Sports Gambling Legalized: QBs will continue to get more money

[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.