The battle for combat sports' soul just escalated dramatically, and one of boxing's most powerful figures is drawing a line in the sand. Eddie Hearn, the charismatic promoter behind Matchroom Boxing, has launched a full-throated defense of his sport's traditions against what he sees as a hostile takeover attempt by mixed martial arts giant UFC and its parent company, TKO.
In a remarkably candid interview with Fight Hub TV and other reporters following Jaron Ennis's interim title victory over Uisman Lima in Philadelphia, Hearn pulled no punches. His primary target? TKO's aggressive lobbying campaign to replace the foundational Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act with new legislation called the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act. But here's where it gets controversial—this isn't just about legal technicalities; it's about two completely different philosophies regarding how fighters should be treated and paid.
When directly questioned about potential collaboration with UFC CEO Dana White, Hearn's response was unequivocal: "We're not interested. We're real boxing." He elaborated with striking transparency: "I'm serious. We don't want to change the ring. We don't want to change the Muhammad Ali Act. This is how we work. We're an open book with boots and everyone, and the team. I don't want to hide the revenue from the show. These guys get to see it."
Now, let's unpack what TKO's proposed legislation would actually do—and this is the part most people miss. The Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act would create a pathway for the UFC's parent company to introduce its own championship belts into boxing, potentially competing directly with the established sanctioning bodies (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) that have governed the sport for decades. This represents nothing less than a potential power shift that could reshape boxing's entire competitive landscape.
But Hearn identified what he believes is the fundamental divide between the two sports' business models—a point that's sure to spark heated debate. "In boxing, the majority of the revenue from the show goes to the fighters," Hearn stated. "In MMA, the majority of the revenue goes to the promoter. Good luck to them. That's not how we work in boxing."
This stark contrast in revenue distribution models raises challenging questions about fighter compensation across combat sports. Is boxing's traditional model truly more equitable for athletes, or does the UFC's approach create more stability and opportunities for fighters in the long run? Hearn clearly believes the former, emphatically rejecting multiple aspects of the proposed changes: "I'm not interested in [another] fight belt. I'm not interested in changing the Muhammad Ali Act. I'm not interested in changing the shape of the ring or the rules."
His final statement serves as both a mission declaration and a philosophical stand: "What I'm interested in is the greatness of the sport of boxing."
This confrontation forces us to ask some uncomfortable questions: Is Hearn protecting boxing's soul or resisting necessary evolution? Could the UFC's model actually benefit boxers, or would it erode the protections fighters have fought decades to secure? Where should the line be drawn between preserving tradition and embracing innovation in combat sports?
We want to hear what you think—does Eddie Hearn have a legitimate point about protecting boxing's integrity, or is he standing in the way of progress that could benefit fighters? Drop your perspective in the comments below and let's get this conversation started.
