Court could remove federal ban on betting
WASHINGTON — In court, all four major U.S. sports leagues are fighting New Jersey’s challenge to the federal ban on sports gambling, which the Supreme Court will hear next week.
Outside of court, leaders of three of the four leagues have made public comments that suggest they wouldn’t mind losing the case.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear a case that could lead to the federal ban on sports betting being struck down, the leagues are hedging their bets — preparing for a future of expanded gambling and hoping to have a say in how legalization takes effect.
The NBA and Major League Baseball see gambling as something that could enhance fan interest and open new revenue opportunities. However, the leagues insist that appropriate regulations should be put in place to prevent corruption — something that a court ruling in New Jersey’s favor wouldn’t do.
Much has changed since 2012, when the leagues and the NCAA sued New Jersey to prevent legalized betting. At the time, MLB and the NBA were led by old-school commissioners who bore the scars of gambling scandals in their leagues. Baseball’s Bud Selig said in a deposition that gambling was “evil, creates doubt and destroys your sport.”
Selig and the NBA’s David Stern have been replaced by Rob Manfred and Adam Silver, both of whom have taken a fresh look at gambling.
Silver says sports gambling should be legalized. Manfred said this year that gambling “can be a form of fan engagement, it can fuel the popularity of a sport.” NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has said he isn’t concerned about legalizing it, and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell says his views have
“For those that want to see (legal) sports betting, the trajectory is in their favor.” Geoff Freeman, CEO, American Gaming Association
evolved to be more accepting.
“I think there are multiple signs of the sports leagues, including the NFL, taking a fresh look at this issue,” said Geoff Freeman, CEO of the American Gaming Association. “For those that want to see sports betting, the trajectory is in their favor.”
New Jersey is challenging the constitutionality of the federal ban on sports betting that Congress approved in 1992. The ban allowed sports betting only in the four states that previously had authorized it, and only Nevada’s law at the time allowed bets on individual games.
Opponents maintain that state-sponsored gambling preys on vulnerable people and creates a variety of social ills. A coalition of antigambling and religious groups argued in a brief that legalized gambling would open the door for casino companies to further “target and exploit the financially desperate, exacerbate crime, cultivate addiction, and force even those citizens who rarely or never gamble to foot the bill for the enormous social costs and state-budget problems they leave behind.”
Though legal sports books could entice more people to place bets, the practice is already widespread. The AGA estimates that Americans bet $150 billion on sports annually, and only 3 percent of those bets are made legally.
The technology that allows more people to place bets has also enabled data collection that makes game-fixing more difficult because suspicious betting patterns can be seen in real time. With many pro players making millions, it’s unlikely they would risk careers and jail by throwing games.
Game-fixing is much easier to stop and prosecute in countries with legal betting than in places without it, said Andreas Krannich, an executive at Sportradar, a London-based gambling-security firm.
“In a well-regulated market, the risk of manipulation is less,” Krannich said, because bookmakers “participate in the detection and the follow-up of criminal cases.”
The leagues are concerned that the Supreme Court could allow sports gambling to become legal without those protections in place.
If the court rules against the leagues, it would be up to the states to regulate gambling until Congress acted. Ben Nuckols is an Associated Press writer.