a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

U.S. Senate

July 2003 PROFESSIONAL 

BOXING

Issues Related to the 

Protection of Boxers’ 

Health, Safety, and 

Economic Interests

GAO-03-699
Based on GAO’s review of congressional testimonies and national studies 

dating from 1994 through 2002, GAO identified 15 fundamental elements that 

are considered important to protect boxers’ health, safety, and economic 

well-being and to enhance the integrity of the sport. 

The act addresses 10 of the 15 fundamental elements that GAO identified. 

The 8 (of 46) state and 2 (of 8) tribal boxing commissions that GAO selected 

for review accounted for 49 percent of the fights in 2001 and varied in the 

extent to which they had documentation indicating compliance with the 10 

provisions of the act related to the fundamental elements. For example, all 

10 commissions had documentation indicating compliance at least 75 

percent of the time for 3 provisions—requiring prefight medical exams, 

disclosure of purses and payments, and registration of boxers—but only 2 

commissions had documentation indicating compliance at least 75 percent 

of the time for a provision prohibiting conflicts of interest. Commissions 

either gave no reason for the lack of documentation, cited privacy or liability 

concerns, or said they were unaware of the federal provision. 

The eight states and two tribes that GAO reviewed vary in the extent to 

which they adopted additional provisions that cover elements not covered 

by the act’s provisions. The number of such provisions ranges from 10 

(California) to 4 (Missouri). For example, the states have provisions 

requiring the filing of postfight medical reports, uniform boxing and scoring 

rules, and boxing commission officials’ knowledge of the sport. 

Federal actions taken under the act have been limited. The Department of 

Justice said it has not exercised its authority to prosecute cases because 

none have been referred to it by federal law enforcement authorities. 

Furthermore it noted that violations under the act are misdemeanors, and it 

generally applies its resources to prosecuting felonies. The Federal Trade 

Commission periodically checks the Web sites of the organizations that 

sanction professional boxing events to see whether they have posted the 

information that they are required to make available to the public and has 

found them to be adequate. Legislation was recently introduced to 

significantly amend the act by, among other things, creating a new 

organization within the Department of Labor that would provide oversight 

and enforcement of boxing laws. This new federal organization is intended 

to facilitate more uniform enforcement of federal requirements aimed at 

enhancing boxers’ health, safety, and general interests as well as the 

integrity of the sport. 

The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission provided only 

technical comments on our report. The Association of Boxing Commissions 

and five state and tribal commissions had concerns about the lack of 

existing federal enforcement and the economic impact of any additional 

federal requirements. 

The Professional Boxing Safety Act 

of 1996 established minimum 

health and safety standards for 

professional boxing and provided 

for limited federal oversight by the 

Department of Justice and the 

Federal Trade Commission. In 

2000, the Muhammad Ali Boxing 

Reform Act amended the act to 

better protect boxers’ economic 

well-being and enhance the 

integrity of the sport. However, 

reports of problems continue, 

including permanent and 

sometimes fatal injuries, economic 

exploitation, and corruption. 

GAO was asked to (1) identify 

fundamental elements considered 

important to protect professional 

boxers and enhance the integrity of 

the sport; (2) assess the extent to 

which provisions of the 

Professional Boxing Safety Act of 

1996, as amended (the act), cover 

these elements and determine 

whether selected state and tribal 

boxing commissions have 

documentation indicating 

compliance with the act’s 

provisions; (3) determine whether 

selected states and tribes have 

provisions that cover additional 

elements; and (4) identify federal 

actions taken under the act. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-699.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Bernard Ungar, 

(202) 512-4232, ungarb@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-699, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate 

July 2003 

PROFESSIONAL BOXING 

Issues Related to the Protection of 

Boxers' Health, Safety, and Economic 

Interests 
Page i GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Fundamental Elements Considered Important to Address Health 

and Safety and Economic Problems Facing Professional Boxing 7

The Act’s Provisions Fully or Partially Cover 10 Fundamental 

Elements, and Selected Commissions Varied in the Extent to 

Which They Had Documentation Indicating Compliance 11

Selected States and Tribes Vary in the Extent to Which Their 

Provisions Cover Additional Fundamental Elements 14

Federal Action under the Act Has Been Limited 16

Concluding Observations 17

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 17

Appendixes

Appendix I: Professional Boxing Events Held in the United States during 

Calendar Year 2001 21

Appendix II: Fundamental Elements to Address Health and Safety, 

Economic, and Integrity Problems in Professional Boxing 23

Health and Safety 23

Economic Protection 26

Integrity of the Sport 28

Appendix III: Selected Boxing Commissions’ Documentation of 

Compliance with the Act’s Provisions 31

Appendix IV: State and Tribal Provisions That Cover Additional Health, 

Safety, Economic, and Integrity Elements 41

Conduct Postfight Medical Examinations, Including Neurological 

Testing 41

Monitor Training Injuries 41

File Postfight Medical Reports 41

Require Health and Life Insurance Before and After Fights 42

Enforce Suspensions for Training Injuries 42

Require Pension Plans 42

Require Disclosure of All Purses and Payments to Trainers and 

Boxers 43

Prohibit Conflicts of Interest for Judges and Referees 44

Require Registration and Training for Trainers, Managers, 

Promoters, and Physicians 44

Preclude Sanctioning Organizations from Exercising Undue 

Influence 44
Contents

Page ii GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Select Uniform Boxing and Scoring Rules 44

Require Boxing Knowledge for Commission Officials 44

Appendix V: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 46

Appendix VI: Comments from the Association of Boxing Commissions 49

Appendix VII: Comments from the Missouri Office of Athletics 51

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Miccosukee Athletic Commission 53

Appendix IX: Comments from the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Commission 

Athletic Unit 59

Appendix X: Comments from the Pennsylvania Athletic Commission 60

Appendix XI: Comments from the Texas Department of Licensing and 

Regulations 62

Appendix XII: Contacts and Contributors 64

Contact 64

Contributors 64

Tables Table 1: Fundamental Elements Considered Important to Address 

Major Problems Facing Professional Boxing 10

Table 2: Extent to Which the Act’s Provisions Cover Fundamental 

Elements to Help Address Major Problems in Professional 

Boxing 11

Figures Figure 1: Selected Boxing Commissions’ Documentation of 

Compliance with the Act’s Provisions Related to 10 

Fundamental Elements 14

Figure 2: Extent to Which State and Tribal Provisions Cover 

Additional Fundamental Elements 15

Figure 3: Selected Commissions’ Documentation of Compliance 

with the Act’s Provisions for Boxing Events Held in 

2001 31

Figure 4: Evaluate Medical Information and Assess Risks 32

Figure 5: Require Minimum Uniform Contractual Terms 34

Figure 6: Require Standards for Rating Boxers to Protect against 

Mismatches 35

Figure 7: Conduct Prefight Medical Examinations 35

Figure 8: Ensure Presence of Medical Personnel and Equipment 36

Figure 9: Require Health Insurance During Matches 36

Figure 10: Honor Suspensions Imposed by Other Commissions 37
Contents

Page iii GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Figure 11: Require Disclosure of Purses and Payments to Promoters 

and Judges 38

Figure 12: Prohibit Conflicts of Interest for Boxers, Promoters, and 

Commission Representatives 38

Figure 13: Require Registration for Boxers and Certification and 

Approval for Ring Officials 39

Abbreviations

ABC Association of Boxing Commissions

FTC Federal Trade Commission

NAAG National Association of Attorneys General

USBA United States Boxing Administration 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

July 21, 2003 Letr

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Congress has recognized that boxing is the only major professional sport in 

the United States without a central regulatory authority that establishes 

and enforces uniform rules, business practices, and ethical standards. 

There is no other major professional sport in which the rules and 

regulations—and their enforcement—vary so widely. As a result, the sport 

has been plagued with reports of permanent and sometimes fatal injuries, 

the economic exploitation of boxers, and corruption. The Association of 

Boxing Commissions, a 15-year-old nonprofit organization representing 46 

state and 8 tribal boxing commissions located throughout the United 

States,1

 promotes uniform health and safety provisions for professional 

boxing, but has no enforcement authority over its members, and its 

effectiveness in regulating boxing depends on mutual cooperation. 

In 1996, because the states and tribes, which are primarily responsible for 

establishing provisions to regulate professional boxing, were not uniformly 

protecting the health and safety of professional boxers, Congress enacted 

the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996. This act established minimum 

health and safety standards and licensing provisions, along with 

enforcement responsibilities and penalties for violations. In 2000, Congress 

amended the 1996 act by passing the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, 

which established provisions to protect boxers from economic exploitation 

and to enhance the integrity of the sport. 

1

These commissions are state or tribal organizations that are responsible for regulating 

professional boxing within their jurisdictions, including implementing and enforcing federal 

and state or tribal provisions related to boxing. 
Page 2 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

The 1996 act, as amended (the act), authorizes the Department of Justice to 

investigate and prosecute violations of the law and it provides for state and 

civil remedies as well as federal criminal prosecution. Within the 

Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is responsible 

for investigating violations of the law. Generally, the U.S. Attorneys are 

responsible for prosecuting violations of laws. The act further provides that 

organizations sanctioning boxing matches2

 annually provide certain 

information to the Federal Trade Commission or otherwise make such 

information available to the public through the Internet. The Federal Trade 

Commission is required to make the information provided to it available to 

the public. 

This report responds to your request that we review current efforts to 

protect the health, safety, and economic well-being of professional boxers 

and to enhance the integrity of the sport. As agreed with your office, we 

addressed the following questions: 

• What fundamental elements are considered important to address major 

health and safety, economic, and integrity problems facing professional 

boxing? 

• To what extent do the act’s provisions cover these elements, and to what 

extent do selected state and tribal boxing commissions have 

documentation indicating compliance with the act’s provisions? 

• To what extent have the selected states and tribes adopted provisions 

that cover fundamental elements that are not covered in the act? 

• What actions have the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade 

Commission taken under the act? 

To identify the fundamental elements that are considered important to 

address major health and safety, economic, and integrity problems facing 

professional boxing, we reviewed congressional testimony and studies on 

professional boxing conducted by a task force of the National Association 

of Attorneys General, the Department of Health and Human Services, and 

2

Sanctioning organizations are private entities that designate the champion and rank 

challengers for each weight class. These organizations are required to identify their rating 

officials and to annually disclose their criteria and policies for rating boxers, as well as their 

sanctioning fees, by-laws, and procedures for appealing ratings. 
Page 3 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

the Department of Labor. From these sources, which documented 

problems in the boxing industry and recommended actions to address 

them, we identified major problems facing the sport and consolidated the 

recommendations into 15 fundamental elements that are considered 

important in helping to provide an adequate level of health, safety, and 

economic protection to boxers and enhance the integrity of the sport. We 

discussed these elements with the Association of Boxing Commissions, 

which agreed that the elements could help provide the desired protection 

and enhancement. 

To assess the extent to which the act covers the elements we identified, we 

analyzed the act’s provisions and determined how many address the 

fundamental elements, either fully or partially. To assess the extent to 

which selected state and tribal boxing commissions have documented their 

compliance with the act’s provisions, we selected 83

 of the 46 state boxing 

commissions and 24 of the 8 tribal boxing commissions for review. These 10 

commissions accounted for 383, or 49 percent, of the 777 professional 

boxing events held in the United States in 2001. (See app. I for a listing of 

the professional boxing events held by state and tribal commissions in 

2001.) At 2 state (Indiana and Michigan) and the 2 tribal (Miccosukee and 

Mohegan Sun) commissions, we reviewed the case files for all professional 

boxing events held in 2001, the most recent year for which we could obtain 

complete information, and at the remaining commissions, we randomly 

selected a sample of case files for review. From our reviews of these case 

files, we determined the extent to which each of the 8 state and 2 tribal 

boxing commissions had documentation indicating compliance in 2001 

with provisions in the act that related to the fundamental elements. We did 

not independently verify that the provisions were met. Our findings for 

these 10 commissions cannot be generalized to all 46 state and 8 tribal 

boxing commissions. 

To assess the extent to which selected states and tribes have provisions 

that cover fundamental elements in addition to those covered in the act, we 

reviewed the boxing provisions of the eight states and two tribes and 

identified fundamental elements that do not appear in the act. We 

confirmed with the boxing commissions of these states and tribes that they 

agreed with our analysis of their provisions. We did not assess the extent to 

3

California, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

4

The Mohegan Sun (Connecticut) and Miccosukee (Florida) tribes.
Page 4 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

which the states and tribes had implemented or enforced the provisions 

that cover the additional fundamental elements. 

To determine what actions the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade 

Commission have taken under the act, we asked Justice officials whether 

they had initiated any civil enforcement proceedings or criminal 

prosecutions of potential violators of the act in the eight states and two 

tribal jurisdictions covered by our review. We also reviewed the 

department’s central case management system for possible cases 

prosecuted during fiscal years 1996 through 2002. To determine whether 

the sanctioning organizations were making the information they are 

required to provide available to the public, we reviewed the Internet Web 

sites of 14 sanctioning organizations to see whether the required 

information was posted. 

We conducted our review from September 2002 through July 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Appendix V provides further details about our objectives, scope, and 

methodology. 

Results in Brief From our review of congressional testimonies and national studies dating 

from 1994 through 2002, we identified 15 fundamental elements that are 

considered important to protect boxers’ health, safety, and economic wellbeing and enhance the integrity of the sport. Six of these elements address 

health and safety issues, four establish economic protections for boxers, 

and five would help prevent corruption. 

The act’s provisions cover 10 of the fundamental elements that we 

identified—1 fully and 9 partially. For example, one provision fully covers 

the element requiring evaluations of medical information on boxers and 

assessments of the risks involved in allowing them to fight before each 

match, but only partially covers the element requiring prefight and 

postfight medical examinations, including neurological testing. (The 

provision requires prefight examinations, but not postfight examinations or 

neurological testing.) The 8 state and 2 tribal boxing commissions that we 

reviewed varied in the extent to which they had documentation indicating 

compliance with the act’s 10 provisions. All 10 commissions had 

documentation indicating compliance at least 75 percent of the time for 3 

provisions—those requiring prefight medical exams, disclosure of purses 

and payments, and registration of boxers—but only 2 commissions had 

documentation at least 75 percent of the time for the provision prohibiting 
Page 5 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

conflicts of interest. The commissions’ documentation for the remaining 6 

provisions varied within this range. When asked why they did not 

document their compliance with particular provisions, the commissions 

often did not provide a reason, but when they did, they generally identified 

conflicts between state and federal law, said they were unaware of the 

federal provision, or said they thought documentation was not needed. 

The eight states and two tribes that we reviewed vary in the extent to which 

they have adopted provisions that cover health and safety, economic, and 

integrity elements in addition to those covered by the act’s provisions. Each 

of these states and tribes has some provisions that cover additional 

elements. The number of additional elements enacted by an individual state 

or tribe ranges from 10 (California) to 4 (Missouri). All 10 states and tribes 

have enacted the element requiring uniform boxing and scoring rules, but 

California was the only state that enacted 3 additional elements—for 

monitoring injuries sustained during training, suspending boxers for 

debilitating training injuries, and providing pension plans for boxers. The 

primary reason provided by the states and tribes for not enacting elements 

in addition to those covered by the act was that the elements would be too 

costly to implement. 

Federal action under the act has been limited. According to the Department 

of Justice, it has not exercised its authority to prosecute cases because no 

cases have been referred to it by federal law enforcement authorities. The 

department said there were no records of cases brought by the U.S. 

Attorneys’ offices under the federal boxing legislation during fiscal years 

1996 through 2002 and that no referrals from law enforcement agencies 

were made. Justice officials also said violations of the boxing statutes are 

misdemeanors and the department generally applies its resources to 

prosecuting felonies. The Association of Boxing Commissions, in 

commenting on a draft of this report, said it had made two referrals to U.S. 

Attorneys’ offices, which were not prosecuted. The association said one 

referral was dismissed because the issue was subsequently resolved and 

the association had not received a response to the other referral. The 

Federal Trade Commission’s responsibility under the act is limited to 

making the information it receives from sanctioning organizations available 

to the public. The commission said it periodically checks the various 

sanctioning organizations’ Web sites to assess whether the required 

information has been made available to the public. Our review of the Web 

sites of 14 sanctioning organizations found that this information was 

posted on the Internet. Legislation was recently introduced to significantly 

amend the act by, among other things, creating a new organization within 
Page 6 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

the Department of Labor that would provide oversight and enforcement of 

the federal boxing laws. This new federal organization is intended to 

facilitate more uniform enforcement of federal requirements aimed at 

enhancing boxers’ health, safety, and economic interests as well as the 

integrity of the sport. 

The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission had only 

technical comments on our draft report. In commenting on our report, the 

president of the Association of Boxing Commissions said much needs to be 

done to achieve uniformity in the regulation of boxing. Some of the states 

and tribes who commented on our report would welcome federal 

involvement while others said they are concerned about the costs of 

implementing any new measures. Some also noted that no federal agency is 

enforcing the existing federal laws protecting professional boxers. 
Page 7 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Fundamental Elements 

Considered Important 

to Address Health and 

Safety and Economic 

Problems Facing 

Professional Boxing

According to our review of congressional testimonies5 and national studies 

on professional boxing dating from 1994 through 2002,6 15 fundamental 

elements are considered important in helping address the sport’s major 

problems. Six elements could help to protect the health and safety of 

professional boxers, four could help to protect their economic interests, 

and five could help to correct problems affecting the integrity of the sport. 

The six elements that could help to protect the health and safety of boxers 

would provide

• medical examinations, including neurological testing; 

• monitoring of training injuries; 

• assessments of medical risks; 

• health and life insurance; 

• the presence of appropriate medical personnel and equipment; and 

• enforcement of suspensions for injuries. 

5

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on 

Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce, and Tourism: Hearing on the Federal Regulation of 

Boxing (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2002); Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, Testimony on Boxing and Federal Laws (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2001); 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Hearing on Reform of 

Professional Boxing Industry (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 22, 1999); Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Hearing on Professional Boxing (Washington, 

D.C.: May 22, 1997); House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee Workforce 

Protections Subcommittee and the House Committee on Commerce Subcommittee on 

Commerce Trade and Hazardous Materials, The Professional Boxing Corporation Act of 

1995 (Washington, D.C.: June 11, 1996); Senate Committee on Commerce, Hearing on 

Health and Safety of Professional Boxing (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 20, 1994). 

6

National Association of Attorneys General Boxing Task Force, Office of New York State 

Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, May 2000; Department of Health and Human Services, 

Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996: National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health Report to Congress, Study on Health, Safety, and Equipment Standards for Boxing

(Washington, D.C.: June 1, 1998); and Department of Labor, Pension Plans for Professional 

Boxers: A Study Prepared by the Segal Company for the Secretary of Labor as Mandated 

by Congress (Washington, D.C.: December 1997).
Page 8 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

According to the testimonies and studies, these elements are important 

because, although the overall rate of injury is lower in professional boxing 

than in many other sports, the risk of severe or permanent brain injury is 

greater. Neurological testing may be needed to detect such injury. 

Furthermore, because injuries may occur during training and sparring as 

well as during boxing events, monitoring during training was 

recommended, and health and life insurance may be needed before and 

after as well as during events. In some instances, the treatment a fighter 

receives in the initial minutes after an injury determines whether the fighter 

recovers or sustains permanent damage or death. Having an ambulance 

and qualified medical personnel on-site, rather than on call, can be critical. 

Enforcement of suspensions imposed by boxing commissions in other 

states is important to prevent injured boxers from trying to fight outside 

the states in which they are registered before their injuries have healed.

The four elements that could help to protect boxers’ economic interests 

would 

• require pension plans for boxers,

• require full disclosure of purses and payments, 

• require minimum uniform contractual terms between boxers and 

promoters, and 

• prohibit conflicts of interest. 

Without a union to represent their economic interests, boxers have often 

been exploited, and although the sport has generated enormous wealth for 

others, many professional boxers have been left penniless. Comprehensive 

pension plans for boxers are almost nonexistent, and boxers have 

sometimes been left to pay trainers out of their share of the fight purse 

when the financial responsibilities of promoters and managers were not 

disclosed in advance. Conflicts of interest between promoters and 

managers and long-term contracts with promoters have also disadvantaged 

boxers.

The 5 elements that could help to correct problems affecting the integrity 

of the sport would 

• require registration and training for judges, referees, and others; 
Page 9 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

• prevent sanctioning organizations from exercising undue influence in 

the selection of judges; 

• establish uniform boxing and scoring rules; 

• require reviews of sanctioning organizations’ rankings of boxers; and 

• require knowledge of the sport for commission officials. 

Reports of unqualified officials, last-minute changes in the procedures for 

selecting judges, nonstandard boxing and scoring rules, fraudulent 

rankings that have resulted in injury and even death for weaker boxers, and 

political appointments to boxing commissions have undermined the 

integrity of the sport.

Table 1 sets forth the 15 elements we identified. For more detailed 

information on the problems discussed in the testimonies and studies and 

the recommendations made to address these problems, see appendix II.
Page 10 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Table 1: Fundamental Elements Considered Important to Address Major Problems Facing Professional Boxing 

Source: GAO.

Note: Our identification of the fundamental elements is based on the congressional testimonies and 

national studies that we reviewed. Some of these elements have multiple effects and may be related to 

more than one category (e.g., health and safety, economic protection, or integrity of the sport). For 

example, the element prohibiting conflicts of interest not only affects the economic interests of boxers 

but may also be related to the integrity of the sport. 

Health and safety Economic protection Integrity of the sport

1. Conduct prefight and postfight medical 

examinations, including neurological testing.

7. Require pension plans for boxers. 11. Require registration and training for 

boxers, trainers, managers, promoters, 

physicians, and other ring officials. 

2. Monitor injuries sustained during gym 

training (e.g., sparring) before events.

8. Require full and open disclosure of all 

purses and costs of bouts, breaking out 

amounts paid to promoters, sanctioning 

bodies, judges, trainers, boxers, and others.

12. Ensure that sanctioning organizations 

do not influence the selection of judges.

3. Evaluate medical information on boxers 

and assess the risks involved before 

allowing a boxer to fight.

9. Prohibit conflicts of interest for boxers, 

promoters, managers, judges, referees, 

state boxing commission representatives, 

and sanctioning organization 

representatives.

13. Require uniform boxing and scoring 

rules for events, such as the championship 

rules of the Association of Boxing 

Commissions (ABC).

4. Ensure the presence of appropriate 

medical personnel and equipment during 

and after each match and require the filing 

of postfight medical reports. 

10. Require minimum uniform contractual 

terms between boxers and promoters.

14. Require standards for rating boxers, 

considering their records of wins and losses, 

weight differentials, caliber of opponents, 

and number of past fights.

5. Require health and life insurance for 

boxers before, during, and after each match.

15. Require officials serving on boxing 

commissions to have knowledge of 

professional boxing.

6. Honor other states’ suspensions of 

boxers; monitor training injuries in real time, 

and suspend boxers who sustain debilitating 

training injuries.
Page 11 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

The Act’s Provisions 

Fully or Partially Cover 

10 Fundamental 

Elements, and Selected 

Commissions Varied in 

the Extent to Which 

They Had 

Documentation 

Indicating Compliance 

The act’s provisions fully or partially cover 10 of the elements that we 

identified as important to address the health and safety, economic, and 

integrity problems facing professional boxing. Our analysis shows that one 

of the act’s provisions fully covers the element that requires evaluations of 

medical information on boxers and assessments of the risks involved in 

allowing them to fight before each match. The act’s provisions partially 

cover 9 elements. For example, one provision partially covers the element 

requiring medical examinations, including neurological testing, before and 

after a fight. (The provision requires prefight, but not postfight, 

examinations and no neurological testing.) Another provision partially 

covers the element requiring the presence of medical personnel and 

equipment at fights and the filing of postfight medical reports. (It requires 

the presence of medical personnel and equipment, but not the filing of 

postfight medical reports.) Table 2 sets forth our analysis of the extent to 

which the act’s provisions cover the fundamental elements we identified.

Table 2: Extent to Which the Act’s Provisions Cover Fundamental Elements to Help Address Major Problems in Professional 

Boxing

Act’s provision Fundamental element

Extent to which the act covers the 

element 

Health and safety

Require prefight medical examinations. Conduct prefight and postfight medical 

examinations, including neurological testing. 

Partially—the act’s provision does not 

require a postfight medical examination or 

any neurological testing.

Evaluate medical information on boxers and 

assess the risks involved before allowing a 

boxer to fight. 

Evaluate medical information on boxers and 

assess the risks involved before allowing a 

boxer to fight. 

Fully

Ensure the presence of appropriate medical 

personnel and equipment during and after 

each match.

Ensure the presence of appropriate medical 

personnel and equipment during and after 

each match and require the filing of postfight 

reports.

Partially—the act’s provision does not 

require the filing of postfight medical reports.

Require health insurance for boxers during 

each match.

Require health and life insurance for boxers 

before, during, and after each match.

Partially—the act’s provision does not 

require health insurance for boxers before 

and after each match, and it does not 

require life insurance.

Honor other states’ suspensions of boxers. Honor other states’ suspensions of boxers, 

monitor training injuries in real time, and 

suspend boxers who sustain debilitating 

training injuries.

Partially—the act’s provision does not 

require states to monitor training injuries in 

real time or suspend boxers who sustain 

debilitating training injuries. 
Page 12 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Source: GAO.

On March 13, 2003, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation approved S. 275, a bill that would further amend the act. If 

enacted, the proposed legislation would expand the act’s coverage of four 

fundamental elements—those dealing with the evaluation of medical 

information, minimum contractual terms, the selection of judges, and 

reviews of rankings. In addition, the proposed legislation would establish 

the United States Boxing Administration (USBA) within the Department of 

Labor and empower it to consider other fundamental elements in 

addressing professional boxers’ health, safety, and other concerns. USBA 

would be responsible for providing oversight, administering the federal 

boxing laws, and issuing minimum standards to protect the health, safety, 

and general interests of professional boxers. Its responsibilities would also 

include licensing boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning 

organizations and maintaining a registry of medical records and medical 

suspension information on all boxers. USBA would also be authorized to 

conduct investigations and to suspend or revoke licenses for misconduct 

after providing notice and hearing. 

Economic protection

Require full and open disclosure of all 

purses and costs of bouts, breaking out 

amounts paid to promoters and judges.

Require full and open disclosure of all 

purses and costs of bouts, breaking out 

amounts paid to promoters, judges, trainers, 

boxers, and others.

Partially—the act’s provision does not 

require such disclosure for boxers and 

trainers.

Prohibit conflicts of interest for promoters 

and commission representatives.

Prohibit conflicts of interest for boxers, 

promoters, managers, judges, referees, 

state boxing commission representatives, 

and sanctioning organization 

representatives.

Partially—the act’s provision does not 

prohibit conflicts of interest for judges and 

referees.

Recommend minimum uniform contractual 

terms between boxers and promoters.

Require minimum uniform contractual terms 

between boxers and promoters.

Partially—the act’s provision establishes 

guidelines for, but does not require such 

terms.

Integrity of the sport

Require registration for boxers and 

certification and approval for ring officials.

Require registration and training for boxers, 

trainers, managers, promoters, physicians, 

and other ring officials.

Partially—the act’s provision does not 

require registration for trainers, managers, 

promoters or physicians, and it does not 

require training for any parties.

Recommend standards for rating boxers, 

considering their records of wins and losses, 

weight differentials, caliber of opponents, 

and number of past fights.

Require standards for rating boxers, 

considering their records of wins and losses, 

weight differentials, caliber of opponents, 

and number of past fights.

Partially—the act’s provision establishes 

guidelines for, but does not require, such 

standards. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Act’s provision Fundamental element

Extent to which the act covers the 

element 
Page 13 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Selected Boxing 

Commissions’ 

Documentation of 

Compliance Varied

The 8 state and 2 tribal boxing commissions that we reviewed varied in the 

extent to which they had documentation indicating compliance with the 10 

provisions of the act related to the fundamental elements we identified. 

The act does not require the commissions to document their compliance. 

However, because documentation constituted the only verifiable evidence 

of compliance, we reviewed all available documentation in the 

commissions’ event files, including pre- and post-fight medical examination 

check sheets, insurance coverage forms, copies of contracts between 

boxers and promoters, event sheets identifying boxers’ registration 

numbers, promoters’ revenue reports to commissions, and statements of 

independence signed by ring officials. 

All 10 commissions had documentation indicating compliance at least 75 

percent of the time for three provisions—those that require prefight 

medical examinations, disclosure of amounts paid to promoters, and 

registration of boxers—but only 2 commissions had documentation at least 

75 percent of the time for the provision prohibiting conflicts of interest. 

(See fig. 1.) Five of the commissions said they usually complied with this 

provision but did not document their compliance. The 10 commissions’ 

documentation for the remaining six provisions varied within this range. 

(See table 4 in app. 3 for the results of our analysis of the commissions’ 

documentation.) When asked why they did not always document their 

compliance with the provisions, the commissions often did not provide a 

reason, but when they did, they generally pointed to privacy or liability 

concerns, said they were unaware of the federal provisions, or said they 

thought documentation was not needed. For details on the reasons the 

commissions provided for not documenting compliance, see appendix III. 
Page 14 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Figure 1: Selected Boxing Commissions’ Documentation of Compliance with the 

Act’s Provisions Related to 10 Fundamental Elements

Note: The figure represents the number of commissions that had documentation indicating compliance 

at least 75 percent to 100 percent of the time for the respective provisions.

Selected States and 

Tribes Vary in the 

Extent to Which Their 

Provisions Cover 

Additional 

Fundamental Elements

The eight states and two tribes that we reviewed vary in the extent to which 

their provisions cover health and safety and economic elements in addition 

to those covered in the act. Each of these states and tribes has some 

provisions that cover additional fundamental elements or portions of 

fundamental elements. The number of such provisions enacted by an 

individual Commission ranges from 10 (California) to 4 (Missouri). All 10 

states and tribes have provisions fully covering the additional element that 

requires uniform boxing and scoring rules, and eight states or tribes have 

provisions fully covering the additional element that requires the filing of 

postfight medical reports. California was the only state with provisions 

fully covering 3 other additional elements—for monitoring injuries 

sustained during training, enforcing suspensions for debilitating training 

injuries, and providing pension plans for boxers. Four states or tribes have 

provisions that go beyond the act in requiring postfight medical 

examinations, but none of these states or tribes requires neurological 
Page 15 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

testing. Similarly, three states or tribes have provisions that go beyond the 

act in requiring that boxers be provided with health insurance before and 

after, as well as during, each match, but none of these states or tribes 

requires life insurance. Figure 2 summarizes the results of our analysis. The 

primary reason provided by the states and tribes for not having provisions 

covering additional elements was that the provisions would be too costly to 

implement. For more details, see appendix IV.

Figure 2: Extent to Which State and Tribal Provisions Cover Additional Fundamental Elements
Page 16 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Federal Action under 

the Act Has Been 

Limited 

Actions taken by the Department of Justice under the act have been 

limited. Justice officials said the department does not prosecute cases 

unless they are referred to it by federal law enforcement agencies. There 

were no records of cases brought by U.S. Attorneys under the federal 

boxing legislation during fiscal years 1996 through 2002, and there were no 

referrals from law enforcement agencies. Because the act provides for 

state and civil remedies in addition to federal criminal prosecution, Justice 

officials said that cases could be referred to state authorities rather than to 

U.S. Attorneys. Furthermore, the officials said, violations of the act are 

misdemeanors, and U.S. Attorneys generally pursue only felony cases, 

although they would prosecute a misdemeanor if circumstances 

warranted.7

In commenting on a draft of this report, the president of ABC said that ABC 

had made two referrals to U.S. Attorneys’ offices. The first, made in 

October 2002, concerned the World Boxing Association’s ratings of a boxer. 

According to the ABC president, the referral was dismissed because the 

World Boxing Association provided the U.S. Attorney with a copy of its 

rating criteria and the boxers were well known. The ABC president said 

that the other referral, made to the Arkansas U.S. Attorney in 2001, 

reported that professional boxing was occurring in bars without the 

supervision of the Arkansas boxing commission. The ABC president said 

that ABC had not received a response to the referral and the case had not 

been prosecuted.

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) responsibility under the act is 

limited to making available to the public the information it receives from 

sanctioning organizations. FTC has no responsibility for enforcing 

compliance or verifying the accuracy of the information.8

 FTC officials said 

they periodically check the sanctioning organizations’ Web sites to assess 

whether the required information has been made available to the public 

and has found the Web sites to be adequate. Our review of the Web sites of 

7

Our report focuses on enforcement of the Professional Boxing Safety Act only. Criminal 

violations under the act are punishable only as misdemeanors. When violations of the act 

are also violations of other criminal statutes, prosecution of the felony may overshadow 

punishment of the misdemeanor. 

8

Sanctioning organizations are required to identify their rating officials and to annually 

disclose their criteria and policies for rating boxers, as well as their sanctioning fees, bylaws, and procedures for appealing ratings. They can send this information to FTC or post it 

on the Internet. 
Page 17 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

14 sanctioning organizations found that this information was posted on the 

Internet. FTC officials also said they had not received any consumer 

complaints related to the boxing industry.

In February 2003, legislation was introduced in the Senate that would 

amend the act by, among other things, creating a new organization within 

the Department of Labor to provide oversight and enforcement of the 

federal boxing laws. The purpose of this new federal organization is to 

facilitate more uniform enforcement of federal requirements designed to 

enhance boxers’ health, safety, and economic interests as well as the 

integrity of the sport. This organization would have the authority to issue 

regulations, including requirements for documentation; to monitor and 

oversee the commissions’ compliance with the existing federal protections 

for professional boxers; and to establish additional protections, if 

necessary. 

Concluding 

Observations

Although our review was limited to eight state and two tribal boxing 

commissions, the uneven documentation of compliance we found with the 

act’s provisions to protect the health, safety, and economic well-being of 

professional boxers does not provide adequate assurance that professional 

boxers are receiving the minimum protections established in federal law. 

Without complete and accurate information on the extent to which the act 

is being enforced and without a federal agency to proactively ensure 

nationwide compliance, there is little assurance of compliance. While the 

Justice Department has the authority to prosecute violations of the act, it 

focuses its limited resources on prosecuting felonies, is not responsible for 

monitoring compliance, and would prosecute a case only if it received a 

referral from a federal law enforcement agency. Since 1996, it has received 

no referrals from federal law enforcement agencies and pursued no cases 

of violation of the act. If enacted, the legislation would create a new 

organization within the Department of Labor that could address this gap in 

the oversight and enforcement of the federal boxing laws.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Department of 

Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Association of Boxing 

Commissions (ABC). The Department of Justice’s GAO liaison and the 

Federal Trade Commission’s GAO liaison and Office of General Counsel 

provided only oral technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate. The president of ABC provided written comments, which are 
Page 18 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

reproduced in appendix VI. We also provided the boxing commissions of 

the eight states and two tribes that we reviewed with the opportunity to 

review and comment on the facts in the report that related to their 

operations. We received written comments from the Missouri, Miccosukee, 

Mohegan Sun, Pennsylvania and Texas boxing commissions; these 

comments appear in appendixes VII through XI. As of July 16, 2003, we had 

received no comments from the California, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, and 

Nevada boxing commissions.

In his written comments, provided on June 30, 2003, the president of ABC 

said that while ABC has had some successes, much work needs to be done 

to achieve uniformity in the regulation of boxing. He said that feedback 

from ABC’s membership on federal involvement in regulating professional 

boxing is mixed: many members regard such involvement as intervention, 

while others welcome it. He also said that some members believe that 

making certain types of testing (e.g., neurological testing) mandatory 

would have a negative impact on their jurisdictions because of the cost. 

According to the president, ABC is frustrated with the lack of enforcement 

of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996. He said that violations of the 

act occur frequently, yet no government agency has been willing to enforce 

the current laws. The president said that he hopes the members can use the 

act’s 10 provisions as a starting point for standardizing the regulation of 

boxing. 

The Administrator of the Missouri Office of Athletics, who is also the 

president of ABC, provided written comments on the portion of a draft of 

this report applicable to Missouri on June 30, 2003 (see app. VII). While 

noting that the Missouri Office of Athletics encourages the standardized 

regulation of boxing, he said he also recognizes that any actions taken will 

have an economic impact on the sport that will have to be considered. In 

addition, he questioned who would enforce any new federal boxing 

provisions and stated the current law is not being enforced. He said that 

both state and tribal boxing commissions, through ABC, should work to 

standardize the regulation of boxing in the areas discussed in our report. 

He also made some technical comments, which we incorporated in the 

body of the report.

The Miccosukee, Mohegan Sun, Pennsylvania and Texas boxing 

commissions also provided written comments, which appear in appendixes 

VIII, IX, X, and XI, respectively. In their comments, they expressed 

appreciation of our work, indicating, for example, that our report helps to 

clarify issues related to the protection of boxers’ health, safety, and 
Page 19 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

economic interests. In addition, the Miccosukee and Pennsylvania boxing 

commissions cited tribal or state regulations that cover portions of some of 

15 the elements we identified in the report as fundamental to protecting 

boxers’ health, safety, and economic interest and to enhancing the integrity 

of the sport. In some instances, the Miccosukee and Pennsylvania boxing 

commissions noted that it would be difficult for them to implement certain 

elements because of personnel and budgetary constraints or because of 

their limited jurisdiction. For example, the Miccosukee commission said 

that it could not monitor training injuries because it would not be feasible 

for the Miccouskee commission or any other boxing commission to send 

representatives to gyms throughout the United States and other countries 

to monitor real time training injuries. The Miccosukee commission also 

indicated that in the future it could complete and file checklists in event 

files to document its compliance with certain provisions, such as the one 

requiring the presence of appropriate medical personnel and equipment 

during and after events. The commission said that the lack of 

documentation in its files does not adequately reflect its compliance with 

this provision. The Pennsylvania commission noted the diversity among 

various boxing commissions in implementing the federal law. Finally, the 

Texas commission said it lacked authority to implement several of the 15 

fundamental elements identified in the report. 

We recognize that boxing commissions vary in their approach to regulating 

boxing because of differences in their laws or regulations, local situations, 

and available budgetary and personnel resources. Furthermore, we 

recognize in our report that a lack of documentation does not necessarily 

mean that a requirement was not met. However, we had no other practical 

means to assess the extent to which the federal requirements were being 

addressed. Additionally, we agree with the Miccosukee commission that 

appropriately completed checklists would help to document compliance. 

Finally, we believe that our findings, along with the comments we received 

on our draft report, should provide Congress with useful information as it 

considers S. 275. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 5 days after the 

date of this letter. At that time, we will provide copies of the report to the 

Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, and the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, House 

Energy and Commerce. Copies of the report will also be sent to the 

Attorney General, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, the 
Page 20 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Secretary of Labor, the Association of Boxing Commissions, the California 

State Athletic Commission, the Florida State Athletic Commission, the 

Indiana Boxing Commission, the Michigan Bureau of Commercial Services, 

the Missouri Office of Athletics, the Nevada Athletic Commission, the 

Pennsylvania Athletic Commission, the Texas Boxing and Wrestling 

Program, the Miccosukee Athletic Commission, and the Mohegan Tribal 

Gaming Commission Athletic Unit, and to others on request. In addition, 

the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix XI. If you or your staff 

have any questions, please contact me on (202) 512-2834 or 

ungarb@gao.gov. 

Sincerely yours,

Bernard L. Ungar, Director

Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 21 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Appendix I

Professional Boxing Events Held in the United Apendxies

States during Calendar Year 2001 ApendxiI

State or Indian tribal 

commission Number of events helda Percentage of total events

Californiab 85 11%

Texasb 62 8%

Nevadab 55 7%

Pennsylvaniab 52 7%

Missourib 40 5%

Floridab 33 4%

New York 28 4%

Illinois 25 3%

Colorado 24 3%

Mississippi 22 3%

Indianab 22 3%

Ohio 21 3%

Tennessee 19 2%

New Jersey 19 2%

Michiganb 18 2%

Puerto Rico 15 2%

Arizona 15 2%

West Virginia 14 2%

Virginia 14 2%

Oklahoma 14 2%

Massachusetts 14 2%

Washington 13 2%

Georgia 13 2%

Kentucky 10 1%

Iowa 10 1%

South Carolina 9 1%

Miccosukee (FL)b 9 1%

Maryland 8 1%

Wisconsin 7 1%

Utah 7 1%

Mohegan Sun (CT)b 7 1%

Louisiana 7 1%

New Mexico 6 1%

Mashantucket Pequot (CT) 6 1%
Appendix I

Professional Boxing Events Held in the 

United States during Calendar Year 2001

Page 22 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Source: Fight Fax, Inc.

a

An event is a meeting of boxers at a place such as a casino or sports arena where one or more bouts 

(matches between two boxers) are held on a particular day.

b

The state and tribal boxing commissions we selected for our review.

Note: We did not verify the information we received from Fight Fax, Inc., the official record-keeping 

body of the Association of Boxing Commissions. 

Hawaii 6 1%

Delaware 6 1%

Rhode Island 5 1%

North Dakota 5 1%

Arkansas 5 1%

Washington, D.C. 4 1%

Idaho 4 1%

Oregon 3 0%

North Carolina 3 0%

Nebraska 3 0%

Saginaw Chippewa (MI) 2 0%

Pueblo de San Juan (NM) 2 0%

Oneida (NY) 2 0%

Yakahama Nation (WA) 1 0%

New Hampshire 1 0%

Connecticut 1 0%

Alaska 1 0%

Total 777 100%

(Continued From Previous Page)

State or Indian tribal 

commission Number of events helda Percentage of total events
Page 23 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Appendix II

Fundamental Elements to Address Health and 

Safety, Economic, and Integrity Problems in 

Professional Boxing ApendxiI

For each of the 15 fundamental elements that we identified, this appendix 

provides a summary of a major problem in professional boxing that the 

element is designed to address. The summaries are based on the 

congressional testimony and national studies—by the National Association 

of Attorneys General (NAAG) Task Force, the Department of Health and 

Human Services, and the Department of Labor—that we reviewed. The 

summaries also include recommendations made at the hearings and in the 

studies to address the problems. The problems are divided into three 

categories: health and safety, economic protection, and integrity of the 

sport.

Health and Safety 

Conduct Medical 

Examinations, Including 

Neurological Testing

In June 1998, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported 

the results of a study mandated by Congress on health, safety, and 

equipment standards for boxing.1

 The study found that although the overall 

rate of injury is lower in professional boxing than in many other sports, the 

risk of sustaining a severe or permanent brain injury is greater in boxing 

because fighters are exposed to repeated blows to the head. Head injuries 

account for a significant portion of all boxing injuries. Factors such as poor 

boxing ability, reduced supervision, and small stature are thought to 

increase the likelihood of traumatic head injury. Similarly, the length of a 

boxer’s career and the total number of bouts in training, sparring, and 

competition combined have been linked to the severity of neurological 

damage. Because neurological damage is not always detected during 

routine medical examinations, neurological testing may be necessary to 

identify it. 

Monitor Training Injuries According to a professional boxing trainer with over 25 years of experience 

whom we interviewed, boxers are required to train and spar in the gym 

daily for months in preparation for a fight. He said that during the sparring 

sessions, many boxers sustain injuries that are not reported to the boxing 

commissions. As a result, some of the boxers participate in events with pre1

Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996: National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health Report to Congress, Study on Health, Safety, and Equipment Standards for Boxing

(June 1, 1998).
Appendix II

Fundamental Elements to Address Health 

and Safety, Economic, and Integrity Problems 

in Professional Boxing 

Page 24 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

existing injuries, exposing themselves to further injury or harm. In an effort 

to protect the health and safety of professional boxers, the NAAG task 

force recommended in 2000 that state inspectors inspect boxing gyms if 

adequate funding and staff are available. 

Evaluate Medical 

Information and Assess 

Risks

To help protect the health and safety of boxers, the NAAG task force 

recommended that all commissions implement a medical classification 

system that would establish risk levels for boxing injuries. For a fighter 

whose record included any element of a high-risk classification (e.g., 

repeated knockouts), the task force further recommended that 

commissions be required to impose a temporary suspension until the 

fighter received a medical clearance or required examination, such as a 

neurological examination conducted by a neurologist using magnetic 

resonance imaging and an electrocardiogram.

Ensure Presence of Medical 

Personnel and Equipment 

and File Postfight Reports 

In 2001, a representative of the Nevada Attorney General testified2 that 

although common sense dictates that an on-site ambulance is needed for all 

boxing matches and should be available to transport an injured boxer to a 

hospital, many promoters would prefer to call 911 if an ambulance is 

needed. The representative said that while this arrangement may be more 

cost-effective for the promoter, the treatment of a fighter in the initial 

minutes after an injury—whether waiting for an ambulance to arrive or 

receiving immediate and appropriate medial care—is critical in 

determining whether the fighter will recover or suffer permanent damage 

or death. Similarly, in 1983, the World Medical Association3

 said that 

professional boxing events should be held in locations where 

• adequate neurosurgical facilities are immediately available for 

emergency treatment of an injured boxer, 

• a portable resuscitator with oxygen equipment and appropriate 

endotracheal tubes are available at ringside, and 

2

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Testimony on Boxing and 

Federal Laws, (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2001).

3

The World Medical Association is an international organization created to ensure the 

independence of physicians and to work for the highest possible standards of ethical 

behavior and care by physicians.
Appendix II

Fundamental Elements to Address Health 

and Safety, Economic, and Integrity Problems 

in Professional Boxing 

Page 25 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

• an ambulance is continuously on-site to transport any seriously injured 

boxer to a hospital immediately. 

The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, as amended (the act), requires 

the continuous presence of a ringside physician and an ambulance or 

medical personnel with appropriate resuscitation equipment at each 

boxing event, unless equivalent protection is required by the boxing 

commission’s provisions. 

A Pennsylvania Athletic Commission official testified4 in May 2001 that 

boxing commissions should be required to develop criteria for licensing 

professional boxers, which should include reviews of boxers’ fight records 

(i.e., wins, losses, knockouts) and suspensions, and a centralized database 

of medical examination information on all licensed boxers. He said that the 

database should be accessible only to boxing commission officials and 

would provide boxing commissions with an additional screening 

mechanism to use in their license determination process. 

Require Health and Life 

Insurance

The president of the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) told us that 

current insurance provisions require promoters to provide health insurance 

coverage only during a boxing event. However, he said such coverage does 

not protect boxers in other instances when they may need medical 

treatment but do not have health insurance or the financial resources to 

pay for treatment. For example, boxers may sustain injuries during an 

event but not recognize until later that they have been injured and need 

treatment. Many boxers also sustain injuries during training or sparring. In 

1996, a New Jersey Boxing Commission representative testified5

 that 

boxers spend far more time sparring in gyms than competing in events; as a 

result, they are more likely to sustain injuries during this period. The 

representative said that to prevent injuries to the head and other parts of 

the body, the amount and intensity of sparring should be monitored. A 

trainer we interviewed said that boxers should have health and life 

insurance coverage throughout the training period, as well as before, after, 

4

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Testimony on Boxing and 

Federal Laws (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2001).

5

House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee Workforce Protections 

Subcommittee and the House Committee on Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce Trade 

and Hazardous Materials, The Professional Boxing Corporation Act of 1995 (Washington, 

D.C.: June 11, 1996).
Appendix II

Fundamental Elements to Address Health 

and Safety, Economic, and Integrity Problems 

in Professional Boxing 

Page 26 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

and during an event, in order to address any medical conditions or injuries. 

However, he said many insurance companies do not offer boxers health 

and life insurance at affordable prices. 

Enforce Suspensions In 2002, the president of ABC testified before the Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation on the need for the uniform 

enforcement of all suspensions imposed by boxing commissions. Currently, 

such enforcement is applicable only to suspensions imposed on boxers for 

recent knockouts or for a series of consecutive losses and medical reasons. 

The president said that in some instances, commissions have suspended 

boxers for falsifying documents or other types of inappropriate behavior 

and that to avoid serving the imposed suspensions, some boxers have 

traveled to other states and obtained a license to continue boxing. 

Economic Protection 

Require Pension Plans for 

Boxers

Professional boxing offers no long-term financial protection for its 

participants, although purses for the big events are in the millions of dollars 

and televised worldwide, often on a pay-per-view basis. The New York State 

Attorney General testified in 19996

 that the boxing industry has generated 

enormous wealth for virtually everyone except professional boxers. He 

added that over the decades, the interests of professional boxers have been 

ignored, leaving many penniless and medically at risk. In 1996, Congress 

mandated that the Secretary of Labor undertake a study on the feasibility of 

establishing a pension plan for professional boxers. According to the 

study,7

 apart from programs run by the California commission and by the 

International Boxing Federation for its championship fights, 

comprehensive pensions for boxing are virtually nonexistent. The study 

concluded that a comprehensive program, if implemented for professional 

boxers, would consist of a charitable trust, a defined contribution plan, a 

6

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Hearing on Reform of 

Professional Boxing Industry (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 22, 1999). 

7

Pension Plans for Professional Boxers: A Study Prepared by the Segal Company for the 

Secretary of Labor as Mandated by Congress (December 1997).
Appendix II

Fundamental Elements to Address Health 

and Safety, Economic, and Integrity Problems 

in Professional Boxing 

Page 27 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

defined benefit plan, and a disability income and survivor’s benefit 

program. 

Disclose Purses and Break 

Out Payments

In 1997, a reporter testified8 that in 1986 a boxer was guaranteed $300,000, 

with up to another $100,000 in training fees, for a fight. Out of a potential 

$400,000, the boxer was paid about $99,000. The manager did not pay the 

trainer and the boxer paid the trainer out of his share of the purse, leaving 

the boxer with $69,000. To address problems such as this, the NAAG task 

force study recommended that a model contract be developed to outline 

contractual disclosure requirements between the promoters, managers, 

and boxers. The model contract should specify the rights and 

responsibilities of all parties, such as the contest requirements, 

compensation (including a full accounting and disclosure of all deductions 

from a boxer’s purse), licenses, and remedies for lack of good faith, 

collusion, or breach of contract, including arbitration provisions. 

Prohibit Conflicts of 

Interest

A Texas Boxing and Wrestling Program official cited reports of fights in 

which a manager managed both boxers and the manager and promoter 

were related. Such business arrangements limited the boxers’ chances of 

receiving fair payment. The official said that in theory, a manager is 

supposed to negotiate the most favorable economic terms for the fighter, 

while the promoter is supposed to make the largest possible profit on the 

event. 

Establish Uniform 

Contractual Terms

There are frequent reports of boxers’ economic exploitation. For example, 

in January 2003, officials of the Mohegan Tribe Department of Athletic 

Regulations reported that a boxer had been fighting for more than a year 

and had never received payment for participating in events throughout the 

United States, although the manager was receiving the boxer’s fight purses. 

For this violation, the commission revoked the manager’s license for an 

indefinite period. In 2001, a Pennsylvania Athletic Commission official said 

that for years fighters have been contractually tied to promoters for a series 

of boxing events, limiting their ability and opportunities to pursue other 

promoters and to box in other events. The official said that the Muhammad 

8

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Hearing on Professional 

Boxing (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 1997).
Appendix II

Fundamental Elements to Address Health 

and Safety, Economic, and Integrity Problems 

in Professional Boxing 

Page 28 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Ali Boxing Reform Act, which limits the contracts between the boxer and 

promoter to 1 year, is a step in the right direction to correct this problem. 

Integrity of the Sport

Require Registration and 

Training for Judges, 

Referees, and Others

A Nevada State Athletic Commission official testified in 19949 that boxing 

referees have to decide in a split second which fighter has won a bout. 

Accordingly, he said, judges should have the ability to closely observe the 

fighters and base their decisions on consistent scoring criteria. The NAAG 

task force made recommendations to help enhance the integrity of the 

sport, including the following: 

• ABC should develop a standardized testing program to be administered 

to judges and referees. 

• Judges and referees should be required to pass this examination before 

they receive their licenses. 

• To be licensed as a referee, an individual should have prior experience 

officiating in amateur competition or in other states or jurisdictions. 

• All referees should be required to receive training and attend a minimum 

of two medical training seminars each year. 

• To be licensed as a judge, an applicant should be proficient in the rules 

and regulations of boxing and have prior experience officiating in 

amateur competition or in other ABC states or jurisdiction. 

• To be licensed as a ringside physician, a physician should have a state 

medical license, be in good standing in the respective state, and have 

experience as a licensed physician for a minimum of 2 years. 

• Ringside physicians should be required to receive training in ringside 

medicine.

9

Senate Committee on Commerce, Hearing on Health and Safety of Professional Boxing

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 20, 1994). 
Appendix II

Fundamental Elements to Address Health 

and Safety, Economic, and Integrity Problems 

in Professional Boxing 

Page 29 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

• Promoters and managers should be licensed and regulated. 

Prevent Undue Influence The president of ABC testified in 200210 on the need for standards to 

prevent sanctioning organizations from interfering with boxing 

commissions’ selection of judges and referees. According to the president, 

that need was demonstrated during a nationally televised championship 

fight in 2001. He said that several weeks before the scheduled event, the 

sanctioning organization and the state boxing commission agreed that the 

sanctioning organization would designate the referee and one judge and the 

commission would designate the remaining two judges. However, less than 

5 minutes before the event was to begin, a representative from the 

sanctioning organization threatened to withdraw the organization’s 

sanction—an action that would reduce the status of the fight to a nontitled 

event—if the commission did not agree to replace one of the judges 

selected by the commission with a judge designated by the sanctioning 

organization. The commission agreed to the sanctioning organization’s 

demands in order to retain the title status of the fight. Because the 

sanctioning organization was allowed to select two of the three judges, the 

president of ABC said the outcome of the event might have been 

compromised. 

Require Uniform Boxing 

and Scoring Rules

In June 1996, a former Nevada Athletic Commission official testified11 that 

every boxing match in the United States should be conducted under the 

same boxing and scoring rules. While noting that ABC has established 

Unified Championship Rules for title bouts, he said that some commissions 

do not implement the same rules. The official said that standardizing 

boxing and scoring rules is important because fighters can have difficulty 

concentrating on protecting themselves in the ring when they are trying to 

remember whether a particular state uses a rule. Similarly, it is difficult for 

referees to focus on a bout if they are worrying about changes in the rules 

for different bouts. 

10Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on 

Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce, and Tourism: Hearing on the Federal Regulation of 

Boxing (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2002).

11Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Hearing on Effective 

Regulation of the Boxing Industry: A Cooperative Effort (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2001).
Appendix II

Fundamental Elements to Address Health 

and Safety, Economic, and Integrity Problems 

in Professional Boxing 

Page 30 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Review Sanctioning 

Organizations’ Rankings

The NAAG task force study reported that sanctioning organizations’ 

rankings often are not based on objective assessments of talent or records 

of fighters’ wins and losses. Instead, according to the study, boxers 

associated with certain promoters may be highly ranked regardless of their 

skill and ability. The study reported that this creates fraud that can have 

deadly consequences. For example, a fight advertised as a major 

championship battle may turn out to be a mismatch, as was a bout held on 

November 13, 1982, between Ray “Boom-Boom” Mancini and Duk Koo Kim 

of South Korea. Mancini knocked out Kim, who never regained 

consciousness and died. The World Boxing Association had rated Kim as a 

top contender, even though he was not among Korea’s top 40 fighters. 

Require Knowledge of 

Professional Boxing for 

Commission Officials

In 2002, an entertainment manager testified12 that state boxing 

commissions are generally underfunded and dominated by political 

appointees with limited knowledge of the sport. He said that many of these 

officials do not understand the boxing industry well enough to regulate it.

12Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on 

Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce, and Tourism: Hearing on Federal Regulation of 

Boxing (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2002).
Page 31 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Appendix III

Selected Boxing Commissions’ 

Documentation of Compliance with the Act’s 

Provisions ApendxiI

This appendix presents the results of our analysis of the eight state and two 

tribal boxing commissions’ documentation of compliance with the act’s 

provisions and provides information on the reasons given by the 

commissions for not having documentation. Figure 3 summarizes the 

results of our analysis of the commissions’ documentation.

Figure 3: Selected Commissions’ Documentation of Compliance with the Act’s Provisions for Boxing Events Held in 2001
Appendix III

Selected Boxing Commissions’ 

Documentation of Compliance with the Act’s 

Provisions

Page 32 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Note: This analysis reflects (1) actual percentages for Indiana, Michigan, and the Miccosukee and 

Mohegan Sun tribal jurisdictions, where we examined documentation for all events held in 2001, and 

(2) estimated percentages for California, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Texas, where 

we examined documentation for a statistical sample of all events held in 2001. Typically, one boxing 

event consists of 6 to 10 bouts, each of which may have its own documentation.

a

The California and Indiana commissions said they complied with the provision but did not provide 

documentation for our review, citing privacy or other concerns. A California official sought higher-level 

approval for our review, but it was not obtained until after we had completed our work at the 

commission.

b

The California commission said it usually complied with this provision but did not document its 

compliance.

c

The California, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Miccosukee commissions said they 

usually or always complied with this provision but did not document their compliance.

d

The Indiana commission did not provide documentation for our review. 

e

The California, Michigan, and Nevada commissions said they usually complied with this provision but 

did not document their compliance.

f

In figure 1 (p. 14), we categorized two commissions (Pennsylvania and the Miccosukee Tribe) as 

having documentation for this provision at least 75 percent of the time. 

g

The California, Florida, Indiana, Nevada, and Texas commissions said they complied with this 

provision but did not document their compliance. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Missouri 

Office of Athletics said that Missouri does not have a commission, but is staffed by 3 officials. Since 

Missouri does not have procedures to prohibit conflicts of interest for the 3 officials, we considered the 

3 officials as a commission that did not have documentation evidencing compliance with this provision. 

h

The California commission said it had purged its documentation for this provision from its files, and the 

Indiana commission said it was experiencing computer problems and could not provide the 

documentation.

The remainder of the appendix provides information on the extent to which 

the 10 boxing commissions had documentation indicating compliance with 

each of the act’s provisions related to a fundamental element. For the 

commissions that did not have or did not provide documentation for our 

review, the appendix also includes the reasons given by the commissions 

for not having or providing the documentation. When a reason is not 

specified, the commission did not provide a reason. 

Figure 4: Evaluate Medical Information and Assess Risks
Appendix III

Selected Boxing Commissions’ 

Documentation of Compliance with the Act’s 

Provisions

Page 33 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Four of the 10 state and tribal boxing commissions (California, Indiana, 

Michigan, and Missouri) provided us with documentation of compliance 

less than 50 percent of the time with the act’s provision requiring the 

evaluation before each match of medical information and the assessment 

of risks involved in allowing a boxer to fight. The Missouri boxing 

commission said that it does not collect and maintain medical information 

because state law concerning confidentiality, disclosure, and civil liability 

issues prohibited them from doing so. The Michigan boxing commission 

said that they were advised by its legal counsel to limit the amount of 

medical information collected due to the commission’s limited authority to 

collect and protect such information. The Indiana Boxing Commission said 

it maintained medical information on professional boxers, but would not 

provide that information for review because of confidentiality and civil 

liability concerns. A Texas official said that the Texas Boxing and Wrestling 

Program used prelicense and prefight examinations, along with 

information obtained from Fight Fax, Incorporated,1

 detailing a boxer’s 

record of wins and losses and medical suspensions, to assess the risks 

involved in allowing a boxer to fight before each match. This official added 

that when reported information indicated that a boxer’s physical condition 

was questionable, the commission might require the boxer to undergo 

additional medical tests to ensure that he or she was not participating in an 

event with a pre-existing injury. According to the official, the Texas Boxing 

and Wrestling Program does not disclose medical information it maintains 

on boxers to other commissions because of confidentiality and civil 

liability concerns. The California State Athletic Commission said it 

maintained medical information, such as the results of annual physicals 

and any neurological tests, on professional boxers registered in California, 

but it did not make this information available for review during our visit to 

the commission. 

1

Fight Fax, Incorporated, is the official record-keeping body of ABC. 
Appendix III

Selected Boxing Commissions’ 

Documentation of Compliance with the Act’s 

Provisions

Page 34 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Figure 5: Require Minimum Uniform Contractual Terms

Seven of the 10 state or tribal boxing commissions (Florida, Michigan, 

Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, Miccosukee, and Mohegan Sun) had 

documentation at least 75 percent of the time for the provision requiring 

minimum uniform contractual terms between boxers and promoters; the 

Indiana Commission had documentation 50 to 74 percent of the time; and 

the California and Missouri commissions had documentation less than 50 

percent of the time. The Director of the Indiana Boxing Commission said 

that the commission’s representatives were responsible for obtaining 

copies of all contracts between promoters and boxers before an event and 

for ensuring that boxers were paid in accordance with the contractual 

terms. However, contracts between the promoters and boxers were 

missing from most of the commission’s event files. The director said that in 

some cases boxers forgot to forward their bout agreements to the 

commission after the matches. The Executive Officer of the California 

State Athletic Commission said that the contractual agreements between 

boxers and promoters were submitted to the commission before events 

and no events were held unless copies of the agreements were on file. 

However, many of the 2001 event files that we reviewed had no 

documentation of contractual agreements between boxers and promoters. 

No reason was given for the missing contracts. According to a Missouri 

Office of Athletics official, its legal counsel advised the commission against 

requiring boxing contracts because such agreements involved civil matters 

that were outside the jurisdiction of the Missouri Office of Athletics. 
Appendix III

Selected Boxing Commissions’ 

Documentation of Compliance with the Act’s 

Provisions

Page 35 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Figure 6: Require Standards for Rating Boxers to Protect against Mismatches

Nine of the state and tribal boxing commissions (Florida, Indiana, 

Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, Miccosukee, and 

Mohegan Sun) that we reviewed had documentation at least 75 percent of 

the time for the provision requiring standards for rating boxers’, 

considering their records of wins and losses, weight differentials, caliber of 

opponents, and numbers of past fights, to protect against mismatches. The 

California State Athletic Commission was the only commission we 

reviewed that lacked documentation for this provision. According to the 

Executive Officer, the commission reviewed the reports of Fight Fax, 

Incorporated, and the commission’s chief inspector determined whether 

boxers were matched in accordance with their boxing skill levels, but the 

commission did not maintain any records on this process. 

Figure 7: Conduct Prefight Medical Examinations

All 10 of the state and tribal boxing commissions had documentation at 

least 75 percent of the time for the provision requiring medical 

examinations before fights. 
Appendix III

Selected Boxing Commissions’ 

Documentation of Compliance with the Act’s 

Provisions

Page 36 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Figure 8: Ensure Presence of Medical Personnel and Equipment 

Six of the 10 state and tribal boxing commissions (California, Indiana, 

Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Miccosukee) had documentation less 

than 50 percent of the time for the provision requiring the presence of 

appropriate medical personnel and equipment during and after each match. 

Officials from these 6 commissions said that no fight would proceed 

without emergency medical service and an ambulance on-site during 

events, but they did not document their compliance with this requirement. 

Furthermore, in commenting on a draft of this report, the Administrator of 

the Missouri Office of Athletics noted that the act does not require such 

documentation. The Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Mohegan Sun boxing 

commissions documented the presence of emergency medical personnel 

and equipment during the events at least 75 percent of the time. 

Figure 9: Require Health Insurance During Matches

Three of the 10 state and tribal boxing commissions (Florida, Indiana, and 

Michigan) lacked documentation at least 75 percent of the time for the 

provision requiring health insurance for boxers during matches. The 

Florida State Athletic Commission said that it had not documented boxers’ 

health insurance because of a clerical mistake. The Director of the Indiana 

Boxing Commission said that many of the commission’s 2001 event files 
Appendix III

Selected Boxing Commissions’ 

Documentation of Compliance with the Act’s 

Provisions

Page 37 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

were missing documentation of health insurance coverage because in 

Indiana, a majority of the professional boxing events were organized by the 

same promoters, who usually secured an annual policy covering all of the 

events for the year. We asked the official for documentation of health 

insurance coverage for the events whose files were missing such 

documentation. However, this documentation was not made available 

during our review. 

Figure 10: Honor Suspensions Imposed by Other Commissions

Three of the 10 state and tribal boxing commissions (California, Michigan, 

and Nevada) had documentation less than 50 percent of the time indicating 

that they had enforced suspensions of boxers imposed by other 

commissions. Officials from these 3 commissions said that before 

approving fights, they reviewed the suspension information received from 

Fight Fax and the national suspension list to ensure that boxers were not 

participating in events while serving suspensions imposed by other 

commissions. The officials added that although this information was 

reviewed, they did not maintain a record of the information in the event 

files. 
Appendix III

Selected Boxing Commissions’ 

Documentation of Compliance with the Act’s 

Provisions

Page 38 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Figure 11: Require Disclosure of Purses and Payments to Promoters and Judges

All 10 of the state and tribal boxing commissions we reviewed had 

documentation at least 75 percent of the time for the provision requiring 

the disclosure of all purses and amounts paid to promoters. Two of the 10 

commissions (Indiana and Missouri) had documentation less than 75 

percent of the time for the provision requiring the disclosure of amounts 

paid to judges. The Director of the Indiana Boxing Commission said that 

the commission verified all forms of payment before events and ensured 

that all payments were made immediately after the events, but the 

commission did not make this information available during our review. The 

Missouri Office of Athletics said that the commission did not always 

document amounts paid to judges because Missouri law did not require the 

disclosure of such information. The official added that the promoters 

usually pay the judges by check through the Missouri Office of Athletics for 

tax purposes.

Figure 12: Prohibit Conflicts of Interest for Boxers, Promoters, and Commission Representatives
Appendix III

Selected Boxing Commissions’ 

Documentation of Compliance with the Act’s 

Provisions

Page 39 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

The Miccosukee Athletic Commission was the only boxing commission 

with documentation at least 75 percent of the time for the provision that 

calls for ensuring that there are no conflicts of interest for boxers and 

promoters. Officials from the Michigan, Missouri, and Mohegan Sun boxing 

commissions said they were unaware that the provision had been enacted 

in federal law. The Director of the Indiana Boxing Commission said Indiana 

had not experienced any problems with boxers and promoters relating to 

conflicts of interest; therefore, the commission felt documentation for this 

provision was unnecessary. 

The Pennsylvania Athletic Commission was the only boxing commission 

with documentation at least 75 percent of the time for the provision that 

calls for ensuring that there are no conflicts of interest for boxers and 

commission representatives. Officials from the Michigan, Missouri, and 

Mohegan Sun commissions said they were unaware that the provision had 

been enacted in federal law, and officials from the California, Florida, 

Indiana, Nevada, and Texas2

 commissions said they did not maintain 

documentation for this provision because they believed these issues were 

addressed through discussions. 

Figure 13: Require Registration for Boxers and Certification and Approval for Ring Officials

All 10 of the state and tribal boxing commissions we reviewed had 

documentation at least 75 percent of the time for the provision requiring 

boxers to be registered. Two of the 10 commissions (California and 

2

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation 

said that all of its employees are required to sign a certification that they have read the 

department’s conflict of interest policies. However, when we met with the Texas boxing 

commission officials they said there was no documentation of this for us to review.
Appendix III

Selected Boxing Commissions’ 

Documentation of Compliance with the Act’s 

Provisions

Page 40 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Indiana) had documentation less than 50 percent of the time for the 

provision requiring ring officials to be certified and approved. The 

Executive Officer of the California State Athletic Commission said the 

commission documented only current registrations and had purged the 

2001 data from its files. During our review, the Director of the Indiana 

Boxing Commission said the commission was experiencing computer 

problems and could not provide us with the list of ring officials certified 

and approved in 2001. 
Page 41 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Appendix IV

State and Tribal Provisions That Cover 

Additional Health, Safety, Economic, and 

Integrity Elements ApendxiIV

This appendix provides information on the extent to which the 10 states 

and tribes that we reviewed had provisions covering health, safety, 

economic, and integrity elements in addition to those covered by the act. 

The appendix also provides the states’ and tribes’ reasons for not having 

provisions covering certain elements. When reasons are not specified, the 

commissions did not provide them. 

Conduct Postfight 

Medical Examinations, 

Including Neurological 

Testing

None of the 10 state and tribal commissions we reviewed had provisions 

requiring postfight medical examinations, including neurological testing, 

for all boxers who participate in events outside their own jurisdictions. 

Three of the commissions said they did not have provisions requiring 

postfight medical examinations or neurological testing because they did 

not have the financial resources to administer such requirements and it 

would not be feasible to require small promoters or boxers to pay for them. 

However, the California, Indiana, Nevada, Texas, and Pennsylvania boxing 

commissions said they required postfight medical examinations when a 

commission requested that a previously injured boxer obtain a medical 

release before being allowed to fight. 

Monitor Training 

Injuries

California was the only commission that required the monitoring of injuries 

sustained during training before events. Five of the state and tribal boxing 

commissions (Indiana, Missouri, Mohegan Sun, Pennsylvania, and Texas) 

agreed that from a safety perspective, monitoring boxers’ gym activities 

was a good concept, but they said they did not have the personnel or 

financial resources to monitor local gym activities. The Executive Director 

of the Pennsylvania Athletic Commission said that Pennsylvania did not 

require the monitoring of gym injuries before events, but he personally 

visited each local gym once or twice a year to monitor gym activities.

File Postfight Medical 

Reports

Eight of the state and tribal commissions (California, Indiana, Michigan, 

Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Mohegan Sun) required the 

filing of postfight medical reports. The Executive Director of the Florida 

State Athletic Commission said Florida did not require the filing of 

postfight medical reports because the commission and the small promoters 

and boxers did not have the financial resources to pay for physicians to 

conduct such examinations. The official added that in many cases the small 

promoters struggled to pay for the physicians needed to conduct the 

required prefight examinations. The Executive Director of the Miccosukee 
Appendix IV

State and Tribal Provisions That Cover 

Additional Health, Safety, Economic, and 

Integrity Elements 

Page 42 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Athletic Commission said that the commission did not require the filing of 

postfight medical reports; however, he said a medical referral might be 

given to a boxer if the ringside physician suspected that the boxer had been 

injured and a follow-up examination or observation was needed. 

Require Health and Life 

Insurance Before and 

After Fights

None of the state and tribal commissions require that boxers be provided 

with health and life insurance before and after each match. Generally, the 

commissions required the promoters to secure health insurance during a 

match, as the act requires. Some of the policies provided extended 

coverage for medical and accidental death and dismemberment for up to 1 

year following the match. Four of the commissions (Michigan, Missouri, 

Pennsylvania, and Texas) said that providing coverage to boxers before or 

between matches—that is, during training—would be too costly. They 

stated that it is not the commissions’ responsibility to provide coverage, 

since boxers are independent contractors.

Enforce Suspensions 

for Training Injuries

California was the only state that required its commission to suspend 

boxers for training injuries. All of commissions agreed that suspending 

boxers for gym injuries was not feasible because many of the commissions 

were experiencing personnel and budgetary constraints and did not have 

the resources to monitor gym activities. 

Require Pension Plans California was the only state that required pension plans for professional 

boxers. Officials at the other nine commissions said that this was a positive 

initiative; however, six of the commissions (Indiana, Miccosukee, 

Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Texas) questioned the contribution 

sources and basis for qualification. The Boxing Administrator of the Texas 

Boxing and Wrestling Program said that the problems associated with 

pension and retirement plans were similar to those attending the health 

insurance issue and that they were social rather than professional boxing 

issues. According to the Director of the Indiana Boxing Commission, 

pension plans would benefit boxers a great deal, particularly if boxers were 

older and nearing retirement, younger and intending to make a career of 

professional boxing, or injured and without an alternative source of 

income. The official said that problems would arise with funding, because 

promoters have little incentive to fund pension plans for boxers and might 

be unable to afford the additional expense. He said that deducting money 
Appendix IV

State and Tribal Provisions That Cover 

Additional Health, Safety, Economic, and 

Integrity Elements 

Page 43 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

from each boxer’s purse would also be difficult, because most boxers do 

not earn more than a few hundred dollars per bout. 

According to the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Athletic 

Commission, the commission is pursuing funding for pension plans. The 

official added that in 1992, the commission attempted to use its budget 

surplus to start a trust for professional boxers; however, because of 

shortfalls elsewhere in the state’s budget, the funds were expended on 

other projects. The commission is initiating a charitable trust under ABC 

that has received some voluntary contributions thus far. The goal is to 

reach $500,000 in principal and operate the program using the account’s 

interest. The official said that because professional boxers are not 

unionized, a traditional pension fund would not be feasible. 

The Enforcement Division Director of the Michigan Bureau of Commercial 

Services said that the commission views operating a pension plan as 

outside the state’s role to protect the consumer. In addition, the official 

said, promoters operating in Michigan would not be willing to fund a 

pension plan. Officials from the Missouri Office of Athletics and the 

Miccosukee Athletic Commission supported the establishment of a pension 

plan; however, they questioned the feasibility of doing so, since boxers are 

independent contractors. 

Require Disclosure of 

All Purses and 

Payments to Trainers 

and Boxers

Two of the state and tribal boxing commissions (Florida and Mohegan Sun) 

required full and open disclosure of all purses and costs of bouts, with the 

amounts paid to trainers and boxers broken out. According to the 

Executive Officer of the California State Athletic Commission, California 

has no provision requiring the disclosure of all purses and costs to trainers, 

but does require that the amounts paid and costs assessed to boxers be 

disclosed. The Enforcement Division Director of the Michigan Bureau of 

Commercial Services said that the commission did not have a provision 

requiring the disclosure of all purses and costs to trainers and boxers 

because the commission did not enforce any such agreements between 

these parties, as directed by their legal counsel. The Boxing Administrator 

of the Texas Boxing and Wrestling Program said that Texas only had 

provisions requiring the disclosure of all purses and costs to promoters and 

boxers. However, the Texas official said that the organization documented 

information on the fees that the trainers were paid from the boxer’s purse, 

although there was no requirement for such documentation. 
Appendix IV

State and Tribal Provisions That Cover 

Additional Health, Safety, Economic, and 

Integrity Elements 

Page 44 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Prohibit Conflicts of 

Interest for Judges and 

Referees

Eight state and tribal commissions (Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, 

Pennsylvania, Texas, Miccosukee, and Mohegan Sun) prohibited conflicts 

of interest for judges and referees. According to the Missouri Office of 

Athletics official, the commission has provisions for ensuring that there are 

no conflicts of interest for state boxing commission representatives. The 

official did not explain why the provisions do not address conflicts of 

interest for managers, judges, and referees. The Enforcement Division 

Director of the Michigan Bureau of Commercial Services said that a 

number of state officials resigned after the act established conflict of 

interest standards. 

Require Registration 

and Training for 

Trainers, Managers, 

Promoters, and 

Physicians

Missouri was the only commission we reviewed with a provision requiring 

trainers, managers, promoters, and physicians to be registered and receive 

training. Officials from six of the commissions (California, Florida, Indiana, 

Miccosukee, Pennsylvania, and Texas) said that they had provisions 

requiring these occupations to be registered, but because of limited 

financial resources, the provisions governing training were applicable only 

to physicians and ring officials. 

Preclude Sanctioning 

Organizations from 

Exercising Undue 

Influence

Seven of the 10 state and tribal commissions (California, Florida, Missouri, 

Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Mohegan Sun) we reviewed had 

provisions for selecting judges and ensuring that sanctioning organizations 

do not influence the selection process. 

Select Uniform Boxing 

and Scoring Rules

All 10 of the commissions we reviewed had provisions for selecting the 

boxing and scoring rules for events, such as ABC’s rules for championship 

events.

Require Boxing 

Knowledge for 

Commission Officials

Seven of the 10 commissions (California, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, 

Pennsylvania, Texas, and Miccosukee) had provisions that require officials 

who serve on boxing commissions to have knowledge of professional 

boxing. According to the Administrator of the Missouri Office of Athletics, 

the governor appoints the officials serving on the state’s boxing 

commission, and, as a result, some of these officials may not have a 
Appendix IV

State and Tribal Provisions That Cover 

Additional Health, Safety, Economic, and 

Integrity Elements 

Page 45 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

professional boxing background or knowledge. Similarly, representatives 

of the Mohegan Tribe appoint the officials serving on the Mohegan Tribal 

Gaming Commission Athletic Unit and therefore, according to the unit’s 

legal counsel, some of the officials may not have an extensive background 

in boxing. However, this has not been the commission’s experience, the 

counsel said.
Page 46 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Appendix V

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApendxiV

In analyzing the adequacy of efforts to protect the health, safety, and 

economic well-being of professional boxers and to enhance the integrity of 

the sport, our objectives were to (1) identify fundamental elements 

considered important to address the major health and safety, economic, 

and integrity problems facing professional boxing; (2) assess the extent to 

which the act’s provisions cover these elements and whether selected state 

and tribal boxing commissions have documentation indicating compliance 

with the act’s provisions; (3) assess the extent to which selected states and 

tribes have adopted provisions that cover fundamental elements in addition 

to those covered in the act; and (4) determine what actions the Department 

of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have taken under the 

act.

To identify fundamental elements that are considered important to address 

the major health and safety, economic, and integrity problems facing 

professional boxing, we reviewed recent congressional testimony and 

studies conducted by a task force of the National Association of Attorneys 

General, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the 

Department of Labor. From these sources, which documented problems in 

the boxing industry and made recommendations to address them, we 

identified major problems facing the sport and consolidated the 

recommendations into 15 fundamental elements that, if implemented, 

could provide an adequate level of health, safety, and economic protection 

to boxers and help enhance the integrity of the sport. We discussed these 

elements with the Association of Boxing Commissions, which agreed that 

the elements could provide the desired protection and enhancement.

To assess the extent to which the act’s provisions cover the fundamental 

elements we identified, we analyzed the act’s provisions and determined 

how many cover fundamental elements, either fully or partially. To assess 

the extent to which selected state and tribal boxing commissions have 

documented their compliance with the act’s provisions, we identified 8 of 

the 46 state boxing commissions and 2 of the 8 tribal boxing commissions 

for review. We looked at provisions in the act that were related to the 15 

fundamental elements. The eight states are California, Florida, Indiana, 

Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Nevada; the two tribes are 

the Mohegan Sun (Connecticut) and the Miccosukee (Florida). We selected 

California, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Texas because 

they held the largest number of professional boxing events in calendar year 

2001, the most recent year for which complete data were available. We 

selected Michigan and Indiana to represent states that held a smaller 

number of events in calendar year 2001 than the other states selected. We 
Appendix V

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 47 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

selected the Miccosukee and Mohegan Sun tribes because they were the 

Indian tribes that held the largest number of professional boxing events in 

calendar year 2001. The state and tribal commission we selected accounted 

for 49 percent of all professional boxing events held in the United States 

during calendar year 2001. 

At the Indiana, Michigan, Miccosukee, and Mohegan Sun commissions, we 

reviewed the cases files for all professional boxing events held in 2001, and 

at the remaining commissions, we reviewed the case files for a random 

selection of professional boxing events held in 2001. Because we randomly 

selected boxing events in these states for review, our sample for each of 

these states is just one of many samples we could have drawn. Since each 

sample could have produced a different estimate, we express our 

confidence in the precision of the estimates for our particular samples 

using 95 percent confidence intervals. These are ranges within which we 

are confident that 95 out of 100 samples drawn from these particular events 

would include the true value for all the events in the state. All the estimates 

based on sample data in table 3 have 95 percent confidence intervals not 

exceeding plus or minus 10 percentage points, unless otherwise indicated. 

To present the results of our case file reviews, we divided the actual or 

estimated percentages of cases with documentation into three compliance 

categories: 75 to 100 percent, 50 to 74 percent, and below 50 percent. We 

did not independently verify the documented compliance, and the results 

of our reviews at these 10 commissions cannot be generalized to all boxing 

events held nationwide during 2001.

The documentation that we reviewed at the selected commissions varied. 

Because the act does not require documentation and the commissions have 

no uniform record-keeping standards, we considered all types of 

documentation maintained and provided to us by the commissions for our 

review. Such documentation included pre- and post-fight medical 

examination check sheets, insurance coverage forms, copies of contracts 

between boxers and promoters, event sheets identifying boxers’ 

registration numbers, promoters’ revenue reports to commissions, and 

statements of independence signed by ring officials.

To assess the extent to which selected states and tribes have adopted 

provisions that cover fundamental elements in addition to those covered in 

the act, we reviewed the boxing provisions enacted by the eight states and 

two tribes and identified provisions that cover fundamental elements or 

portions of fundamental elements that the act does not cover. We 

confirmed with the boxing commissions of these states and tribes that they 
Appendix V

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 48 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

agreed with our analysis of their provisions, and we asked these officials 

why their state or tribe had not enacted provisions covering additional 

fundamental elements. Our findings for these selected states and tribes 

cannot be generalized to all 46 states and eight tribes. We did not assess the 

extent to which the states and tribes had implemented or enforced the 

provisions that cover additional fundamental elements. 

To determine what actions the Department of Justice and FTC have taken 

under the act, we determined the role that each is assigned under the act. 

We then met with Justice officials to identify whether any investigations or 

prosecutions had been conducted under the act in the jurisdictions of the 

eight state and two tribal commissions in 2001. In addition, we reviewed 

Justice’s central case management system for possible cases prosecuted 

during fiscal years 1996 through 2002. We also met with FTC officials to 

determine whether they had received consumer complaints related to the 

boxing industry. Furthermore, to determine that the sanctioning 

organizations were making the required information available to the public, 

we reviewed the Internet Web sites of 14 sanctioning organizations. 

We performed our work in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards from September 2002 through July 2003 in Washington, 

D.C., and at the following state or tribal boxing commission locations: 

California State Athletic Commission, Sacramento, California; Florida State 

Athletic Commission, Tallahassee, Florida; Indiana Boxing Commission, 

Indianapolis, Indiana; Michigan Bureau of Commercial Services, Lansing, 

Michigan; Missouri Office of Athletics, Jefferson City, Missouri; Nevada 

Athletic Commission, Las Vegas, Nevada; Pennsylvania Athletic 

Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Texas Boxing and Wrestling 

Program, Austin, Texas; Miccosukee Athletic Commission, Miami, Florida; 

and the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Commission Athletic Unit, Uncasville, 

Connecticut.
Page 49 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Appendix VI

Comments from the Association of Boxing 

Commissions ApendxiVI
Appendix VI

Comments from the Association of Boxing 

Commissions

Page 50 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing
Page 51 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Appendix VII

Comments from the Missouri Office of 

Athletics ApendxiVI
Appendix VII

Comments from the Missouri Office of 

Athletics

Page 52 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing
Page 53 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Appendix VIII

Comments from the Miccosukee Athletic 

Commission ApendxiVI
Appendix VIII

Comments from the Miccosukee Athletic 

Commission

Page 54 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing
Appendix VIII

Comments from the Miccosukee Athletic 

Commission

Page 55 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing
Appendix VIII

Comments from the Miccosukee Athletic 

Commission

Page 56 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing
Appendix VIII

Comments from the Miccosukee Athletic 

Commission

Page 57 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing
Appendix VIII

Comments from the Miccosukee Athletic 

Commission

Page 58 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing
Page 59 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Appendix IX

Comments from the Mohegan Tribal Gaming 

Commission Athletic Unit ApendxiIX
Page 60 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Appendix X

Comments from the Pennsylvania Athletic 

Commission ApendxiX
Appendix X

Comments from the Pennsylvania Athletic 

Commission

Page 61 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing
Page 62 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Appendix XI

Comments from the Texas Department of 

Licensing and Regulations ApendxiXI
Appendix XI

Comments from the Texas Department of 

Licensing and Regulations

Page 63 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing
Page 64 GAO-03-699 Professional Boxing

Appendix XII

Contacts and Contributors ApendxiXI

Contact John S. Baldwin, Sr. (202) 512-2834

Contributors Frederick Lyles, Jr., John Vocino, Bernice Benta, Christopher Factor, 

Elizabeth Eisenstadt, Jerry Sandau, Brandon Haller, Bert Japikse, and 

Sidney Schwartz

(543027)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00