Sports Gambling Legalized: QBs will continue to get more money

[pbmax]

Supreme Court backs sports gambling in states.

Door is Open: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/14/supreme-court-rules-against-ban-on-state-sanctioned-sports-betting/

Cuban says sports teams values to double: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/14/cuban-value-of-sports-teams-will-double/

Regulatory Framework is partially code for vast majority of money must be passed back to sport: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/14/nfl-plans-to-lobby-congress-for-a-regulatory-framework-for-sports-betting/

C'mon Illinois OTB!: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/14/six-to-10-states-could-have-sports-betting-programs-by-week-one/

Bettors translate to viewers?: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/14/gambling-will-be-good-for-nfls-business-whether-league-embraces-it-or-not/

Silent, or running around the room with their hands clasped over their mouths, trying not to be heard: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/14/nfl-silent-on-gambling-ruling/

[red]

Things are about to completely change

Soccer in the UK revolves around betting

[Deputy Nutz]

I can get like 140,000 in a home equity loan. Time to rock and roll!!!

[Joemailman]

Any thoughts on whether Wisconsin will decide to have sports betting?

[pbmax]

Any thoughts on whether Wisconsin will decide to have sports betting?

There is a slightly unusual constitutional issue with the State and gambling which always seems to make it difficult to pass. Took a long time to get the lottery here as I recall and the expansion of Indian Casinos was rough as well, as initially they were very limited in what they could offer.

So I kinda doubt Wisconsin goes early on this. But its possible my info is out of date and they are more enthusiastic these days.

Hence the Illinois OTB joke. Who knows, there was dog racing in the Dells for several years.

[mraynrand]

https://redtreetimes.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/george-bailey.jpg

[Freak Out]

This is bad....right?

[pbmax]

This is bad....right?

Probably. The money won't benefit the people it will be advertised to benefit. The League already wants regulation so they can focus their attention on just a few lobbyists.

"New found" money like this comes down to control. Its the NFL versus the States now. But the Feds and the players will want a slice too. I wonder if the CBA envisioned this as a new revenue source or if it will be off the books for cap purposes.

[red]

i wonder if the nfl will see any of it

wouldnt it be a bit of a conflict of interest if the people you are betting on get part of the profits?

if the NFL were to get part of the profits, wouldn't it be in their best interest to always make sure the favorite wins?

how does it work now? does vegas give anything to the nfl?

[red]

This is bad....right?

get ready to hear everything referred to in odds

after fat mike pisses away another game late, you won't hear about how we should fire him, you'll hear about how he's now 2-1 to lose his job

we will no longer have nfl insiders breaking news about who is going where, but bookmakers odds on who they think is going where

[Freak Out]

Ya....I've always hated that about English books....what underwear will Rodgers wear today?

[texaspackerbacker]

This court case, as I understand it, only forbids the Federal government from preventing states that want to legalize sports betting. Does anybody seriously think all that many states will do that?

And what if a lot of states did decide to legalize? There are plenty of ways now to gamble on sports if a person is of a mind to. Are there really that many just itching to throw away their money gambling? I used to bet online a little bit - some outfit in Aruba, I think it was. I gave that up, and I even mostly gave up fantasy sports because it was stressful and a whole lot less fun following games just because some team I didn't give two shits about could make me some money by winning or lamer yet, some RB or WR could gain me some fantasy points. That was before the recent thing about money to be made in fantasy sports, but whatever - it's more fun and satisfying to just cheer for the team you like. I seriously doubt that there are many others who think differently.

This is all much ado about nothing or very damn little.

[mraynrand]

Are there really that many just itching to throw away their money gambling?

You never fail to amaze

[Joemailman]

Are there really that many just itching to throw away their money gambling?

https://interhacker.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/billions-and-billions.jpg

[Rastak]

https://interhacker.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/billions-and-billions.jpg

There will be a few stupid states but the rest will line up to cash in over the next few years.

[mraynrand]

There will be a few stupid states but the rest will line up to cash in over the next few years.

eventually they will all go Pottersville.

[texaspackerbacker]

Some of ya'all in here can get all panicky and whiny, but nothing of significance is gonna come of this court decision.

[mraynrand]

Some of ya'all in here can get all panicky and whiny, but nothing of significance is gonna come of this court decision.

court decisions never have consequences

[pbmax]

This court case, as I understand it, only forbids the Federal government from preventing states that want to legalize sports betting. Does anybody seriously think all that many states will do that?


Yes.

There are six to ten that could be ready to go in Year 1 by Pro Football Talk's count. Now, they are probably not the most reliable political reporters around, but the court case exists because the NFL (and other sports leagues) was/were fighting West Virginia's gambling expansion. They also fought New Jersey and a total of 3 states that wanted some kind of lottery game. I think Maryland was considering sports gambling too.

[pbmax]

i wonder if the nfl will see any of it

wouldnt it be a bit of a conflict of interest if the people you are betting on get part of the profits?

if the NFL were to get part of the profits, wouldn't it be in their best interest to always make sure the favorite wins?

how does it work now? does vegas give anything to the nfl?

Nope. But the NFL and others were negotiating with West Virginia for an "integrity fee" to be paid to the League. With a clear win, its not at all certain that will continue because the State doesn't have to buy out the League to stop legal opposition.

Florio makes a good point in the first article. Short of licensing team names and logos, leagues have precious little leverage here.

The League will want to run their own operation or collect fees.

Integrity Fee: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/10/west-virginia-strikes-deal-for-sports-betting-integrity-fee/

Maybe: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/11/west-virginia-has-a-gambling-deal-unless-it-doesnt/

Not: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/13/west-virginia-may-stand-firm-on-not-paying-integrity-fee-after-all/

[Harlan Huckleby]

Isn't sports gambling done over the phone or internet?

I suppose this might matters if energetic advertising kicks off. I would think the market is already saturated.

[mraynrand]

Isn't sports gambling done over the phone or internet?

I suppose this might matters if energetic advertising kicks off. I would think the market is already saturated.

Everyone just wants to capture their piece of the action.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Some of ya'all in here can get all panicky and whiny, but nothing of significance is gonna come of this court decision.

States would be foolish to not get into this as it can be big time money for them.

Nevada made over $250M last year. https://www.legalsportsreport.com/18130/nevada-sportsbooks-2017/

Granted, that is likely the high end given it's Nevada, but a state could easily make 9 figures, that's a game-changer for state budgets. Also, think of it this way, the states just got a funding mechanism for all the new stadiums that these sports want without having to tax the GNAs.

[Teamcheez1]

Newspaper had a graphic about adopting sports gambling.

Within two years it listed Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Mississippi, Colorado, Montana and of course you have Nevada.

Within five years, Maine, Vermont, New York, North Carolina, Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, New Mexico, and California.

I know where I live, the legislature already passed sports gambling contingent upon the supreme court case, so they will likely have it very soon.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I know where I live, the legislature already passed sports gambling contingent upon the supreme court case, so they will likely have it very soon.

What does "have it" mean? Why would sports betters living in WI want to use a gambling site located in WI? Maybe the state runs a monopoly and promotes it, like the lottery?


I really don't get how this is going to be a big deal. There is only so much sports gambling money, and it already has a happy place to operate. This is not like drug legalization where something tangible is brought to consumers.

[woodbuck27]

Isn't sports gambling done over the phone or internet?

I suppose this might matters if energetic advertising kicks off. I would think the market is already saturated.

That's the way it was revealed as happening in a Movie I watched this evening and that I recommend Y'all seeing and based on 'a True story':

Molly's Game and starring the wonderful Jessica Chastain, as Molly Bloom; the Woman that ran the World's most exclusive high-stakes Poker Game, for a decade before being arrested in the middle of the night by the FBI (17 Agents wielding automatic weapons. Bravo !

Co-starring as her Legal Counsel, the terrific Actor Idris Elba, and as her Psychology Professor Father Kevin Costner.

My next Post will be my Post NO.30 K here at :pack: Packerrats :pack:.

I need to think about that one and, obtain some Fireworks.

Cheers ! Harlan Huckleby :glug:

[pbmax]

What does "have it" mean? Why would sports betters living in WI want to use a gambling site located in WI? Maybe the state runs a monopoly and promotes it, like the lottery?


I really don't get how this is going to be a big deal. There is only so much sports gambling money, and it already has a happy place to operate. This is not like drug legalization where something tangible is brought to consumers.

Please explain where you are currently spending your sports gambling money? What state offers sports bets? There are four and the NCAA and the NFL were threatening two of them.

If sports betting is legal, and it looks like it will be, then local sources of betting become available. You won't have to send money overseas or to Nevada. There will be far more competition and it will be easier to get started. Each state that wants a cut of what its public is spending will tax it and regulate it. And they could do so that it makes sense to open a local source more than continue to spend money elsewhere.

Not to mention attendance at the sports book will be attractive as well.

Its entirely possible that soon, most offshore online gambling will move back onshore, depending on what framework is chosen.

[mraynrand]

At least I won't have to place bets with Uncle Guido using an unlabeled envelope under that planter on his porch anymore.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You won't have to send money overseas or to Nevada.
Do people squandering their family's college fund worry about "buying local"?

I think of gambling as a crazy activity. Like my addiction to cheap mexican food. It's a losing proposition all the way around. But the heart wants what it wants.


Not to mention attendance at the sports book will be attractive as well.
My knowledge of gambling comes mainly from 1940s movies. I assume in-person bets are placed at the barber shop.

[pbmax]

Do people squandering their family's college fund worry about "buying local"?

I think of gambling as a crazy activity. Like my addiction to cheap mexican food. It's a losing proposition all the way around. But the heart wants what it wants.


My knowledge of gambling comes mainly from 1940s movies. I assume in-person bets are placed at the barber shop.

There will be people who get decimated by it. Have to hope money is set aside to help.

[Zool]

Much like drugs, people who want to gamble will gamble if it's legal or not. They are already gambling.

[pbmax]

Much like drugs, people who want to gamble will gamble if it's legal or not. They are already gambling.

I don't know about that. Ease of access and startup cost (how much do you need to deposit in an online betting book) are pretty big barriers.

People who REALLY want to gamble are already gambling. This exposes many more people I suspect.

[George Cumby]

Gambling holds no appeal to me whatsoever. I just don’t get it.

There’s a reason it was illegal in the first place. I don’t think this is good thing for anyone. Fools and their money I supppose.

Me no likey.

[mraynrand]

Gambling holds no appeal to me whatsoever. I just don’t get it.

There’s a reason it was illegal in the first place. I don’t think this is good thing for anyone. Fools and their money I supppose.

Me no likey.

I bet you're lots of fun at parties.

[red]

There’s a reason it was illegal in the first place.

because churchies said it makes jesus cry?

[mraynrand]

because churchies said it makes jesus cry?

Jesus pretty much didn't like the exploitation of the poor, especially by 'churchies' Matt 21:12.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Fantasy football is the work of the devil. Destroys lives of the players and especially the people around them.

[mraynrand]

Fantasy football is the work of the devil. Destroys lives of the players and especially the people around them.

Preach it! It creates these internal conflicts that defy resolution. Like people who played Fantasy Politics - the Trump supporters who literally bet the farm that Hillary would win. The number of attempted suicides in this population was astronomical and not well reported.

[pbmax]

Preach it! It creates these internal conflicts that defy resolution. Like people who played Fantasy Politics - the Trump supporters who literally bet the farm that Hillary would win. The number of attempted suicides in this population was astronomical and not well reported.

I have never understood the conflict of interest complaint. I want the actual football team to win. I want my players (FF) to do well. If I have Doug Baldwin, I want him to do well, but not beat the Packers. This isn't rocket surgery or brain science.

Now, at my worst moments, I have jokingly hoped some ill might befall certain players*, but that is a terrible mindset and rooting for success is a much better position.

If a child or relative went to a rival high school or college and played a sport, would you not be able to watch their game because they might hurt the prospects of your alma mater?

Now, there are people who will take this to elaborate extremes and start screaming about who is allowed to score and how much, but the problem isn't FF. That person is a control freak and should be avoided out of general principle.


* A short list: Pete Rose, Jack Lambert, Terry Bradshaw, Franco Harris, most of the 1990s Cowboys, N. Suh, Golden Tate, Doug Baldwin, 4 minute offense, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Jim Harbaugh (player and coach), people who believe in the unwritten rules of baseball, and well, we could go on for a bit.

[pbmax]

I am probably going to love Belichick versus gamblers.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/20/how-would-the-malcolm-butler-benching-have-been-viewed-in-a-world-of-legalized-gambling/


If Patriots coach Bill Belichick had planned to bench starting cornerback Malcolm Butler for the entirety of a Super Bowl (with the exception of one special-teams play) in an environment with widespread legal gambling, would Belichick have been able to keep that to himself?

snip

Given the Butler case, the NFL may need to demand a greater degree of transparency not just as to injuries (where there’s currently a very limited degree of transparency, thanks to the bare-bones injury reports) but also as to strategic departures from the reasonably expected status quo. Teams eventually may have to publish binding depth charts within, say, 48 hours before kickoff.

[mraynrand]

I have never understood the conflict of interest complaint. I want the actual football team to win. I want my players (FF) to do well. If I have Doug Baldwin, I want him to do well, but not beat the Packers. This isn't rocket surgery or brain science.


This is the conflict, because I can't understand why you'd want some guy to score against the Packers 'but still win' - I want the opposition to be crushed into oblivion when they play the Packers. If they gain negative yards, then maybe I am happy. But never, NEVER, NEVER FUCKING EVER will I bet on someone to do well against the Packers.

[pbmax]

This is the conflict, because I can't understand why you'd want some guy to score against the Packers 'but still win' - I want the opposition to be crushed into oblivion when they play the Packers. If they gain negative yards, then maybe I am happy. But never, NEVER, NEVER FUCKING EVER will I bet on someone to do well against the Packers.

I don't want him to do anything against the Packers. But the odds are someone will. I don't give up on the game the minute the opposition scores a TD or gains 10 yards.

[mraynrand]

I don't want him to do anything against the Packers. But the odds are someone will. I don't give up on the game the minute the opposition scores a TD or gains 10 yards.

Neither do I. But I'm not going to depend on some guy scoring against the Packers to win a stupid game. Besides, I make more money at Russian Roulette.

[gbgary]

Things are about to completely change

Soccer in the UK revolves around betting

it's probably the other way around but yes.

[gbgary]

There is a slightly unusual constitutional issue with the State and gambling which always seems to make it difficult to pass. Took a long time to get the lottery here as I recall and the expansion of Indian Casinos was rough as well, as initially they were very limited in what they could offer.

So I kinda doubt Wisconsin goes early on this. But its possible my info is out of date and they are more enthusiastic these days.

Hence the Illinois OTB joke. Who knows, there was dog racing in the Dells for several years.

if they need/want more tax $ than it'll happen pretty fast i'd think. with 3 pro teams i bet someone already has a plan figured out.

[NewsBruin]

This court case, as I understand it, only forbids the Federal government from preventing states that want to legalize sports betting. Does anybody seriously think all that many states will do that?

Was there an interstate arms race when Wisconsin established casino gambling? Down in Alabama, we got the breathless panics that our neighbors were allowing table games or lotteries that would siphon out all our money. Sure, "nobody" that anyone knew would grubby their hands on immoral gambling, but those folks were out there, so why not have them debase themselves in-state? Ultimately, all we have is dog racing and electronic "bingo" (which looks and acts more like slot machines), but every election cycle, there are pushes for us to reconsider various gambling industries that have oversaturated our neighbor states.

I'd bet that at least 5 states would immediately submit gambling bills to a) "Establish regulation in case we ever want to allow it" or b) prevent disposable income from crossing state lines.


And what if a lot of states did decide to legalize? There are plenty of ways now to gamble on sports if a person is of a mind to. Are there really that many just itching to throw away their money gambling? I used to bet online a little bit - some outfit in Aruba, I think it was. I gave that up, and I even mostly gave up fantasy sports because it was stressful and a whole lot less fun following games just because some team I didn't give two shits about could make me some money by winning or lamer yet, some RB or WR could gain me some fantasy points.

Your Aruba link was made illegal in 2006, although it's like squeezing a balloon or playing Whac-a-Mole. Someone else will always be there to take folks' money for a little while. I don't remember the battles for fantasy or "daily" fantasy football, so I can't help there, although I do remember ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and individual NFL teams taking their sponsorships without much of a protest. Like the online poker craze, there will be the waves of folks who jump into it and burn out. There will be a fewer who stay hooked and burn through their cash to chase the dragon.


That was before the recent thing about money to be made in fantasy sports, but whatever - it's more fun and satisfying to just cheer for the team you like. I seriously doubt that there are many others who think differently. This is all much ado about nothing or very damn little.

Anything that involves a pleasurable "hit" and addiction risk (card gambling, lotteries, alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, hookers) mostly affects a small percentage of the population that's responsible for a majority of the revenue.

Right now, the federal DOJ is saber-rattling with the states over immigration rules. This ruling that Congressional legislation cannot "commandeer" state legislative bodies (telling that states cannot pass certain laws over if there's no Constitutional justification that they can't) will definitely be cited when those progress through the courts.

[NewsBruin]

What does "have it" mean? Why would sports betters living in WI want to use a gambling site located in WI? Maybe the state runs a monopoly and promotes it, like the lottery? I really don't get how this is going to be a big deal. There is only so much sports gambling money, and it already has a happy place to operate. This is not like drug legalization where something tangible is brought to consumers.

Right now, I believe the interstate commerce clause puts gambling across state lines into Congress' oversight. I couldn't call/tweet in a bet to another state unless both states have legalized gambling. This ruling, I believe, is limited to in-state regulated betting.

There's only so much fast-food money, but different franchises surge and churn. Either find new customers or poach competitors' ones.

[pbmax]

Right now, I believe the interstate commerce clause puts gambling across state lines into Congress' oversight. I couldn't call/tweet in a bet to another state unless both states have legalized gambling. This ruling, I believe, is limited to in-state regulated betting.

NB's last point is correct. When online gambling was allowed (or not strictly prohibited) a while back, you could not participate in certain states. Like the rules that prevent certain states from participating in free giveaways and contests.

Now that will be harder to regulate without Fed backup.

His example of casinos and betting is very good. If you don't think its going to pop up all over, just look for the nearest Indian gaming joint and ask yourself if it was there 20 years ago.