Collegiate athletics and sports betting have long endured a complicated relationship. Though gambling has driven fan engagement, it has also compromised game integrity and sent athletes to prison.
In 1992, Congress enacted the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which prohibited state-run sports gambling operations (Nevada was among several exempted states) — but the Supreme Court invalidated the law as unconstitutional in May 2018. The ruling frees states to legalize betting. A few have already done so, and others are considering legislation.
The NCAA has said it will not seek fees from betting operators (although some schools will seek such fees) and will study the gaming issue. While the spread of sports betting concerns many, it appears gambling on sports will increasingly be legalized and regulated. Drawing from Jim Livengood’s tenure as UNLV’s athletic director, we discuss issues ADs can be considering as sports betting legislation proceeds.
Initial Considerations
Schools and/or conferences should adopt an overall posture on sports betting. While a conference-level approach is favorable, differing state laws could complicate those efforts. Each school should develop a unified vision for embracing, accepting, or resisting gambling. That vision should come from the president and project throughout the school and focus on legal compliance, risk management, and an institutional “mindset” on gambling. A collective effort to “ensur[e] that the fair play and integrity of [collegiate] competitions is maintained and strengthened” should be the “foremost” priority, one power five conference commissioner told us.
ADs should weigh the benefits and harms of sports gaming. Gambling on college athletics is already significant: The American Gaming Association estimated that $10 billion — 97 percent of it off the books — was wagered on the 2018 NCAA men’s basketball tournament. Assuming at least 30 states legalize sports gambling, gaming revenue might surpass $6 billion by 2023. Even directing a sliver of that to athletic departments could create a substantial revenue stream.
Sports gambling is also a potent fan engagement tool. A 2017 AGA survey revealed that sports bettors are 92 percent more likely to watch a game; 82 percent more likely to talk with others about a game; 80 percent more likely to follow a team or player closely; and 79 percent more likely to find a game fun and enjoyable.
But with opportunity comes risk. Point-shaving scandals hit college sports before and after PASPA, often with serious consequences. Tulane eliminated its basketball program for a time after a point-shaving case in the 1980s, and numerous athletes have been incarcerated for their roles in such schemes. Just the perception of compromised game integrity can erode universities’ reputation, goodwill, and jeopardize revenue. ADs should also be mindful of the additional effort expended to address these concerns. While at UNLV, Jim estimates he spent 20-25 percent more time on betting issues than he did at institutions in states with no sports gambling.
The AGA estimated that $10 billion — 97 percent of it off the books — was wagered on the 2018 NCAA men’s basketball tournament.getty images
Monitoring
Athletic departments must vigilantly monitor gambling activity and endeavor to decrease the allure of comprising game integrity. This requires observing both qualitative (e.g., players associating with certain individuals) and quantitative (e.g., trends with point spreads) factors. Coaches, academic support, strength and conditioning, and athletic training personnel who have daily contact with athletes should report any concerns regarding potential gaming involvement. Likewise, as gambling increasingly moves online, athletic departments may consider tracking or blocking traffic to sports gambling sites conducted over their Wi-Fi networks.
Education
Schools should also commit additional resources to gambling education. Though it might seem counter-intuitive, ADs could consider bringing in casino staff to speak with athletes, coaches, and staff on sports betting’s potentially negative consequences. Not only can these individuals competently explain the possible harms, these interactions also give casino staff an opportunity to familiarize themselves with players and coaches and possibly “spot” them at the sportsbook. ADs should develop relationships with local casino operators to better educate themselves on gambling issues, as Jim did at UNLV.
Legislation
Numerous states are or will be considering sports betting legislation. Key legislative provisions ADs should look and perhaps advocate for are: those that directly affect college sports (such as bans on prop bets and wagers on certain sports or in-state teams); and other integrity and monitoring provisions, consumer protections, the use of verified data, and fees to compensate sports entities (including athletic departments) for additional regulatory expenses (the NBA, MLB, and PGA Tour have proposed many of these protections in legislation).
Other aspects of college sports gambling, including athlete privacy and safety concerns, must also be addressed. Although uniform federal legislation is preferable, ADs should not wait for congressional action. Instead, they should encourage their state legislatures to study sports betting from every angle with an understanding of the real costs of maintaining game integrity.
Jim Livengood is the former athletic director at UNLV, Southern Illinois, Washington State, and Arizona. He is currently a consultant for Vivature.
Glenn M. Wong is the executive director of the Sports Law & Business Program and Distinguished Professor of Practice – Sports Law at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law.
The authors thank Cameron Miller for his assistance on this article.
