“If this bill passes, fighters will have fewer choices, less leverage and less control over their careers,” De La Hoya told the committee. “When that happens, it won’t be the sport that failed them. It will be us.”
De La Hoya also rooted his opposition in personal experience, saying he signed his first professional contract when he was young without fully understanding it and later realized he had been exploited. He said many fighters still enter boxing in the same position, trust the wrong people and get caught up in bad deals.
He argued the new proposal would create two different standards within the same sport, with traditional promoters still bound by disclosure rules, while unified boxing organizations would gain broader control.
“One system operates under transparency and accountability while the UBOs do not,” said De La Hoya.
The concern is no longer hypothetical. Zuffa has already attracted names including Jai Opetaia, Richardson Hitchins, Jose “Rayo” Valenzuela, Conor Benn and Edgar Berlanga, showing that it is moving quickly to establish a roster.
Muhammad Ali’s grandson, Nico Ali Walsh, supported De La Hoya’s stance, saying the issue goes beyond branding or nostalgia.
“When one system controls access, choice becomes theoretical, not real,” Walsh told senators. He later added that the revised bill should not bear his grandfather’s name.
Nick Khan, who spoke in support of the proposal, argued that boxing’s current structure was already alienating fans. He said the WBC alone recognizes 163 champions across 18 weight classes and pointed out that major broadcasters such as HBO, Showtime, ESPN, Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS have left the sport over time.
Khan’s argument is built on the “163 champions” problem. He is not wrong that the average fan is exhausted by the alphabet soup of belts, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO. His contention is that a “Unified Boxing Organization” (UBO) creates a product that people actually want to watch, which theoretically brings more money into the sport.
Supporters are clamoring for better medical coverage and guaranteed pay per round to sway lawmakers who care more about athlete welfare than promotional politics.
This may appeal to fighters looking for a cleaner route up. Others will hear something else: one company trying to own the way to the top. Boxing has long sold freedom, even if it came with chaos. This fight is about whether that freedom is about to become much smaller.
De La Hoya’s strongest point was about the loss of leverage. Highlighting his own early-career struggles, he reminded the committee that the Ali Act was created specifically to stop the “one company, one boss” model that he argues Zuffa wants to replicate.
Oscar was very forthright about the funding and compared the Zuffa/TKO push to LIV Golf. He pitched it as a corporate takeover financed by foreign capital that would strip the independent contractor status that boxers have fought to maintain for decades.
Nico’s argument was about the legacy of warrior rights as well as business. When he said that “choice becomes theoretical” under a centralized system, he hit on the exact fear many purists have: that boxing will become a “take it or leave it” league like the UFC.
The bill has already cleared the House with a unanimous vote, which is a massive hurdle to clear already. With Senator Ted Cruz as chairman of the Commerce Committee and the general political momentum toward “modernizing” sports to compete with the MMA model, Zuffa has a very clear path.
The sentiment in the room seemed to be that while Oscar and Nico won the “emotional” battle, the “business” battle may already be decided. If the Senate views boxing as a “failing” industry that needs a corporate savior to survive, they will likely move the bill forward.
