In sports and entertainment, early access to capital can be a game-changer. It can also dismantle entrenched business models. That's exactly what's happening in boxing, where Turki Al Sheikh—chairman of Saudi Arabia's General Entertainment Authority—is reshaping the sport from the top down. By eliminating pay-per-view, guaranteeing fighter purses up front, and centralizing global matchmaking, he's challenging decades of boxing orthodoxy. And he's no longer alone: the UFC is now doing the same.
The result is a financial, contractual, and regulatory overhaul that every sports lawyer should be watching closely—not just in boxing, but across the combat sports landscape.
Here are six legal lessons emerging from this disruption.
Lesson 1: Centralization Replaces Fragmentation
For years, boxing was fractured—split between promoters, networks, and streaming platforms with conflicting commercial interests. This fragmentation made it nearly impossible to deliver top-tier fights without months (or years) of negotiation. That model is now giving way to centralization. Backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund, Al-Sheikh has brought rival fighters together under neutral terms, paid them generously, and streamed the events globally—without leaning on the pay-per-view model that traditionally propped up fighter compensation.
Lesson 2: Contract Carve-Outs Are Now the Norm
Many fighters remain subject to exclusive media or promotional contracts, which historically barred cross-platform participation. But Saudi-hosted events have triggered new models—waivers, carve-outs, sublicensing deals—that enable participation without breaching underlying agreements. Counsel advising on these deals must carefully analyze exclusivity clauses, sublicensing language, and termination provisions. U.S. case law on restrictive covenants (see Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188) and sports-specific litigation like Top Rank, Inc. v. Haymon offers useful precedent for navigating these tensions.
Lesson 3: Guaranteed Flat-Fee Deals Shift the Risk
Without pay-per-view revenue, fighters are demanding—and receiving—guaranteed flat-fee purses, often well into eight figures. That structure minimizes risk for the athlete but dramatically increases it for the promoter or host entity. Lawyers should ensure contracts include escrow mechanics, especially across borders, and be alert to tax implications such as U.S. withholding obligations under IRS Publication 515 and residency thresholds under foreign law. Worker classification (independent contractor vs. employee) may also arise under U.S. and international labor standards.
Lesson 4: Antitrust Questions Are Inevitable
Turki Al Sheikh's growing control over elite matchmaking raises real questions under antitrust and competition law. In the U.S., the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act (15 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.) prohibits coercive contracts and undisclosed financial interests in boxing promotions. Globally, similar concerns arise under U.K. and EU competition regimes—particularly where a single entity may exert functional control over both athlete access and event distribution. Even if the market impact is positive (i.e., more fights, better pay), the consolidation of matchmaking power could still prompt regulatory scrutiny.
Lesson 5: Digital Rights Are No Longer a Secondary Issue
Saudi Arabia's streaming-first distribution model has turned digital rights into front-page legal assets. DAZN's agreement to stream all Riyadh Season and “The Ring” events without pay-per-view pricing reflects a broader trend toward bundled, global digital delivery. Lawyers must draft broader IP and licensing language, addressing streaming, on-demand, data feeds (especially for gambling integrations), and emerging formats like VR or blockchain/NFT monetization. This means going beyond standard broadcast clauses and into areas defined by the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512) and international digital IP treaties.
Lesson 6: UFC's Move Signals a Broader Legal Shift Across Combat Sports
Saudi Arabia may have led boxing away from the traditional pay-per-view (PPV) model, but it's no longer alone. In August 2025, UFC president Dana White announced that the world's largest mixed martial arts organization had signed a seven-year, $7.7 billion media rights deal with Paramount Global, marking a decisive end to PPV for UFC events in the U.S.
Starting in 2026, all numbered UFC events—previously the core of the company's PPV business—will stream exclusively on Paramount+, with select fights airing live on CBS. This bundled model mimics the approach pioneered in Saudi boxing: centralized control, subscription-based access, and guaranteed fighter payouts.
For legal counsel, this marks another inflection point:
Contract Realignment: Long-standing PPV and broadcast agreements will need to be renegotiated—or sunset entirely. The shift may also trigger renegotiation clauses, revenue share adjustments, and IP licensing provisions embedded in existing contracts with fighters, sponsors, and distributors.
Revenue Allocation Models: UFC fighters have historically been paid based on PPV points, creating a quasi-equity structure in event success. Counsel will now need to restructure athlete compensation models, potentially incorporating guaranteed minimums, performance bonuses, or licensing pools. This resembles the flat-fee guarantees seen in Saudi-backed boxing cards.
Antitrust & Market Dominance: As with Turki Al Sheikh's centralized control of matchmaking and promotion, UFC's vertical integration—from fighter contracts to content distribution—may raise antitrust questions under both U.S. and international competition regimes.
Digital Rights & Licensing Strategy: The Paramount+ deal expands the importance of streaming rights, global licensing, and IP control—especially around archival footage, international distribution, and third-party integrations. This mirrors the legal trends already reshaping boxing contracts under Saudi leadership.
Key takeaway: The UFC–Paramount deal isn't just a broadcast pivot—it confirms that combat sports are leaving PPV behind, with major legal implications for contract design, digital licensing, and regulatory oversight.
Final Thoughts for Counsel
Saudi Arabia's boxing model was the spark—but the flame has spread. With both boxing and the UFC abandoning pay-per-view, we are witnessing a top-down reengineering of combat sports economics. Guaranteed purses are replacing speculative revenue splits. Global streaming is replacing region-locked paywalls. And centralized matchmaking is replacing multi-party gridlock.
For legal professionals advising athletes, promoters, networks, or regulators, this is a moment that demands new thinking—about risk, contract flexibility, and cross-border compliance in a rapidly changing sports economy.
Sources
Boxing & Industry Reporting
- Ring Magazine, “Turki Alalshikh announces Riyadh Season and The Ring shows no longer on PPV” https://ringmagazine.com/en/news/turki-alalshikh-announces-riyadh-season-and-the-ring-shows-no-longer-on-ppv-available-to-dazn-subscribers
- WBC, “Goodbye to Pay-Per-View on DAZN: Turki Alalshikh once again revolutionizes boxing” https://wbcboxing.com/en/goodbye-to-pay-per-view-on-dazn-turki-alalshikh-once-again-revolutionizes-boxing
- Bad Left Hook, “Riyadh Season to ditch PPV model after August show” https://www.badlefthook.com/2025/7/16/24469120/riyadh-season-ditch-ppv-model-august-boxing-news-2025
- X (Twitter), @BoxingKingdom14, “BIG NEWS: Turki Alalshikh has OFFICIALLY announced that PPV is ending…” https://x.com/BoxingKingdom14/status/1945600378399302058
- DAZN, Official Announcement on Turki Alalshikh's meeting with CEO Shay Segev https://www.dazn.com/en-MW/home
UFC Streaming Deal Reporting
- Reuters, “Paramount secures UFC rights in $7.7 billion deal” https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/paramount-secures-ufc-rights-us-77-billion-deal-2025-08-11/
- MMA Mania, “UFC signs broadcast deal with Paramount, ends pay-per-view model” https://www.mmamania.com/ufc-news/381748/ufc-signs-broadcast-deal-with-paramount-cbs-ends-pay-per-view-model
Legal Frameworks & References
- Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188 (restrictive covenants and trade restraints)
- Top Rank, Inc. v. Haymon, 2016 WL 521954 (C.D. Cal.) (exclusive contracts and antitrust in boxing)
- Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6301–6313
- IRS Publication 515: Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Entities
- Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512
- U.K. Competition & Markets Authority, “Market Power in Sports Broadcasting” (2021)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
