Professional Boxing: Issues Related to the Protection of Boxers' Health, Safety, and Economic Interests
Published: 2003-07-21T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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, 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.
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 matches 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  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 8 of the 46 state boxing  commissions and 2 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Fundamental Elements Considered Important to Address Health and Safety and Economic Problems Facing Professional Boxing
paragraphs: According to our review of congressional testimonies and national studies  on professional boxing dating from 1994 through 2002, 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.
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   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;   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.
section_title: 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
paragraphs: 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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Selected Boxing Commissions’ Documentation of Compliance Varied
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Selected States and Tribes Vary in the Extent to Which Their Provisions Cover Additional Fundamental Elements
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Federal Action under the Act Has Been Limited
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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  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.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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  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  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.
section_title: Professional Boxing Events Held in the United States during Calendar Year 2001
paragraphs: State or Indian tribal  commission Miccosukee (FL)
Mohegan Sun (CT)
Mashantucket Pequot (CT)
1% (Continued From Previous Page)
State or Indian tribal  commission Washington, D.C.
Saginaw Chippewa (MI)
Pueblo de San Juan (NM)
Oneida (NY)
Yakahama Nation (WA)
section_title: Fundamental Elements to Address Health and Safety, Economic, and Integrity Problems in Professional Boxing
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Health and Safety
subsections: section_title: Conduct Medical Examinations, Including Neurological Testing
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: Monitor Training Injuries
paragraphs: 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 pre- 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.
section_title: Evaluate Medical Information and Assess Risks
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Ensure Presence of Medical Personnel and Equipment and File Postfight Reports
paragraphs: In 2001, a representative of the Nevada Attorney General testified 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 Association 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   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 testified 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.
section_title: Require Health and Life Insurance
paragraphs: 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 testified 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,  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.
section_title: Enforce Suspensions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Economic Protection
subsections: section_title: Require Pension Plans for Boxers
paragraphs: 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 1999 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, 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  defined benefit plan, and a disability income and survivor’s benefit  program.
section_title: Disclose Purses and Break Out Payments
paragraphs: In 1997, a reporter testified 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.
section_title: Prohibit Conflicts of Interest
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Establish Uniform Contractual Terms
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Integrity of the Sport
subsections: section_title: Require Registration and Training for Judges, Referees, and Others
paragraphs: A Nevada State Athletic Commission official testified in 1994 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.
Promoters and managers should be licensed and regulated.
section_title: Prevent Undue Influence
paragraphs: The president of ABC testified in 2002 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.
section_title: Require Uniform Boxing and Scoring Rules
paragraphs: In June 1996, a former Nevada Athletic Commission official testified 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.
section_title: Review Sanctioning Organizations’ Rankings
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Require Knowledge of Professional Boxing for Commission Officials
paragraphs: In 2002, an entertainment manager testified 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.
section_title: Selected Boxing Commissions’ Documentation of Compliance with the Act’s Provisions
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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  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.
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.
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.
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 Texas commissions said they did not maintain  documentation for this provision because they believed these issues were  addressed through discussions.
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  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.
section_title: State and Tribal Provisions That Cover Additional Health, Safety, Economic, and Integrity Elements
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Conduct Postfight Medical Examinations, Including Neurological Testing
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Monitor Training Injuries
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: File Postfight Medical Reports
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Require Health and Life Insurance Before and After Fights
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Enforce Suspensions for Training Injuries
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Require Pension Plans
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Require Disclosure of All Purses and Payments to Trainers and Boxers
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Prohibit Conflicts of Interest for Judges and Referees
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Require Registration and Training for Trainers, Managers, Promoters, and Physicians
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Preclude Sanctioning Organizations from Exercising Undue Influence
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Select Uniform Boxing and Scoring Rules
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Require Boxing Knowledge for Commission Officials
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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  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  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.
section_title: Comments from the Association of Boxing Commissions
section_title: Comments from the Missouri Office of Athletics
section_title: Comments from the Miccosukee Athletic Commission
section_title: Comments from the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Commission Athletic Unit
section_title: Comments from the Pennsylvania Athletic Commission
section_title: Comments from the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulations
section_title: Contacts and Contributors
subsections: section_title: Contact
section_title: Contributors
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: 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 full- text 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.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs