Controversy on top of controversy
This is at least a more honest explanation of what the league wants. The NBA already has “integrity provisions” in place to monitor suspicious betting activity because gambling already takes place in Nevada and other international jurisdictions, and the league hasn’t requested a cut of that. But because widespread gambling in the United States is expected to be a major revenue windfall, the NBA simply wants to maximize the amount its owners can collect from it.
It’s a logical position, if not a little shameless. U.S.based sports leagues have for decades acted like they were shocked — shocked! — to learn that wagering takes places on their games, and now here they are lining up to get a fat slice.
Hours later, the reality of Silver’s position on legalized gambling, and the hornet’s nest it could open up, was clear for all to see. Game 1 of the Finals turned on two late plays: an offensive charge on Kevin Durant that was changed to a blocking foul on LeBron James after a replay review, and J.R. Smith’s baffling decision not to attempt a shot after he secured an offensive rebound with four seconds left in a tied game.
The first of those moments is as uncomfortable as it gets for an officiating controversy. A call was made in real time and then, with some time to reconsider it, the referees decided to go to replay. The Cavaliers felt that decision was wrong; there was nothing to review. Once the replay was examined, the officials decided to switch the call, even though whether it was a block or a charge was not the original reason for the review (they were looking at whether James was in the restricted area under the basket when he took the charge). This wasn’t a case of using replay to correct a clear mistake, a foot on the line or a shot after the buzzer. It was a judgment call overturned by a different judgment.
Such incidents are difficult enough for a league to explain — the Cavs were convinced on Thursday night that they had been screwed — as it is. Now imagine that taking place when there are millions of dollars being wagered on games in any number of states, and the NBA is collecting a portion of all those bets. Consumers already hate it when games turn on strange late calls. Imagine what they will feel when that call costs them thousands of dollars. (And while we’re here, had gambling been legal everywhere when Game 1 took place, you’d have to think the prevailing explanation for Smith’s late-game blunder would be that he bet the Warriors.)
Gambling on the NBA is, as Silver noted a few times on Thursday, already legal in a limited way. But if it comes out of the darkness in earnest, the glare on endings like what took place in Game 1 will be awfully bright.