I can tilt my head and see that - but the contract (to use the term loosely) is for the players to help their team win. 10, 20, 40 points don’t matter there.
Sure, the gamblers on the losing side are going to be annoyed (and if it becomes clear that shaving is rampart it is going to cut down on betting (which is probably over all a good thing)), but I don’t think players are obligated to play all out all the time. Otherwise, couldn’t coaches be prosecuted for pulling their starters in a blow out? Maybe I had a bet on +50 when the main line was +30 - do I have a cause of action?
But it does. The bet is predicated on the idea that players are doing their best because as professional athletes that is their job. Betting on the game isn’t supposed to influence the outcome of the game (whether that applies to who wins, or smaller details like points scored). The idea of gambling is that it is a game of chance. If the outcome is not in doubt because the players are conspiring with those involved on the gambling side, it is no longer a game of chance.
The entire enterprise is a scam and is a very black and white example of fraud, it’s the very definition of it. It’s illegal for the exact same reason burglary is illegal.
How about college? And the job of any athlete is to win - once they’ve done that, I would argue their contract is fulfilled. So, throwing a game is right out, winning by 10 instead of 20 not so much.
A gambler making or losing money is not the responsibility of the player or the team (at least not yet). Now, if a team or league wants to make not accepting money from gamblers a contract provision, more power to them. And the owners don’t have to sign known slackers (although LeBron at 95% is still a good deal). But I’m still not convinced that basic point shaving should be criminal offense.
It’s fraud. If a player is colluding with bookies or whoever to shave points, or perhaps they are putting bets down on their own games, then they are participating in theft. There doesn’t even need to be specific laws against that situation; we already have laws against this sort of thing. It’s no different than any other con artist.
Would you be fine if a guy who works for a state lottery fixes the drawing so that he pulls out the numbers for his own ticket? If you aren’t, how is that different? If you are, well, I’m not sure what to say to that.
I really don’t see those as the same thing. The lottery employee is paid to draw/record random numbers. The athlete is paid to win contests. If he throws a game, he is arguably engaged in fraud (although I would argue against his team/league, not sure a bookie/bettor has any form of contract with him). But if he coasts and the score gets closer then otherwise would have happened? Not seeing it as a concern of the state (although of course it can be made illegal).
I’m fully understanding your point, I’m pretty sure. The disconnect is that you think the player has a duty to help the gambler make money, and I don’t. In particular, unless the gambler has a contract with the player that he will try his hardest to make the point spread, I don’t think the gambler has a legal right to expect him to.
Interestingly to me is that if the player makes an agreement with the gambler to shave points and then the team covers the spread anyway, then the gambler may have a case against the player.
What if there’s no financial gain to the player? What if he just wants to help a buddy on the other team not look bad?
As for this:
The question is, in the absence of the predicate of being bribed, does the player have a general duty to protect the gambler’s chances of winning? If I buy a Ford, I’m directly responsible for Chevy (and Dodge, et. al.) losing money. But they can’t sue me because I have no duty to make them money in the first place, we have no contract.
And I would argue there is no duty since, as noted above, pulling star players early to rest them for the next game has the exact same effect on the likelihood of the spread being covered, but is perfectly legal.
He literally can’t protect every gambler’s chance of winning. It’s literally impossible. So no, he can’t have a general duty to protect something he can’t do.
Let’s say the over/under in a game is 150.3 points. You have an athlete who is a star player on a basketball team who basically carries the team on his back. He’s up against a horrible team and doesn’t even need to try very hard to win or drive up the score. If he scores enough points to bring the combined score over 150, then those who bet the over win. If he doesn’t, those who bet the under win. Either way, someone loses. He can’t make everyone win, even if he can practically score at will.
Now let’s say he’s bribed by bookies who see that everyone is betting the over. Or more simply he bets a huge amount on the under himself. (Either way he’s being paid to ensure the score doesn’t get very high.) In that case he is abusing his position for personal gain. The final score is not brought about naturally through honest competition. He’s practically picking the pockets of those who bet the over and putting it in his own pocket. That’s when it’s wrong.
And by the way, the term “point shaving” implies such a bribe is involved. If players aren’t receiving any money in the process, then point shaving isn’t happening.
As a fan of the sport, you would know that a 50 point blowout is very rare in basketball. You know that the coach will put in the scrubs and start slowing down the clock to keep the other team from as much embarrassment as possible. You realize all of this as an inherent part of your 50 point spread bet and you accept that.
What I think you would not accept is that you are guaranteed to lose your bet because someone else lined the coach’s pocket. Shouldn’t you have a fair chance at winning the bet?
I do the occasional bet, and would love that. I just don’t think that the teams/players actually owe it to me. If it turns out that it happens a lot, then the market for betting will collapse and the players will no longer get that cash. Capitalism!
And of course the +50 was exaggeration for effect. If there is a 12 point line, up by 10, is Curry obligated to take an open 3 with 0.5 seconds left to cover the spread? If not, how is that different then a 12 pt spread, up by 13, and defensive specialist Harden allows someone to drive past him for a layup?
Or the teams that don’t exactly bust ass to win, in order to get better draft picks? I mean, it’s not any different to the team to be 6-10 vs. 4-12 (or 6-11/4-13 next season), and if it gets them a higher draft position to lose those extra two games, it may well be better overall. Think “Tank for Trevor” in this past season.
Overall though, the easiest way to do it would be to play with your substitutes and your play calling/alignment in such a way that it would look more or less kosher, but still produce inferior results. An example might be doing something like calling a draw play on 3rd and 10, because nobody would expect it… because it’s not a great idea.
If a football/soccer team’s playing a 4-3-3 formation, then the central midfielder would have a pretty good shot at throwing a game. He’s often responsible for the transition from defence to offence, and is expected to break up the opponent’s passing and slow them down when they’re coming down offensively. A few bad passes leading to turnovers, and a few times being out of position when defending could make the difference in a game between two otherwise evenly matched teams.
I’m not terribly knowledgeable about soccer/football but I would think it hard for anyone but a goalie to throw a game. There are so few scores but so many scoring chances that you’d have to make a number of bad passes before the other team finally scored, and if your own team happened to score a lucky goal then you have to do it again. I suppose “accidentally” scoring on your own goal near the end of the game would be possible.
allows someone to drive past him for a layup?