Full Breakdown of the Questions for the Record Between Rep. Omar and TKO on H.R. 4624

BoxingInsider.com Staff Report

Following a December 4, 2025 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, TKO Group Holdings submitted written responses to eleven questions posed by Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) regarding H.R. 4624, the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act. The document is the most detailed public statement TKO has made about how it intends to operate a Unified Boxing Organization.

The bill, introduced in July 2025 by Representatives Brian Jack (R-GA) and Sharice Davids (D-KS), would amend the existing Ali Act to formally authorize UBOs — a league-style alternative that would exist alongside the current promotional and sanctioning body structure. The bill advanced out of committee on a 30-4 vote in January 2026 and still needs to pass the full House and Senate.

Omar, the subcommittee’s ranking member, used the QFR process to get answers on specifics the boxing industry has been watching closely. In her opening remarks at the hearing, she described herself as a fan of both boxing and MMA and said she came to the issue “not just as a legislator, but as someone who admires the courage and craft of fighters.” Here is what she asked and how TKO responded.

Rankings, Titles, and Oversight

Omar asked how rankings and title shots would be determined within a Zuffa Boxing UBO, who would serve on ranking committees, whether any independent body would have oversight, and how fighters who challenge pay or contract terms would be protected from retaliation in matchmaking.

TKO said it does not rank its own fighters in the UFC and would follow the same approach in boxing, with rankings compiled by a panel of media members. The company argued that the Ali Act’s original legislative findings identified fragmentation and collusion between promoters and sanctioning organizations as the core problem — not the concept of a single entity contracting with fighters and maintaining rankings. TKO said matchmaking decisions would be subject to public scrutiny from fighters, media, and fans.

On title fights specifically, TKO said fighters would not be charged sanctioning fees for the right to challenge or defend a UBO championship.

Financial Disclosure

Omar asked whether Zuffa Boxing would commit to full disclosure of event revenues, media rights fees, and league fees to boxers and state regulators.

TKO said UBOs would comply with all required state athletic commission disclosures. On fighter-side disclosures, TKO argued that the Ali Act’s requirement to disclose revenues from each individual bout doesn’t translate well to a UBO model built around multi-year media deals, where assigning revenue to specific bouts requires arbitrary allocations. In the UBO model, TKO said, fighter compensation is established upfront in contracts negotiated with the help of managers and attorneys.

Mandatory Challengers

Omar asked whether a boxer who keeps winning would be guaranteed a title shot, even if that fighter isn’t a commercial draw.

TKO said no formal mandatory challenger system would be in place. The company argued that the UBO has every incentive to hold championship bouts and match the best against the best, and pointed to the current system’s proliferation of champions across multiple sanctioning bodies as evidence that mandatory designations haven’t served fighters or fans well. TKO said a UBO’s finite roster and publicly disclosed media-panel rankings would create natural accountability.

Antitrust Settlement

Omar raised TKO’s $375 million settlement in the Le v. Zuffa class action and asked whether similar contract provisions would be used in Zuffa Boxing. TKO said it made a business decision to settle a decade of litigation with no admission of fault, and declined to comment further due to pending related litigation.

Market Competition

Omar expressed concern that TKO could become the only viable UBO and asked whether the company would commit to avoiding exclusivity in media or venue contracts.

TKO did not make that commitment. The company pointed to the MMA industry as a comparable market, citing the Professional Fighters League’s ESPN broadcasting deal and noting that fighters regularly move between MMA promotions. TKO said it views competition as healthy for the sport and noted the Revival Act does not cap the number of UBOs that can form. Of course, boxing already has an active competitive landscape of promoters producing events at every level across the country — the question going forward is how a UBO track interacts with that existing ecosystem.

Fighter Contracts

Omar asked whether Zuffa Boxing would require mandatory arbitration, class action waivers, or other provisions limiting fighters’ legal rights. TKO said its proposed contracts would include clauses commonly used in athlete agreements and would be subject to negotiation with fighters’ representatives.

On whether UBO-signed fighters could participate in non-UBO bouts, including fights for WBA, WBC, IBF, or WBO titles, TKO said the Revival Act does not prevent it but that specifics would be a matter of contract negotiation. The company said it generally intends to hold intra-UBO bouts.

Amendments adopted during markup added several fighter protections: UBO contracts capped at six years, a 30-day free agency communication window, a requirement to arrange at least one fight every six months or provide $2,000 per month in guaranteed compensation, an increase in the federal minimum pay from $150 to $200 per round, increased insurance minimums, accidental death coverage, and random drug testing requirements.

Foreign Investment

Omar asked TKO to outline the ownership structure of Zuffa Boxing, including equity held by entities connected to the Saudi Public Investment Fund, and whether foreign investors hold any veto power over scheduling, fighter contracts, or media rights.

TKO confirmed that Sela Company, owned by the Saudi Public Investment Fund, holds an equity stake. The company said TKO is authorized to make all operational decisions, described the partnership as strictly financial, and said investment partners would have no operational role. Specific ownership terms were described as confidential.

Legislative Necessity

Omar noted that Dana White told CBS Sports in September 2025 that there would be “zero changes to the Muhammad Ali Act” and that Zuffa Boxing would operate within the existing framework. She asked why the legislation was necessary if TKO could already do what it planned to do.

TKO acknowledged it has launched Zuffa Boxing within the current legal framework, having already staged events and signed a five-year media deal with Paramount. But the company said the legislation would remove ambiguity about which Ali Act provisions apply to a UBO model, providing regulatory clarity for Zuffa Boxing and any future UBOs.

Ongoing Litigation

Omar asked TKO to identify all ongoing litigation and active investigations involving UFC, WWE, or TKO Group. The company stated it was unaware of any such matters.

The Full Document

The QFR exchange covers eleven questions and runs several pages. It is the most substantive on-the-record exchange between Congress and TKO about how the UBO model would function in practice. The bill has support from Lonnie Ali, Mike Tyson, the Association of Boxing Commissions, and major arena operators including Madison Square Garden Entertainment and MGM Resorts.

The full Questions for the Record document is available here. For anyone in the boxing business — promoters, managers, fighters, and commissions alike — it’s worth reading in full.