Pub. L. 106–210, § 7(a), which directed amendments to subsec. (a) of this section, was executed as if it directed amendments to this section rather than to subsec. (a) of this section to reflect the probable intent of Congress because this section does not contain a subsec. (a). See 2000 Amendment notes below.
2000—Par. (9). Pub. L. 106–210, § 7(a)(1), inserted last sentence. See Codification note above.
Par. (10). Pub. L. 106–210, § 7(a)(2), inserted “, including the Virgin Islands” before the period at end. See Codification note above.
Pars. (11) to (15). Pub. L. 106–210, § 7(a)(3), added pars. (11) to (15). See Codification note above.
Pub. L. 104–272, § 23, formerly § 15, “(1) Section 9 [now section 17, enacting section 6308 of this title] shall not apply to an otherwise authorized boxing commission in the Commonwealth of Virginia until “(2) Sections 5 through 9 [enacting sections 6304 to 6308 of this title] shall take effect on
Pub. L. 106–210, § 1,
Pub. L. 104–272, § 1,
Pub. L. 106–210, § 2, “(1) Professional boxing differs from other major, interstate professional sports industries in the United States in that it operates without any private sector association, league, or centralized industry organization to establish uniform and appropriate business practices and ethical standards. This has led to repeated occurrences of disreputable and coercive business practices in the boxing industry, to the detriment of professional boxers nationwide.“(2) State officials are the proper regulators of professional boxing events, and must protect the welfare of professional boxers and serve the public interest by closely supervising boxing activity in their jurisdiction. State boxing commissions do not currently receive adequate information to determine whether boxers competing in their jurisdiction are being subjected to contract terms and business practices which may violate State regulations, or are onerous and confiscatory.“(3) Promoters who engage in illegal, coercive, or unethical business practices can take advantage of the lack of equitable business standards in the sport by holding boxing events in States with weaker regulatory oversight.“(4) The sanctioning organizations which have proliferated in the boxing industry have not established credible and objective criteria to rate professional boxers, and operate with virtually no industry or public oversight. Their ratings are susceptible to manipulation, have deprived boxers of fair opportunities for advancement, and have undermined public confidence in the integrity of the sport.“(5) Open competition in the professional boxing industry has been significantly interfered with by restrictive and anticompetitive business practices of certain promoters and sanctioning bodies, to the detriment of the athletes and the ticket-buying public. Common practices of promoters and sanctioning organizations represent restraints of interstate trade in the United States.“(6) It is necessary and appropriate to establish national contracting reforms to protect professional boxers and prevent exploitive business practices, and to require enhanced financial disclosures to State athletic commissions to improve the public oversight of the sport.”
Pub. L. 106–210, § 3, “(1) to protect the rights and welfare of professional boxers on an interstate basis by preventing certain exploitive, oppressive, and unethical business practices;“(2) to assist State boxing commissions in their efforts to provide more effective public oversight of the sport; and“(3) to promote honorable competition in professional boxing and enhance the overall integrity of the industry.”