Sports Betting Fallout: Ruling To Have Implications For All Leagues
All the major leagues responded to the Supreme Court striking down federal restrictions against sports betting, which figures to have "far-reaching implications throughout the sports world," according to Steve Megargee of the AP. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, a supporter of legalizing sports gambling, said that his league "would 'remain active in ongoing discussions with state legislatures' about expanding wagering options." He added that the NBA would "like to see a federal framework instead of a state-by-state system." The NBA and MLB have argued in recent months for a 1% "cut of proceeds if legalized sports betting expands across the country, saying part of that money would be needed for additional compliance and enforcement efforts within the game." Plenty of leagues already have "taken steps to make sure its players are educated on the issue." The PGA Tour last year hired Genesis Sports to "help with its new 'Integrity Program' that began at the start of the year" (AP, 5/14). The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Andrew Beaton reports the stances of the leagues "visibly changed even before the Supreme Court made it clear the leagues did not have a choice." Leagues believe the "integrity fee" is a "necessary trade-off for the increased administration that would be required to protect the sports and guard against anything nefarious, such as game-fixing." This idea has "gained traction and generated discord." A bill introduced in the Kansas legislature earlier this year "proposed a 0.25% fee on wagers to go back to the respective leagues" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 5/15).
GRIDIRON GAMBLE: ESPN's Dan Graziano said allowing sports betting is the "kind of thing that could rekindle interest" in the NFL in areas where it has not been strong lately. It could "improve TV ratings" ("NFL Live," ESPN, 5/14). In L.A., Sam Farmer writes the NFL would "welcome another way to fuel interest, particularly in light of two years of sagging TV numbers, and perhaps further inspire fans to attend games instead of consuming football from the couch." Former Fox Sports Chair David Hill said, "Fans will have skin in the game. That's the reason fantasy leagues have been so successful. That's kind of like betting lite. The fact that you'll have skin in the game makes it so much more enjoyable, especially if your call is correct" (L.A. TIMES, 5/15). In Minneapolis, Chip Scoggins notes the NFL’s popularity is "intertwined with the proliferation of fantasy football action." A person with money "riding on an outcome or a certain player’s statistics will watch an otherwise meaningless game that offers no emotional attachment" (Minneapolis STAR TRIBUNE, 5/15). In Tampa, Rick Stroud notes the NFL, as much as any pro league, would see a "potential windfall of new revenue" if even 1% of legal wagering is "owed to them as an integrity fee or royalty to the league." The NFL would take on "additional expense for monitoring and enforcement." They will have to "regulate what kind of prop bets are permitted, etc." In the long term, if it were "permitted in NFL stadiums, it could help increase the game day experience" (TAMPA BAY TIMES, 5/15). ESPN's Darren Woodson said, "The owners are about filling seats and getting eyes on the game. This instantly brings eyes on the game which makes pockets fatter. The business side of this is going to be coming into effect. They're going to slow pace this thing and then they'll figure it out, but they're going to make money off of this" ("NFL Live," ESPN, 5/14).
BREAKING THE ICE: NBC Sports Chicago's Pat Boyle said while the NFL "may be reluctant to embrace gambling at their venues," it is possible the NHL will say, "Hey, door's wide open. We're ready for you." NBC Sports Chicago's Charlie Roumeliotis noted the NHL "isn't the most popular among the four major sports." If the league "could get behind this, and this increases the popularity of the sport," it could be a "great for the NHL to actually embrace this opportunity and not look at it as the integrity of the game." Boyle said in-game betting will "keep the fan in the arena longer, and that's a win for the team in everything." Boyle: "That's more concession stand, that's just more time in the building, better optics for TV" ("Blackhawks Talk Podcast," NBCSPORTSCHICAGO.com, 5/14).
TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE: USA TODAY's Bob Nightengale writes the Supreme Court's decision will "invigorate the human element" in MLB, and perhaps "drastically change the way the sport is viewed." MLB umpire Joe West said, "It scares me to death. ... People won’t have just a rooting interest in games, but now they’re gambling on them. So, if they lose their money, and they’re mad enough, anything’s liable to happen." Reds 2B Scooter Gennett: "It’s amazing what drunk fans that hate their lives will say to players even with no money on the game." Nightengale notes MLB realizes that "jumping into bed with the gambling world can be profitable." But does MLB "really want to go down this road?" The league is "powerless to stop the betting," but it can "still ask itself, is it worth the risk to tacitly endorse gambling merely for a cut of the action?" (USA TODAY, 5/15). Nightengale said, "A home plate umpire probably can change a game more than any sport. I think baseball should keep doing what it is doing and say, 'We are not accepting this. We are not embracing it'" ("High Heat," MLB Network, 5/14).
NO ESCAPE: The AP's Tim Dahlberg wrote there is "money to be made" with legal betting, but who "makes it and how the major sports leagues are involved -- if at all -- will be a contentious battle over the coming months" (AP, 5/14). USA TODAY's Dan Wolken writes pro leagues will "use the interest in gambling as a hook to promote their product while also taking their slice of the pie to boost revenues." Sports gambling in the U.S. is about to be "bigger, better and simply a part of our lives in ways it wasn’t before" (USA TODAY, 5/15).