Missouri voters are voting on a constitutional amendment to legalize sports betting this November.
I’m not sure what the BFD here is. Missourians have been quasi-legally betting on sports for as long as there have been sports to bet on. Your favorite bar’s 10x10 grid they offer before the Super Bowl. Your office’s NCAA March Madness brackets pool. Many fantasy football leagues. And that’s just what goes on behind closed doors. Betting on sports out in the open, such as via a website that facilitates such a transaction, maybe slightly more difficult in Missouri IF the website detects that you’re using a Missouri IP and IF the website cares enough to cock-block you and IF you don’t know how to use a VPN.
Long story short, about all I can see that his amendment does is do away with the legal fiction that hides the “underground” sports betting that goes on openly and that absolutely no one cares about, and it allows casinos to open sportsbooks.
I really don’t see a downside to this. Based on what I can tell, opposition to sports betting comes down to two things. 1) The belief that gambling itself, and the prolifieration thereof, is a societal ill that needs to be outlawed, not expanded/taxed, and 2) The belief that sports betting opens up the possibility of match-fixing. As for #1, I suppose we could debate it until we’re blue in the face and still not have any agreement (have we not been arguing about the societal ills of gambling for centuries?). As for #2, I’m guessing that 99.99 percent of the athletes in major professional sports make enough money that they’re not going to be inclined to take an envelope from Big Tony to miss a couple of free throws.
Is there something that I’m missing here? I suppose there’s room for discussion about amateur (viz, college) sports being corrupted by gambling, and certainly the NCAA is (perhaps unjustifiably) concerned about it ruining college sports. But really, is the potential for college athetes taking bribes really that much of a concern?
Lower credit scores, more bankruptcies come from our online betting obsession.
Basically, legalized sports gambling causes a drop in the average credit score of a state, by up to 1% (where online betting is legal). According to the article:
This implies that a relatively small group of intensive users — “problem gamblers” — are suffering major damage to their credit scores, dragging down the overall average. Financial institutions in those states responded to the reduced creditworthiness of their consumers by lowering available credit limits, they found. The results were larger for young men from lower-income counties in those states. Meanwhile, states that legalized sports betting saw significant increases in bankruptcy filing rates and debt collections. Debt consolidation loans went up 8 percent by dollar value, and auto loan delinquencies increased 9 percent.
This author of the study they are using says that ease of access to gambling increases debt, particularly among the most financially vulnerable individuals.
It makes sense to me. Sure, illegal gambling exists, but it has to be kept on the downlow, and can’t be too easy to find. Unlike the legalized kind which can be publicly advertized. And, if they allow online betting, I expect that companies will use the same tactics that free-to-pay games do.
They have an incentive to do things to increase the addictive nature. Just like those online games will make stuff for their “whales.”
I was watching NASCAR recently and was surprised when they put up the odds for the drivers on the screen and the announcers started talking about the odds and how you could go to some site (Draft Kings?) and place your bets for who you thought would win. I think most people might do that with some pocket money for a bit of fun, but some people have a problem with gambling and may find that kind of temptation too compelling. They may be making an effort to avoid gambling situations, but now they can’t even watch sports without having to deal with that temptation. I don’t have any moral objections to gambling, but I do recognize that some people have a compulsion for it and can easily get into financial trouble. I would prefer if there were restrictions on gambling advertising so that people with problems would be able to more easily avoid the temptation.
Gambling is not intrinsically evil, when done responsibly, with disposable income. But it’s one of a very large category of things where there’s a fraction of the population who won’t do it responsibly.
The under-the-table stuff like a Superbowl squares pool at your office probably doesn’t trigger these problems, because you’ll have opportunity to take part in maybe two or three of them per year, and you’ll get one spot for a buck or five, and the people running it know you and at least something about your life, so unless you’re already destitute, it’s not going to be possible to go broke on it. That’s why nobody cares to enforce the laws on it. But a big sports-book website doesn’t know you, and doesn’t care about you, and will let you take on as much action as the limit on your credit card will allow. That’s a real risk, now.
Of course, ultimately it comes down to the degree to which you think that society has an obligation to protect people from themselves, a point on which there can be legitimate disagreement.
I’m all in favor of legalized sports betting. But it will, no doubt, throw gasoline on the flames of some people who are simply addicted to gambling or have that innate tendency and will only do so even more now that it’s legal and there is no legal risk.
The problem is that sports* entertainment has historically been predicated on the idea that the fans are watching games which are being contested fairly, and for which the outcome is not fixed by third parties, acting in concert with the participants.
While there are always some conspiracy-minded fans who are certain that all sports are fixed, it’s not, today, a belief that most fans have. If we get to the point where fans widely can no longer believe that their team will have a fair chance of winning, because the outcome of the game has been predetermined, it will likely damage interest in those sports.
*- Professional wrestling, on the other hand, is certainly an athletic endeavor, and certainly something that many fans enjoy, but the outcomes are largely scripted. It’s not a sport.
Sports gambling was effectively 99+% illegal in the U.S. (save for the sports books in Nevada, for the most part) until relatively recently. There was certainly lots of illegal sports gambling going on, and there was, no doubt, a lot of it being run by organized crime, but I don’t think we saw organized crime coming anywhere close to “dominating society.”
Yes, and we’ve seen the damage that gambling does to a large percentage of gamblers for centuries. The facts haven’t changed. The easier it is to gamble the more people are hurt the more severely by it.
Do we have a moral requirement to ban gambling? Probably, but that’s not the way society works. In some states the government is the vendor of alcohol. Is most states the governments also is the only official vendor of lotteries. Government lotteries prey on the poorest. Go to Google and you’ll find a page of articles saying that. Here’s one that manages to be both fun and horrifying. Piling legal sports betting on top of that could be devastating.
Our society has a serious, endemic problem with allowing behaviors known to be greatly harmful. Governments know they can’t ban popular forms of recreational harm, so they back into regulation and taxation, hoping to alleviate some of the worst effects. That has as miserable a track record as outright bans. And the damage gets more pervasive all the time.
Perhaps a better, and more recent, example, is Tim Donaghy, an NBA referee who was involved with organized crime, and was making officiating calls in games to ensure that the final score fell on one side or the other of the point spread – and thus, benefiting himself, and his criminal patrons, who were placing bets on those games.
Actually, it still goes on today with the players who are barely scraping by. I recently listened to a report about a global tennis betting ring that used players at the lowest level:
There’s betting at all levels of tennis and for all kinds of minor things within a match. For instance, you can bet on how many sets a particular match will have. What the crooks did was to find low-level players who were just barely scraping by and offer them a big payout if they did small things like lose a game, lose a set, etc. It wasn’t like throwing the finals of Wimbledon. It was by tweaking the play in some random, round-of-64 match.
One thing that legal betting might do is make that kind of sports fixing more lucrative. With more people putting money into the betting system, the potential gains from sports fixing should also be higher.
Speaking of low-paid players. Some collegians are making millions from NIL (name and image licensing). Most are not. How large a target are they for bribery to twist games they are just as important to? College football and basketball has a long history of game-fixing, even back in the days when hardly anyone cared. How much more tempting would it be today to get a game to move a point under the betting line when a billion dollars could be at stake?
Huh. Simulposted with @filmore, who says essentially the same thing.
Fundamentally, this isn’t any different than the argument to legalize tobacco and alcohol. We know those things can be harmful and addictive. But it’s virtually impossible to stop. So legalization and taxation became the way.
And every competitive athlete in every sport, at every level, is in the MLB, right? No matter what the salary at the top end goes to, there will always be some folks just scraping by, and there will be folks betting on those games.
No, who said that? I just said that the Black Sox scandal of 1919 is pretty worthless being 100+ year ago, and the MLB salaries are now very decent, if not overly generous.
If that example doesn’t work for you, consider the 1951 CCNY point-shaving scandal. The article has a pretty good background of college basketball scandals/attempts up to that time.
But that stuff couldn’t happen in today’s regulated, legal sports betting era, could it?