act to try to circumvent 

their contracts after they have fought for me and become champions under my promotion. 

Congress should look to create a safe harbor to the coercive agreement rule. This 

safe harbor would provide that if the fighter is represented by a licensed attorney 

or licensed manager, the coercive agreement rule would not apply. Under this safe 

harbor, Congress could be assured that if a fighter is signing a promotional agreement with a promoter, he is being adequately represented. As long as the promoter 

lives up to his end of the bargain, the fighter should not be able to later threaten 

a lawsuit for violation of the Ali Act simply because he fought one of our other fighters during the term of his promotional agreement. 

Ali Act Filings 

The Ali Act requires a promoter to file all agreements with the fighters with the 

applicable state athletic commission and to disclose to the fighter the amount of 

gross revenues to be received by the promoter from the event. 

Although the Ali Act provides rules for keeping the fighter agreements confidential, the reality is that the media companies have been able to obtain the amount 

of purses being paid to the fighter for the bout. More importantly, they have then 

been able to learn the amount of compensation to be earned by the fighters for their 

future bouts and then use this information to negotiate lower license fees which 

they are willing to pay for the fighter’s future bouts. Media companies simply do 

not care about the fact that part of their license fees are being used by the promoter 

to pay purses of undercard boxers so that they can earn a living and hopefully develop into main event fighters. The media companies are only interested in the 

‘‘creme-de-la-creme’’ fighters and not in maintaining the sport itself. Only promoters 

45

bear the responsibility for developing fighters, and thus they play a crucial role in 

the perpetuation of the sport. 

As a result of media companies gaining access to this information, instead of 

being able to negotiate higher license fees from the media companies, the license 

fees have been decreasing and as a consequence, the amount that we as promoters 

are able to pay the fighters and particularly the undercard fighters is being reduced 

dramatically. I am confident that this was not Congress’ intent in requiring the promotional agreements to be filed, but it is a reality and Congress needs to address 

the benefits of requiring these filings versus the costs to the fighters and the sport 

in general. 

Ali Act Disclosures 

We are also concerned about the rule in the Ali Act requiring a promoter to disclose to all undercard boxers fighting in the event the amount of gross revenues to 

be received by the promoter. This information is proprietary and is not at all relevant to the undercard boxers. The reality is that the undercard bouts are not televised and the arena is substantially empty when their fights take place, except for 

friends and relatives of the boxers who in most cases have obtained their tickets 

for free. These fights are included as part of the event, not because they generate 

additional revenues for the promoter, but because the promoter has an obligation 

to the sport of boxing to promote and develop these fighters so that they can hopefully become main event fighters. Their purses effectively represent an investment 

by the promoter in the boxer. No legitimate policy is served by requiring this information to be disclosed to undercard fighters. 

With respect to the main event fighters, many of these fighters receive upsides 

in their bout agreements and obtain audit rights to verify the amount of the upside. 

Additionally, the main event fighters are in a superior bargaining position compared 

to the undercard fighters and the managers and attorneys already know their value. 

The disclosure of gross revenues is irrelevant to the main event fighters since it 

does not require disclosure of how much the opponent is earning nor the other expenses of the promoter. Requiring a promoter to disclose such amounts gives a distorted picture to these fighters and serves no legitimate purpose. What is required 

(and in fact what already exists under state boxing laws) are mechanisms to ensure 

that the promoter pays the fighter the agreed upon purse. 

Reciprocity 

Another issue that I feel must be addressed relates to the reciprocity among the 

various state athletic commissions. As you may know, there is an association in the 

United States called the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC); however, the 

ABC’s decisions do not have to be followed by the various state athletic commissions. I personally believe that it is an abomination that other state athletic commissions did not respect the reasoned decision of the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) to reject Mr. Tyson’s application for a boxing license, especially after 

Mr. Tyson testified, under oath, in his hearing that he had not Bitten Lennox Lewis 

during the press conference in New York and later admitted that he did bite him. 

The NSAC is the most respected boxing commission in the world and the ABC also 

recommended that other commissions honor the NSAC’s decision. Although many 

boxing Commissions did honor Nevada’s decision, it is our view that the decision 

should have been respected and followed by all boxing commissions in the United 

States. 

Federal Boxing Commission 

This segue ways into whether there is a need for a federal boxing commission to 

regulate boxing in the United States. As I alluded to earlier, the ABC already provides quasi federal oversight and I believe that Congress should recommend that 

its decisions be followed by the other commissions. That being said, I do not believe 

that we should take away from the states the power to regulate the fights taking 

place in their respective jurisdictions. I am concerned that creating a federal agency 

might affect the entrepreneurial spirit of boxing. Additionally, such an undertaking 

would be very expensive and effectively require the creation of huge federal bureaucracy to replicate what already exists at the state level. There still would be 

a need to staff and house local commissions in each of the major boxing states since 

the commissions effectively run the shows. They conduct the weigh ins, select the 

referees and judges, hold hearings, engage medical personnel, oversee the antidoping and ensure payment of the fighters’ purses. It is my view that to recreate 

this at the federal level would be an unnecessary expenditure of taxpayers’ money. 

46

Retirement Plan 

One of the most troubling things for me as a promoter is to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) to a fighter only to see it squandered on extravagances. The worst thing is that I am then blamed for the fact that some fighters 

later end up destitute and on public welfare. Although we counsel our fighters and 

encourage them to save for their retirement, the reality is that many fighters come 

from the lowest rung on the socioeconomic ladder and do not have the training and 

experience to see that their career will be over in just a few years and that the 

money they make now must last a lifetime. 

One of my favorite mottos is ‘‘prevention is better than cure.’’ therefore, I am 

strongly in favor of mandatory retirement deductions from a fighter’s purse to fund 

a retirement plan for the boxers. The contributions would kick in only after the 

gross purse reaches a certain level, e.g., $25,000, and would be an increasing percentage as the purse increases. There could be exceptions if the fighter demonstrates that he has established his own retirement plan or for early withdrawals, 

such as for medical needs. A retirement plan would help ensure that the boxer lives 

a dignified life after he retires and does not become another burden to society. We 

owe this to the fighters who provide us with such wonderful and glorious entertainment. 

Finally, I would again like to thank the Committee for giving us the opportunity 

to express our views. To the extent that you feel the need for new legislation, we 

would welcome the opportunity to provide you with our comments. I would respectfully request that my statement be made part of the official record. Thank you.

Æ