U.S. Supreme Court tosses sports gambling ban

[Déjà Bru]

As usual, I am of two (or more) minds about this issue as with many others. Usually, I end up like this:

Keep in mind that the Supreme Court did not okay sports gambling. Instead, it said that federal law to ban or regulate it did not apply and that the states should allow and regulate it themselves. Said states are now going to be in a frenzy to get it set up.

The possible threat to the integrity of professional sports at least received a brief mention in this article (if it's hard to read, go here). But the prevailing opinion these days, along with the rest of our declining standards, seems to be in the words of this columnist, "For the broader society, betting on sports is harmless fun in moderation. Why should we have to schlep to Vegas to do it?" Indeed.

So I put my other hat on and perhaps welcome this turn of events. Governments are in dire need of revenue thanks to our always urgent priority of avoiding being taxed. In that case, if fools want to throw their excess money away, of which there are tons in America, then it's a good thing that governments will share in that excess now.

[pilight]

There's already tons of gambling on sports. Why would this make it any greater threat to the integrity of the sport?

[Reed]

Saw in an article at ESPN that MLB and the NBA are trying to get in on the action. They were initially wanting 1% of the revenue or 20% of the profit. Also the players association is looking into it. Would not be surprised if they had betting at the games themselves and advertisements for betting.
Makes Pete Rose look like very small potatoes IMO.

[rudel.dietrich]

If it is very heavily regulated then I see this as a good thing.
You are taking something that was done through some shady bookies or done offshore and now hopefully exposing it to heavy govermental regulation.
Nevada has managed to survive for decades. And we will have test cases with New York, Delaware, California, Connecticut and Mississipi among others.
Eventually I think it will be nation wide except perhaps Utah where gambling is explicitly forbidden in their state constitution.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Reed

Saw in an article at ESPN that MLB and the NBA are trying to get in on the action. They were initially wanting 1% of the revenue or 20% of the profit. Also the players association is looking into it. Would not be surprised if they had betting at the games themselves and advertisements for betting.
Makes Pete Rose look like very small potatoes IMO.

I have yet to understand how the leagues are entitled to a cut. Exactly how can the leagues force states to give them a piece of the revenue? The media keeps harping on this but have yet to explain how.

As far as the original thought in the opening post, I don't think gambling is innocent fun. There wouldn't be Gamblers Anonymous if there wasn't any harm to it. Admittedly, when done under control, the damage is minimal. But then there are the Cecil Fielder's of the world. Ask Prince about how gambling can damage a family. And I can't agree w/those who claim game fixing is easier to control if every thing is above the table. That hasn't stopped gambling scandals in Europe over soccer, cycling & tennis.


But as in anything in life......gambling, alcohol, drugs, video games, food, plastic surgery.......people are going to abuse any activity. I just hope while politicians look @ all the dollar $ign$ popping in front of their faces, that they have enough forethought to see what lies in the future & reserve a sufficient amount of funds for the inevitable aftermath. Gambling addictions, broken homes, bankruptcies, homelessness etc.

[Déjà Bru]

It's a new day, guys. Where this leads, nobody knows even though they say they do. It could be fine; it could be a disaster. One thing is for sure: as with anything in a democracy, the people get what they want or are willing to settle for, and thus ultimately deserve.

[Déjà Bru]

I get the cartoonist's intent and I agree with it to some extent. However, the distinction is that Pete Rose bet on his own team while he was on it, be it to win or lose. (He maintains that he never wagered on losses).

This is now going to be a fine distinction: It now would be legal for Rose to bet on the NBA, NFL, NHL, etc. as long as it was not MLB. And who would be monitoring where he placed his bets?

[Michael Hopcroft]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I get the cartoonist's intent and I agree with it to some extent. However, the distinction is that Pete Rose bet on his own team while he was on it, be it to win or lose. (He maintains that he never wagered on losses).

This is now going to be a fine distinction: It now would be legal for Rose to bet on the NBA, NFL, NHL, etc. as long as it was not MLB. And who would be monitoring where he placed his bets?

Pete is right, it won't. Pete Rose wagered with illegal bookmakers on his own team's games, games he was managing and in a position to manipulate the outcomes. Even with legalized betting, that crosses a line that can never be erased.

As we have seen in European soccer, where betting is legal and so open that online casinos can be team sponsors, even legal betting can lead to issues with match fixing -- especially in leagues where some clubs have trouble meeting payroll each week. In the bigs that might be less of a problem, but what about AAA ball and lower? What about junior league hockey?

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

So I put my other hat on and perhaps welcome this turn of events. Governments are in dire need of revenue thanks to our always urgent priority of avoiding being taxed. In that case, if fools want to throw their excess money away, of which there are tons in America, then it's a good thing that governments will share in that excess now.

I used to gamble on sports when I was a lot younger, I rarely do now. But when I do, I do it through my channels, that won't change. I'm not going to start gambling where I'll have to claim what I win. The government will have to look for another sucker.