The Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Boxing Reform Act which was approved by the Senate in 2000 with the strong backing of Sen. John McCain, the Chairman of the Commission on Commerce, Science and Transportation, was supposed to help prevent what happened to Manny Pacquiao.

The Muhammad Ali Act was, "An Act, to reform unfair and anticompetitive practice in the professional boxing industry." And one of it's stated goals was to: "to protect the rights and welfare of professional boxers on an interstate basis by preventing certain exploitive, oppressive, and unethical business practices."

Obviously, that hasn't occurred, the Ali Act, as well meaning as it may be, is largely a toothless tiger.

"Absolutely, it's toothless because first of all, there's no enforcement of it," says attorney Charles Muniz, who has managed and advised more than one champion throughout the years and has a strong esoteric knowledge of the business. "So there's no one out there that you can go to enforce it. Barring the fact that you bring up legal action, it's going to cost anyone a lot of money. Sure you can go into federal court and you can cite the Ali bill because it was a bill that was passed by Congress and a judge will of course take that into consideration."

Which for many fighters is easier said than done.

"But, now you're talking about anteing up $50,000 for having your gripe heard," continued Muniz. "Many cases, like the Pacquiao case is worth bringing up. But in a lot of other things that you do, what happens is that if you're going to bring something like that to the extent of court, you're going to wind up being blacklisted in the business."

Enforcement, or the lack thereof, is common theme that is repeated by those in the industry.

"The Muhammad Ali Act is beneficial in that it points a light at some of the important issues and areas that have to be overseen in boxing," said Lou DiBella, a promoter, who was once the boxing czar at HBO. "And I think it helps particularly in the area of health and safety, it's helpful. But with nobody empowered to enforce it and with the lack of consistency among state athletic commissions, it is largely toothless."

Promoter Dan Goossen says "I would say the only effect that it's really had on the industry is that Sen. McCain has shown that he's able to get legislation approved into the industry. But from a standpoint of its effectiveness, it hasn't been challenged, it hasn't shown that it can implement what it was meant to do."

Muhammad has been nonplussed that somehow his license fee from HBO for delivering the services of Pacquiao against Marco Antonio Barrera was divulged to the HBO announcing crew and then broadcast for the world to hear. Muhammad seems to think that what he got from HBO is nobodies business but his own.

But according to Section 13 of the Ali Act "Required Disclosures for Promoters” it states in section B: “A promoter shall not be entitled to receive any compensation directly or indirectly in connection with a boxing match until it provides to the boxer it promotes - 1- the amounts of any compensation or consideration that a promoter has contracted to receive from such match; 2- all fees, charges, and expenses that will be assessed by or through the promoter on the boxer pertaining to the event, including any portion of the boxer's purse that the promoter will receive, and training expenses; and 3- any reduction in a boxer's purse contrary to a previous agreement between the promoter and the boxer or a purse bid held for the event.

C- INFORMATION TO BE AVAILABLE TO STATE ATTORNEY
GENERAL- A promoter shall make information required to be disclosed under this section available to the chief law enforcement officer of the State in which the match is to be held upon request of such officer."

But like in the case with Pacquiao and Muhammad, full disclosure doesn't seem to be coming to fruition.

"To the best of my knowledge there has been no attorney general who has taken an Ali case, I don't think there's been any enforcement," said Marc Ratner, the executive director the Nevada State Athletic Commission, and one of the most highly respected officials in the sport.

"I have not seen any effort by any boxing commission to enforce it," adds noted boxing attorney Judd Burstein, who has a star-studded list of clients. "The only reported case where this issue is out there is the case I have pending for Jeff Lacy, where the judge just upheld my Muhammad Ali Act claim.

"It's during his Main Events days. It was a failure to give disclosure to Lacy. And we allege if he was given disclosure, he would have known the financial circumstances and the financial deal would have been different."

Burstein says that the lack of disclosure has to do with the money that Main Events was receiving from Showtime among other sources of revenue, which is really the crux of everything. Just what are the promoters receiving from the networks? And what is being shared with the fighters? One of the main weaknesses in this legislation is that the networks are not made accountable or held to make their figures public. It is up to the promoters to give an honest accounting to the fighters and their representation.

"Well, you have to show them," says Mike Acri, who promoted such fighters as Hector Camacho Sr. and Paul Spadafora. "I don't show the manager what I do, say for example, a Spadafora fight, or like Bob Arum with Victoriano Sosa-Floyd Mayweather, I make them sign a piece of paper that gives them knowledge of my income and expenses. Spadafora knows what I make and what I don't make."

It's strange that Acri wouldn't show a manager these figures, after all, they are the ones theoretically protecting their clients and have a fiduciary responsibility towards them.

"I can't answer for other fighters," adds Goossen, who promotes James Toney. "There's not a fighter that I promoted in the last 23 years that isn't aware of what the overall revenues are. And so I mean I've been doing that for years."

But as long as the networks and the promoters have privacy clauses, what mechanism is there in place to make sure that the fighters are getting the actual numbers?

"I think that in general, what all of them (the promoters) do is they just basically try to break the numbers down in a way that's favorable to them," said Muniz, who currently advises Antonio Tarver and Nate Campbell and has been involved in many lucrative contract negotiations. "Let's say you get a guy that gets an HBO date, so obviously he's picking up a license fee. It's 'World Championship Boxing' or 'Boxing After Dark' so what he says is 'Well, I got two fights that I have to put on'. And then if you're the co-main event, he might say to you 'Well, I got this much money for this fight' not addressing how much money he's got in totality because HBO doesn't say 'We're going to pay this for a main and this for a co-main'. They're going to pay you one license fee
for the production of that show. These guys skirt around that."

But on the other hand, just how many fighters and their managers do their due diligence in finding out what the license figures really are?

"To some extent, some of the fighters just don't care how fair you're being," said DiBella, who once controlled the purse strings at HBO. "Some of them don't want to sit down and do the math. They fight about what they're getting paid but a lot of them aren't complaining. You don't hear the average fighter screaming and yelling that I have no idea what my promoter made for this fight, I don't know how much was in the pot."

But it's clear that the rules are not the same for everyone. Certain managers and advisors who have cozy relationships with the networks will always be given more access to certain information than others who are not in the inner circle.

"It's like this whether you're talking about HBO, Showtime or ESPN," agreed Muniz. "They're are certain favorites that all of these people have, that they do business with and they share information [with whom] they deem to be their friends. And if you're neutral or you're an outsider or you're a threat to them, then they're not going to share any information with you. But they share it with the people who they want to share it with."

Perhaps networks are afraid to make their license fee numbers more public so that they can keep a secret of who they are playing favorites with. It's interesting to note that Jim Lampley in part III of our series noted that he wasn't at all reprimanded for his statements because the higher-ups at HBO had the same information that he had regarding Pacquiao's finances.

But it seems that HBO will continue to do business with Muhammad because of his relationship with Roy Jones. It seems the only ones willing and able to stick up for Pacquiao at HBO are it's announcers, not its decision makers, who have the real authority.

It's different strokes, for different folks.

"What I think is that HBO hides behind this confidentiality agreement they have in these contracts (with the promoter) and they use that as a vehicle to come out and say to you 'Well, we can't discuss these issues because we have these confidentiality clauses in these contracts'.

"But it's really a sham because HBO can come out and say 'Look, this is the license fee we're paying for this show' - remember one thing, all they do is pay a license fee to a promoter circa one lump sum - 'We paid a million dollars for this show'. Now, go to the promoter and find the breakdown of that show. Why shouldn't people divulge these things?

"If people want this to be a good business and want it to be honest then the fighters should in all cases get the majority of the money, then why is everybody hiding and trying to be afraid?

"The only time people hide and don't want to talk about these things is when people got something to hide."

In any other entertainment industry, from sports to music to motion pictures, financial information is very easy to get a hold off - except it seems, for the license fees in boxing.

"It's been amazing to me," said Nick Khan, an attorney who was brought in by Freddie Roach to help out Pacquiao, who has a background in the entertainment industry. "I certainly allege no impropriety on HBO's behalf but what I found curious is that you can not get- unless you put a lot of money and effort into doing you're own investigation – you can NOT get the license fee figures. If that was public like in any other sport, Manny Pacquiao would be out of his contract in a heartbeat."

HBO declined comment on this story, but Jay Larkin of Showtime did agree to talk to MaxBoxing. He was asked if their license fees were readily available to the fighters that fought on his network by the promoters.

"I don't know the answer to that. I do know that promoters are always sensitive to fighters knowing what our deals with the promoter is," he admitted. "And when we make a deal with the promoter we require that the fighter sign the contract. Not so much to make the fighter aware but to protect ourselves from a legal perspective and the fighter has agreed to the terms of the deal. So with that, I can only assume if it's a deal with Showtime, they must be aware of the amount of money in the pot, as it regards the network’s contribution."

But it's a slippery slope for the networks. Do they really want to investigate the very same entities that they do business with? But then at what point are networks culpable? When are they partners in crime when fighters continually get the short end of the stick? Wouldn't it just make things easier on everybody if these figures were more readily available?

"I think it would take a lot of heat off the networks," agreed DiBella. "If everyone just said 'OK guys, let's face the reality, they're not legally promoters. That's not the business they're in. So take that off their heads, leave them alone with that. But, they are the biggest money source right now and make them subject to disclosure.'"

One of the things that the networks (especially HBO) is sensitive to is any legislation or insinuation that they are indeed promoters themselves. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada has proposed legislation that does make the networks more accountable like promoters. It seems that like most politicians that McCain has been bogged down by special interests that will keep from making the networks culpable, while two of Reid's biggest supporters are Bob Arum and Don King, who wouldn't mind one bit if the networks were held responsible for being promoters, since they look at them, specifically HBO as their biggest competitors.

In recent years what has happened is that fighters like Roy Jones, Naseem Hamed, Lennox Lewis and Oscar De La Hoya, once they have been given lucrative multi-fight contracts with HBO (knowing full well their license fees) have felt the need to cut out the middle man - in this case, the promoters - and have started their own promotional firms.

"I don't think it's necessarily a pejorative to be labeled a promoter," said Larkin, on this particular issue. "But it does have very specific legal impact. And with the role of a promoter comes certain liabilities and responsibilities that the networks don't particularly want to carry. And therefore we maintain the position that we're not promoters. By definition of a promoter in the Ali Act, we are not promoters."

But Larkin does admit that once a fighter signs an exclusive deal with a network, the lines can be blurred.

"I see where that can become a gray area," says Larkin, whose network has done away with multi-fight deals and will show 'one-offs' from this point forward. "Certainly when you don't have multi-fight agreements there's even less claim that can be made."

But not all promoters back legislation that holds the networks under the same umbrella as themselves.

"I've been against that since day one," says Goossen, who has dealt extensively with both networks in the past. "I think of the network as an entity that is buying programming, plain and simple. They may want to control certain aspects of it, as they would 'the Sopranos'. I mean they are the judge and jury on buying other types of programming. So producers, writers, everyone else in the entertainment industry can sit there and say that HBO, Showtime, carries too much power based upon 'Yay or nay' but that's the way it is in all facets of television broadcasting.

"I'm looking for them to program and slot our events into their programming. People are trying to put a burden on other third parties that shouldn't really be placed there. Legislation that would provide for the networks to sit there and be licensed, I don't think it's warranted or needed from our need. Let me switch that from 'I don't think' to I KNOW it's not and you may have King and Arum disagreeing with me 100-percent but the bottom line is, that's my feeling."

Burstein agrees with Goossen.

"I'm a believer in gun-control but there is some sort of merit to the notion when people say 'What the hell are we dong passing new laws when we're not even passing the laws we have'? And in boxing, all we're going to do is add on one more level. You've got the law in the book, what's the problem?"

Well, for one, it's proving to be ineffective for the most part. But one thing is abundantly clear, whether the networks should be considered promoters or not is debatable, but it's evident that the network’s cooperation is needed for any laws to be effective.

"The networks do have to be more accountable," agrees Ratner. "We're certainly looking at that."

‘Till then, license fee figures will be a secret shared between the networks and promoters with the fighters in dark and always at a disadvantage come time to negotiate.

"It shouldn't be a secret," states Muniz. "But the reason why nobody knows and nobody wants to talk about these things is because the fact of the matter is, that most of these people who are involved in the business are making more than their fighter."