U.S. Supreme Court tosses sports gambling ban

[Déjà Bru]

As usual, I am of two (or more) minds about this issue as with many others. Usually, I end up like this:

Keep in mind that the Supreme Court did not okay sports gambling. Instead, it said that federal law to ban or regulate it did not apply and that the states should allow and regulate it themselves. Said states are now going to be in a frenzy to get it set up.

The possible threat to the integrity of professional sports at least received a brief mention in this article (if it's hard to read, go here). But the prevailing opinion these days, along with the rest of our declining standards, seems to be in the words of this columnist, "For the broader society, betting on sports is harmless fun in moderation. Why should we have to schlep to Vegas to do it?" Indeed.

So I put my other hat on and perhaps welcome this turn of events. Governments are in dire need of revenue thanks to our always urgent priority of avoiding being taxed. In that case, if fools want to throw their excess money away, of which there are tons in America, then it's a good thing that governments will share in that excess now.

[pilight]

There's already tons of gambling on sports. Why would this make it any greater threat to the integrity of the sport?

[Reed]

Saw in an article at ESPN that MLB and the NBA are trying to get in on the action. They were initially wanting 1% of the revenue or 20% of the profit. Also the players association is looking into it. Would not be surprised if they had betting at the games themselves and advertisements for betting.
Makes Pete Rose look like very small potatoes IMO.

[rudel.dietrich]

If it is very heavily regulated then I see this as a good thing.
You are taking something that was done through some shady bookies or done offshore and now hopefully exposing it to heavy govermental regulation.
Nevada has managed to survive for decades. And we will have test cases with New York, Delaware, California, Connecticut and Mississipi among others.
Eventually I think it will be nation wide except perhaps Utah where gambling is explicitly forbidden in their state constitution.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Reed

Saw in an article at ESPN that MLB and the NBA are trying to get in on the action. They were initially wanting 1% of the revenue or 20% of the profit. Also the players association is looking into it. Would not be surprised if they had betting at the games themselves and advertisements for betting.
Makes Pete Rose look like very small potatoes IMO.

I have yet to understand how the leagues are entitled to a cut. Exactly how can the leagues force states to give them a piece of the revenue? The media keeps harping on this but have yet to explain how.

As far as the original thought in the opening post, I don't think gambling is innocent fun. There wouldn't be Gamblers Anonymous if there wasn't any harm to it. Admittedly, when done under control, the damage is minimal. But then there are the Cecil Fielder's of the world. Ask Prince about how gambling can damage a family. And I can't agree w/those who claim game fixing is easier to control if every thing is above the table. That hasn't stopped gambling scandals in Europe over soccer, cycling & tennis.


But as in anything in life......gambling, alcohol, drugs, video games, food, plastic surgery.......people are going to abuse any activity. I just hope while politicians look @ all the dollar $ign$ popping in front of their faces, that they have enough forethought to see what lies in the future & reserve a sufficient amount of funds for the inevitable aftermath. Gambling addictions, broken homes, bankruptcies, homelessness etc.

[Déjà Bru]

It's a new day, guys. Where this leads, nobody knows even though they say they do. It could be fine; it could be a disaster. One thing is for sure: as with anything in a democracy, the people get what they want or are willing to settle for, and thus ultimately deserve.

[Déjà Bru]

I get the cartoonist's intent and I agree with it to some extent. However, the distinction is that Pete Rose bet on his own team while he was on it, be it to win or lose. (He maintains that he never wagered on losses).

This is now going to be a fine distinction: It now would be legal for Rose to bet on the NBA, NFL, NHL, etc. as long as it was not MLB. And who would be monitoring where he placed his bets?

[Michael Hopcroft]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I get the cartoonist's intent and I agree with it to some extent. However, the distinction is that Pete Rose bet on his own team while he was on it, be it to win or lose. (He maintains that he never wagered on losses).

This is now going to be a fine distinction: It now would be legal for Rose to bet on the NBA, NFL, NHL, etc. as long as it was not MLB. And who would be monitoring where he placed his bets?

Pete is right, it won't. Pete Rose wagered with illegal bookmakers on his own team's games, games he was managing and in a position to manipulate the outcomes. Even with legalized betting, that crosses a line that can never be erased.

As we have seen in European soccer, where betting is legal and so open that online casinos can be team sponsors, even legal betting can lead to issues with match fixing -- especially in leagues where some clubs have trouble meeting payroll each week. In the bigs that might be less of a problem, but what about AAA ball and lower? What about junior league hockey?

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

So I put my other hat on and perhaps welcome this turn of events. Governments are in dire need of revenue thanks to our always urgent priority of avoiding being taxed. In that case, if fools want to throw their excess money away, of which there are tons in America, then it's a good thing that governments will share in that excess now.

I used to gamble on sports when I was a lot younger, I rarely do now. But when I do, I do it through my channels, that won't change. I'm not going to start gambling where I'll have to claim what I win. The government will have to look for another sucker.

[rossguardian]

I know quite a lot of successful gamblers stories, but I know far more stories of gamblers collapse; how people lost all because of betting or other gambling. I'm not going to repeat their fate.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by pilight

There's already tons of gambling on sports. Why would this make it any greater threat to the integrity of the sport?

This confuses me as well. Gambling goes on with or without it being legal. The only thing that would damage the integrity of the sport is if coaches and or players bet for or against their team.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I get the cartoonist's intent and I agree with it to some extent. However, the distinction is that Pete Rose bet on his own team while he was on it, be it to win or lose. (He maintains that he never wagered on losses).

Insofar as MLB's rules are considered, it does not matter at all whether Rose bet on his own team or the opponent. Both are considered equal violations, with severe punishment. The only distinction in terms of punishment is between those who are connected to the game being bet upon and those who are not.

Major League Rule 21

(d) GAMBLING.

(1) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.

(2) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.


These rules are very clear. And they are enforced, even against star players, as the Rose matter amply demonstrates. Strong rules with no leeway or exceptions, and which are enforced, likely do much to keep gambling from affecting the on-the-field game.

[Déjà Bru]

That is a very healthy attitude to have.

[Déjà Bru]

Strange; my post above was in reply to somebody who, IIRC, was saying that he would indulge responsibly. It certainly was not responding to LGO a year and a half later. The post, and presumably the forum member who posted it, have disappeared.

Whatever; but the idea applies to you, randker. Gamble responsibly.

The analogy that comes to mind is the failed idea behind Prohibition in the U.S. No matter what, people were going to find ways to continue to drink alcohol. Banning it merely drove those folks underground and into criminal endeavors.

The world would do well do lift the prohibition on drugs for the same reason. Spend the money now being wasted on fighting drugs on education and treatment, thereby putting the drug cartels out of business.

But I digress, except for this one key stipulation: The general public may gamble on sports, just as they may take drugs, but nobody within sports should be allowed to do so. Else, throw sports out the window as meaningless.

[rudel.dietrich]

It is now legal in 18 US states and DC
4 more have passed the needed legislation and just need to put it in place.
11 more states after that have the legislation up for debate/vote

It will not be long before 2/3 of the US has it legal and available.
As I said before, it should be very heavily regulated, restricted to those 21 and older and try and build in as many safe guards as possible for those who abuse it.

I have been betting in sports for about 20+ years and always within my financial means, I treat it as an entertainment cost.
I have had some wild successes and wild failures. Add all of it up over the past two decades and I have probably broken about even. It is simply entertainment and I don't treat it as an income source.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Bazzalt

Gambling is not something new. This is really weird

There was nothing weird about this thread back in 2018. Elaborate.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by billy

having gambling as a hobby.. are you serios now?

Certainly gambling can be a hobby, or entertainment, if you prefer. It can also be a profession or an addiction. The same can be said for many things. If the cost is within one's means, then it is no different from spending money on scrapbooking or attending concerts or sporting events. In all cases, if you become so focused on the hobby that it detrimentally affects other facets of your life, then that is an issue and should be dealt with.

Sports betting is not particularly entertaining to me, but then many of my hobbies and pastimes would bore others to death.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by pilight

There's already tons of gambling on sports. Why would this make it any greater threat to the integrity of the sport?

Here's how:

Typo in betting line on Cleveland Browns-Kansas City Chiefs playoff game costs BetMGM $10,000

A typographical error in a betting line on a Cleveland Browns-Kansas City Chiefs playoff game in January led to a $10,500 windfall for nine eagle-eyed bettors.

The error was revealed last week by the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, which fined BetMGM.com $500 for failing to properly display the odds on a betting market.

It involved the Jan. 17 game, specifically a so-called proposition or "player prop" bet on the game performance of the two quarterbacks, Cleveland's Baker Mayfield and Kansas City's Patrick Mahomes.

In such bets, gamblers wager on whether a particular player or group of players will exceed a certain statistical benchmark, or fall short of it.

In documents released by the state, it was revealed that BetMGM intended to offer bets on whether Mayfield and Mahomes would each pass for 300 or more yards in the game.

But due to a manual error in posting the bet, the "3" was dropped, and bettors were given the option of betting on whether the two quarterbacks would pass for "00" yards or more during the game.

If either quarterback completed just one pass for just one yard, the bet would have been a winner. The pair combined for 459 passing yards.

Five customers of BetMGM pounced on it, as did four on Borgata Online before the odds were corrected. Borgata is owned by MGM Resorts International.

According to state documents, MGM reported the error to the gaming enforcement division and sought permission to void the bets on the basis that the odds were improperly calculated.

The state responded that the bets could not be canceled until after an investigation. That same day, the company decided to let the bets stand and to pay them off; BetMGM confirmed Thursday it had paid the bettors.

My point is two-fold:

First, have you noticed that, since I began this thread, whenever you watch a professional sport event, you see continuous, in-game commercials from betting companies? And that these commercials are offering you real-time odds on results from the event that you are watching?

Second, how much of a leap in imagination is it to envision a player being informed of such betting and being advised that, if he doesn't pass for 12 yards or more at this point in the game (using the story above as an example), that much money could be won and part of it could be his?

Technology just adds to the rapidity and efficacy of gambling that, in the past, did affect the integrity of sports. Not only that, but now it is mammoth, with dozens of companies competing for betting business in your face, all game-long.

[rudel.dietrich]

That is absurd. Mahomes just signed for the most expensive contract in history. Mayfield is being paid #1 overall pick money.
There is no gambling consortium that can offer them enough money to risk a lifetime ban.
Even those playing on minimum salaries make too much to be bought.

You could maybe argue that NCAA athletes are more susceptible since they make zero. But we have not had a point shaving scandal on quiet a while.

Referees would perhaps be best target due to their relative pay and influence on a match. But again, we have not seen any scandal that we know about since the mid 2000s in the NBA.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

That is absurd.

We will see, my friend. I hope you are right. I also hope you remember what you said if and when a scandal happens.

By the way, would you say Pete Rose was rather well-off and had prospects for much, much more when he succumbed to temptation? Or was he hard up at the time? A legitimate question, for I don't know for sure.

So, your argument is that athletes make too much money to indulge? ALL athletes in ALL sports? And nobody goes through his wad quickly and foolishly? Hmmm.