What's new
Streak Gaming Online Gambling Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Don't Let Congress Destroy Sportsbetting Once Again

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

vixen777

Owner
Staff member
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
61,181
SOURCE-FULL STORY

After a prohibition lasting more than two decades, Americans outside Nevada can at last bet on sports without breaking the law.
The newfound freedom is thanks to a May ruling by the Supreme Court that overturned the federal law blocking states from legalizing Sports Betting. Since then, the four states that have now joined Nevada in offering legal gambling on sports are already reaping the benefits, collecting millions in tax revenue and licensing fees. More importantly, legalization also undermines the vast illegal sports gambling industry — a win for consumers and sports integrity.
So, why is Congress discussing a proposal that could bring this progress to an abrupt end?



The federal ban aided the rise of illegal Sports Betting, an estimated $150 billion a year industry in the U.S., that for 25 years Congress did nothing to stop. Yet, laughably, some in Congress now insist that the federal government is better equipped to regulate the burgeoning legal industry.
At the Sept. 27 hearing, the House Judiciary Committee will broadly focus on what the Supreme Court ruling means but may also entertain ideas for federal Sports Betting regulation. So far, the only proposed framework for federal Sports Betting regulations comes from Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. Like those who originally argued for the Sports Betting “ban,” Schumer argues federal interference in Sports Betting is necessary to protect sporting events from criminals who might try to corrupt the games and profit by wagering on fixed outcomes. However, the plan details make it clear the motivation for regulating Sports Betting is less about safeguarding consumers or markets than about protectionism and rent-seeking.

Even before the Supreme Court ruling, stakeholders knew the end was near for the federal sports gambling ban. As far back as January 2017, the major U.S. sports leagues began lobbying state lawmakers to ensure that, were Sports Betting legalized, the rules would guarantee the leagues a cut of the gambling profits. A key part of the leagues’ plan was an “integrity fee,” a requirement that bet makers pay the leagues 1 percent of all bets wagered on their games. That might sound like a pittance, but the fee would actually amount to about 20 percent of gambling operators' profits since they only keep a portion of the money wagered, paying out the rest to winners.

State legislators have uniformly rejected the leagues’ demand for integrity fees, likely understanding that doing so would limit the nascent legal gambling industry’s ability to attract customers and generate tax revenue for states.

But, while they failed to convince state lawmakers to take up their cause, the leagues seem to have had better luck with Congress.
Though Schumer’s plan doesn’t mention “integrity fees,” it would grant leagues something even more powerful and lucrative: a price monopoly.

In addition to age restrictions, protections for problem gamblers, and rules to prevent criminal behavior, Schumer’s framework would require gambling operators to rely exclusively on “league data” to determine the outcome of bets. What this means is that the gambling operators would be prevented from using third-party sources of information about games (even public sources) and forced to buy the data needed to make bets from the leagues. In other words, Schumer’s proposal gifts the leagues a data monopoly, allowing the leagues to charge as much as they want for their data.
 

Top