The historic “Rumble in the Jungle” fight on October 30, 1974, between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman showcased one of the most legendary boxing performances and launched Don King’s career as a mega-promoter. This clash introduced terms like “rope-a-dope” to boxing and offered both financial gain and PR for Zaire’s authoritarian ruler Mobutu Sese Seko, who used the event to boost his power and image.

Unable to find U.S. investors to meet Ali’s $5 million demand, King turned to Mobutu, who eagerly funded the fight for publicity. Mobutu had seized power in Congo (renamed Zaire) in 1965 and ruled with strict control and grandiose titles, amassing wealth through corruption. By leveraging the fight’s success, Mobutu not only gained visibility but controlled the profits through a shell company, suppressing any dissent among locals.

The following year, Ali and Joe Frazier’s “Thrilla in Manila” was funded by another controversial leader, Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos, who was on an increasingly dictatorial path. Marcos used the fight to bolster his image amidst a campaign of repression and massive corruption.

Decades later, boxing’s alliance with authoritarian figures continues, notably with Saudi Arabia, where promoter Eddie Hearn faced criticism in 2019 for hosting a heavyweight title rematch there. Despite concerns over human rights, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Turki Alalshikh have invested heavily in boxing, casting Saudi Arabia as a modern boxing hub.

This pattern highlights boxing’s readiness to take money from controversial sources. History shows boxing aligning with unsavory regimes, and this trend seems set to continue as long as funding remains abundant, even if at the cost of ethical considerations.