Ring Magazine is facing questions about its editorial independence after using its official social media account to publish a statement from its owner, Turki Alalshikh, attacking reports by The Athletic and The New York Times.
The issue began when The Athletic reshared a 2025 New York Times investigation because of Alalshikh’s links to potential investment in Derby County Football Club. Alalshikh called the report “fictitious,” said he had not been given a chance to respond and suggested it had been republished to distract attention from another matter.
The main controversy is not simply that Alalshikh defended himself. It is that his response appeared through Ring Magazine rather than only through his personal channels. That made Ring look less like an independent publication reporting on the dispute and more like a platform being used by its owner.
This matters because Alalshikh promised after buying Ring in November 2024 that the magazine would remain fully independent and would operate without involvement from Riyadh Season. Readers are now questioning whether publishing his personal response through Ring’s official account is consistent with that promise.
Ring is entitled to report news involving its owner, but there is a difference between covering his statement and directly distributing it on his behalf. By choosing the second approach, the magazine placed its own editorial independence at the centre of the story.
Ring built its reputation by examining and challenging powerful figures in boxing. The latest controversy has left some readers asking whether the publication can still do that freely when its owner is personally involved.
Image Credit: BBC