In the world of combat sports, boxing and mixed martial arts (MMA) operate under vastly different rules — not just inside the ring or the cage, but behind the scenes where contracts are written, earnings are negotiated, and careers are shaped.
At the center of this divide is a federal law called the Muhammad Ali Act, passed in 2000 to protect boxers from exploitation by promoters and managers. The law requires transparency, financial disclosure, and ranking accountability. It prevents promoters from also acting as a boxer’s manager — a conflict of interest that often leads to abuse.
But the UFC, led by its brash and powerful president Dana White, doesn’t fall under this law. And if he had his way, boxing would be brought under the same system that governs MMA — a system where the promoter holds all the cards.
The UFC Model: Control, Contracts, and Capped Earnings
The UFC is not just an event promoter. It is the league, the matchmaker, the marketer, and the gatekeeper to titles and fame. Unlike boxing, which has multiple promoters and sanctioning bodies, the UFC is a closed ecosystem, with fighters often locked into long-term, exclusive contracts that restrict their ability to negotiate, switch organizations, or fight outside the promotion.
Even the UFC’s biggest stars have limitations. Conor McGregor, arguably the most marketable fighter in UFC history, had to enter the boxing world to earn his largest payday — the 2017 superfight with Floyd Mayweather Jr., which reportedly earned McGregor over $100 million. But even then, McGregor couldn’t act freely. He needed the UFC’s permission to take the fight, or he agreed out of loyalty to Dana White. Either way, it illustrates a key issue: UFC fighters are not in control of their careers.
Boxing’s Independent Model — and Its Fragile Future
Boxing, for all its flaws and fragmentation, offers fighters more freedom. Multiple promoters, sanctioning bodies, and television networks compete for talent. This competitive structure, combined with the protections of the Ali Act, allows fighters — especially elite ones — to negotiate massive payouts.
Names like Oscar De La Hoya, Mike Tyson, Floyd Mayweather, and Canelo Álvarez each generated hundreds of millions of dollars in career earnings — largely because boxing allowed multiple promoters and sponsors to bid on their fights, and because the Ali Act required transparency around event revenues.
If the Ali Act were weakened or eliminated — or if boxing were pulled into a UFC-style model — these kinds of paydays would disappear. Boxing would mirror the UFC, where even champions and pay-per-view draws earn a fraction of what elite boxers make.
Why Dana White Would Love That
From a business perspective, Dana White has every reason to support a model that gives promoters more power and fighters fewer options. In a UFC-style system, there’s no competition for talent, no open bidding for events, and fighter earnings are capped — sometimes significantly.
By weakening or destroying boxing’s current system, the UFC could:
- Pull elite boxing talent into exclusive, UFC-like contracts
- Cap fighter earnings across the board
- Control media rights and sponsorships
- Eliminate the leverage that independent fighters currently enjoy
This would centralize control in a way that favors the promoter — not the fighter.
But Would Some Fighters Benefit?
Surprisingly, yes — at least in the short term. While elite boxers earn tens of millions, most professional boxers struggle financially. Without strong promotional backing or access to global markets, fighters — especially from less-developed nations — often fight for very little pay, and it can take years to build a lucrative career.
In a UFC-style system:
- Fighters might earn more consistent paychecks
- Promotions could offer year-round fights and steady exposure
- The risk of being “unpromoted” or “unknown” would decrease
In other words, if you’re a boxer from a country with limited boxing infrastructure, a UFC-like model might seem like a better deal in the short run — even if it means sacrificing long-term earning potential.
But the catch is this: Once you sign the deal, your earnings are capped. Your options are limited. And your promoter holds the keys to your future.
Fighter Freedom vs. Corporate Control
Top UFC fighters like Georges St-Pierre, Khabib Nurmagomedov, and Francis Ngannou have either retired early, sat out for long periods, or left the promotion entirely due to contract issues. Fighters are often discouraged from negotiating across organizations, and with only one UFC title per division, athletes have no leverage.
In contrast, pro wrestlers in the WWE, for example, have been known to jump ship to other promotions like AEW or NJPW when the money is better or the creative direction is more appealing. This kind of freedom and fluidity simply doesn’t exist in the UFC, largely because the UFC has structured its business to lock talent in, while maximizing profits for the company — not the athletes.
Boxing still offers that freedom — for now.
The Bigger Picture
The push to reshape combat sports into the UFC model is part of a broader trend of corporate consolidation and centralized control — trends that often come at the expense of the worker, the athlete, or the artist.
If boxing’s current system is dismantled, and the Ali Act is either weakened or ignored, the sport could be transformed into a closed business, where fighter pay is consistent but capped, and where only the promoters — not the athletes — reap the lion’s share of revenue.
That might benefit some in the short term. But over time, it would likely erode the competitive integrity, financial freedom, and legacy potential of boxing as we know it.
A Final Word
There’s a spiritual element to this as well. Control vs. freedom is not just an economic issue — it’s a moral and philosophical one. In the Christian worldview, God grants us free will — the ability to choose, to grow, and to walk our own path. The alternative is coercion, which reflects the systems of the world, not the Kingdom of God.
Boxers today — just like all of us — deserve the freedom to choose their path, to reap the rewards of their labor, and to negotiate from a place of dignity. When those freedoms are stripped away in the name of efficiency or “fairness,” we edge closer to a world where human value is measured by corporate convenience, not individual worth.
Consider making Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior today.
He offers true freedom, everlasting value, and a path that leads not to exploitation — but to life.
