By News Editor 
At the final press conference for Canelo Álvarez vs. Terence Crawford, veteran reporter Sean Zittel asked a question that cut straight to the heart of combat sports politics—and sent UFC president Dana White into a visible meltdown.
Zittel framed his inquiry around the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, a federal law passed in 2000 to ensure transparency and protect fighters from exploitative contracts. The Act mandates disclosures of financial arrangements, prohibits coercive long-term deals, and requires promoters to prioritize fighters’ best interests. While the law has long governed professional boxing, it has not yet been applied to mixed martial arts—a point of constant debate among athletes, promoters, and lawmakers.
Zittel’s question was simple but devastatingly timed:
Why is the UFC and its leadership pushing to change or resist the Ali Act at a moment when the company is generating record-breaking revenues—and is simultaneously facing a $375 million antitrust lawsuit along with multiple pending class-action cases from former fighters?
Why This Question Matters
On its face, the question was about legislative reform. But beneath the surface, it cut into the UFC’s business model and its controversial relationship with its athletes. Critics argue that UFC fighters are locked into restrictive contracts that limit their bargaining power, while the company reaps the majority of event revenues. Expanding the Ali Act to MMA could potentially force greater financial transparency and empower fighters to negotiate more equitable deals.
By tying the issue of the Ali Act to the UFC’s ongoing antitrust lawsuits, Zittel underscored a key contradiction: how can a company under legal fire for alleged monopolistic practices simultaneously lobby against protections designed to safeguard fighters?
Dana White’s Reaction
Instead of offering a clear legal or ethical defense, Dana White reacted angrily—deflecting the question and attacking Zittel personally. The exchange quickly spread online, with many fans labeling it a moment of “Zittelmania”, a tongue-in-cheek reference to the reporter’s composure under pressure compared to White’s emotional response.
White’s defensiveness is telling. The UFC has long argued that fighters are independent contractors with ample opportunities, but the combination of antitrust scrutiny, growing unionization efforts, and the looming possibility of the Ali Act’s extension to MMA could represent the biggest regulatory challenge the promotion has faced since its rise to mainstream dominance.
The Bigger Picture
Sean Zittel’s question landed because it forced White to confront uncomfortable truths in front of a global audience. Combat sports fans are increasingly aware of the stark financial disparities between promoters and fighters. For example, while boxing stars like Canelo Álvarez and Terence Crawford can secure nine-figure paydays, many UFC fighters—outside of a few marquee names—earn a fraction of the event revenue.
As calls for reform grow louder, the Muhammad Ali Act stands as a potential legal tool to reshape the economics of MMA. Whether lawmakers will push the Act’s expansion remains to be seen, but moments like Zittel’s question ensure that the issue won’t quietly fade away.
Conclusion
Sean Zittel didn’t just ask a question—he exposed a tension at the core of modern combat sports. As the UFC continues to expand and dominate, the push for fighter protections, fair pay, and legal oversight is not going away. Dana White’s sharp reaction may have been an attempt to shut down the conversation, but in reality, it has amplified it.
The exchange serves as a reminder that the balance of power in combat sports is shifting—and that sometimes, the hardest punches don’t come from the fighters inside the ring or the cage, but from a microphone on press conference day.