The Boxing Scene

No One Is Enforcing the Federal Boxing Laws

This was the first in a series of articles I wrote for ESPN.com. No One Is Enforcing the Federal Boxing Laws B oxing is allowed to exist as an exception to state laws against violence on the premise that it will be regulated in a manner that protects the combatants physically and financially. In 1996, when it became clear that the individual states were not properly protecting boxers , congress enacted the Professional Boxing Safety Act. Four years later, that law was augmented by the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act. These two pieces of legislation, taken together, are commonly referred to as the “Ali Act.” As well-intentioned as it might be, the Ali Act suffers from glaring flaws. First, it accepts the present form of piecemeal state regulation. Second , it has too many loopholes. And most significantly, no one is enforcing it. Many people in boxing today simply ignore the act’s requirements. And virtually no one in a position of authority with regard to enforcement is doing anything to remedy the situation. The Ali Act requires that each sanctioning organization file a “complete description of the organization’s ratings criteria” annually with the Federal Trade Commission. In the alternative, a sanctioning body may post the information on its official website. The WBC, WBA, IBF, and WBO all purport to do so. But their actual ratings practices mock the law. An incomplete or false filing falls short of compliance. The law mandates that, when promoting a fight, a promoter file with the supervising state athletic commission copies of all agreements to which the promoter and one or both of the boxers are parties. It also requires that the promoter disclose to each boxer “the amounts of any compensation or consideration that a promoter has contracted to receive from such match.” These requirements are largely ignored. State athletic commission personnel also violate the act when it serves their purposes. In a section entitled “conflicts of interest,” the law declares, “No member or employee of a boxing commission, no person who administers or enforces state boxing laws, and no member of the Association of Boxing Commissions may receive any compensation from any person who sanctions, arranges, or promotes professional boxing matches.” However, in Nevada, each of the state’s five commissioners is given six tickets in addition to his own seat for every fight card held in Nevada. These tickets are provided by the promoter. Two of them must be ringside. The other four tickets may be anywhere in the arena that the promoter chooses. The purported goal of this rule is to eliminate the embarrassment and abuse that have come in the past from commissioners asking promoters for free tickets. These tickets are no small matter. For De La Hoya–Mayweather, six ringside tickets had a face value of $12,000 and were being resold on the Internet and elsewhere for multiples of that amount. Also, ringside tickets can be in the first row or the last. “Anywhere in the arena” can mean more ringside tickets or nosebleed seats. That leaves a lot of room for favors. From April 24 through April 29 of this year, more than 300 ring physicians and other state athletic commission personnel attended the WBC’s World Medical Congress in Cancun, Mexico. In addition to the medical agenda, those present enjoyed fine dining, cocktail parties, golf, and other forms of entertainment. Who paid what for whom is an issue. On May 2, 2007, the Association of Boxing Commission’s (ABC) legal committee acted upon information it had received indicating that the executive directors of two state athletic commissions had attended the WBC medical congress and accepted money from the WBC to cover hotel room charges, meals, and other costs. It was also brought to the attention of the committee that the same two executive directors might have stayed at the hotel at WBC expense for an additional two days following the close of the medical congress. The matter was referred to the ABC disciplinary committee , which, five months later, still has the matter “under advisement.” A number of ring physicians are thought to have benefited from similar “stipends.” Some state athletic commissions take the position that referees, judges, and ring doctors fall within the purview of the Ali Act. Others have a contrary view. However, everyone agrees that the executive director of a state athletic commission is covered by the law. Thus, it should also be noted that, at the IBF...