WBA President Sounds Off on Tom Brown After Brown’s Support of Ali Act Changes Becomes Public
- Matthew Brown
- 9 minutes ago
- 5 min read
09/24/2025
The heated debate over the future of federal boxing regulation took a dramatic turn when a revelation at a recent California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) meeting triggered a wave of outrage across the sport. During the session, CSAC executive director Andy Foster disclosed that Tom Brown, president of TGB Promotions and the lead promoter for Al Haymon’s Premier Boxing Champions (PBC), had formally expressed support for the TKO-led proposals to amend the Muhammad Ali Act.
Foster’s disclosure came as the commission attempted to rubber-stamp approval for the controversial proposal, which had already drawn 100% negative public feedback. The sheer volume of objections—from boxing reporters, attorneys, trainers, managers, fans, and even former UFC fighters—forced the committee to postpone its vote until December. Foster revealed that Brown had written a letter backing the changes, a revelation that stunned many in the sport and quickly became a flashpoint for debate.
Does Brown’s letter represent a visionary effort to save a struggling sport—or a dangerous step toward the kind of promoter-controlled monopoly the Ali Act was meant to prevent?
The most high-profile backlash came from World Boxing Association (WBA) President Gilberto Mendoza, who voiced his displeasure in an interview with ESPN’s Bernardo Pilatti. Mendoza did not hold back:
“Well, you saw that tweet. Tom Brown is for the bill to change the Muhammad Ali Act. I don’t like that because, well, a lot of criticism we have received is being supportive of PBC. I won’t deny it. He supported it by writing [to the California State Athletic Commission].”
The WBA has long faced accusations of favoring PBC fighters, and Mendoza appeared frustrated—almost betrayed—that Brown, one of PBC’s key promoters, would back a measure critics say would weaken the sanctioning bodies and the very protections the Ali Act was designed to uphold.
Mendoza’s comments struck at the heart of an increasingly heated fight for the soul of boxing, but they also highlighted the political undercurrents that critics say have made such a proposal possible—or even necessary.
He went further, addressing industry speculation that Brown might be positioning himself to join TKO:
“Tom, whom I respect, there’s no indifference with him. If he wants to leave to TKO, fine, go. If you’re saying he’s going to TKO, perfect, but I didn’t like it. If you want to go against us after we helped you, obviously you’re not going to be welcomed and it’s not just me, it’s other members who read what’s going on.”
The legislation Brown supports is known as H.R. 4624, or the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act (MAABRA). It would dramatically reshape the regulatory landscape of professional boxing by introducing a new category alongside the traditional sanctioning bodies: the Unified Boxing Organization (UBO).
A UBO would run its own rankings, crown its own champions, and stage its own events—essentially functioning as both a sanctioning body and a promoter. Critics argue that this model would render the long-established sanctioning bodies—including the WBA, WBC, IBF, and WBO—effectively obsolete.
The proposal comes as TKO Group Holdings, the parent company of the UFC, announced in March that it had joined forces with Turki Alalshikh, chairman of Saudi Arabia’s General Entertainment Authority, to launch a new boxing promotion. This venture is widely viewed as the driving force behind the legislation, which opponents claim would give TKO unprecedented control over the sport.
First enacted in 2000 as an amendment to the 1996 Professional Boxing Safety Act, the Muhammad Ali Act was designed to protect boxers from exploitative contracts and conflicts of interest. It sought to ensure athlete autonomy and an open market by preventing promoters from manipulating rankings or coercing fighters into unfair deals.
The act’s protections stand in stark contrast to practices that UFC fighters have long alleged against their own promotion. The UFC recently agreed to pay $375 million to settle an antitrust lawsuit in which fighters accused the company of operating an illegal monopsony, using anti-competitive business practices to suppress fighter wages and stifle rival promotions.
Critics argue that the proposed amendments would, in effect, import the UFC model into boxing, rolling back key safeguards the Ali Act was meant to enforce.
Few have been as vocal in opposition as Pat English, famed boxing attorney and general counsel for the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC). English, who helped draft both the Professional Boxer Health and Safety Act and the Muhammad Ali Act, offered a scathing critique:
“When John McCain and his staff drafted the Acts there was no agenda but one. That agenda was to make boxing better, safer, and more fair to boxers. There was no intent at all to favor any single promotional entity. That is not the case here. The clear intent is to favor a single promotional entity. The bill was substantially drafted by lobbyists for that entity, to wit Zuffa and its various subdivisions.”
English warned that the proposed amendment would destroy the firewall between promoters and ratings organizations, the very safeguard meant to prevent conflicts of interest. He cited historical abuses, including the conviction of former IBF President Bob Lee, as evidence of why these protections remain vital.
Among his concerns:
• Erosion of fighter protections, such as bans on coercive contracts and mandatory disclosures.
• Weakening of anti-doping enforcement, including the risk of promoters concealing drug-test results.
• Closed-system rankings that could exclude fighters unaffiliated with the new entity.
• Potential constitutional issues, including the creation of “two classes of promoters.”
He also highlighted the irony that the proposed law excludes MMA fighters, even though the UFC’s business practices inspired the legislation.
“The proposed amendment would create two classes of promoters. From an equal protection analysis this would seem inappropriate and potentially unconstitutional… It lessens protections for boxers and is designed for a single purpose—to allow the new Zuffa boxing entity to avoid restrictions designed to protect boxers. I respectfully submit this is an ignoble goal.”
Despite the wave of criticism, Brown laid out his reasoning in a letter to House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg and Ranking Member Robert Scott, painting a stark picture of a sport in decline:
“For well over 30 years, I have been intimately involved in all aspects of boxing. To be frank, the great American sport of boxing has been floundering and is in need of help. In my opinion, MAABRA is the solution. It will position boxing to flourish by adding competition and accountability to this great sport.”
Brown argued that the Ali Act’s original framework failed to solve boxing’s central problem: the absence of a centralized industry organization. He praised the bill’s creation of the UBO, saying it would bring predictability, consistency, and a new generation of fans and fighters to the sport—much like the rise of mixed martial arts over the past two decades.
He also highlighted the bill’s health and safety components, including third-party anti-doping programs and health-insurance requirements, which he believes would “raise the bar for the entire sport.”
“In my experience, MAABRA is the best thing that has come along in years. I commend you for considering this groundbreaking legislation, and I truly hope it is enacted by Congress and the President.”
Brown’s position has left many within boxing perplexed and has fueled speculation that he could be eyeing a future with TKO’s new boxing venture. Mendoza’s pointed remarks have only intensified that chatter.
With the California State Athletic Commission expected to reconvene in December to discuss the matter, sources tell Brunch Boxing that several well-respected members of the boxing community are preparing presentations for the committee to prevent what could become the most consequential shift in U.S. boxing regulation since the passage of the Muhammad Ali Act itself.
Subscribe to the Brunch Boxing website, Twitter and Podcast for more updates and in-depth coverage of the world of boxing in and out of the ring.
Brunch Boxing Support Links: