Sports betting is out of control. Since a 2018 Decision of the Supreme Courtas much as 37% American adults have bet on sport, playing a total of Nearly $ 500 billion.
The results are disturbing: Reduction of savings and the increase in bankruptcy – especially in low -income households – in states with a legal sports game and the increase in rates of Dependence on the game And irresponsible gameparticularly Among the young men. These trends prompted the calls of defenders and legislators so that the government regulates some of the most predatory practices of SportsBooks.
The problem is that sports betting is notoriously difficult to regulate and, thanks to its rapid spread on the Internet, may not be possible to be fully sure. Indeed, developments in recent weeks indicate that states may not be able to control it at all. Many Americans – even those who have themselves placed a few bets – have deplored the damage that have accompanied the rise of sports betting in the past seven years. When it comes to dealing with these damage and preventing those of new ones from developing, traditional tools may not be enough.
By Jonathan D. Cohen. Columbia Global Reports.
Slate receives a commission when you buy items using links on this page. Thank you for your support.
To reform sports betting, defenders generally call railing to protect participants. Their objective is to build a sports betting system in which it is extremely difficult for someone to bet more money than it can afford, to lose more money than it intends or to develop a dependence on the game. Ideas generally include the restriction of advertising, the elimination of VIP programs, the prohibition of the use of credit cards and the limitation of deposits. All these proposals are included in the Safe betPresented at the previous congress by the New York representative, Paul Tonko and the Senator of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal. (The bill was reintroduced in March, but its full text has not yet been published.)
Trying to control the behavior of sports bettors, however, is to fight against a octopus – in fact, several octopuses. Occasional bettors behave differently from professional bettors, who behave differently from large volume players, and regulations must take into account the three groups at a time. And for most common sense reforms, there is little or no evidence of efficiency. Industry analysts – even those who agree with some of the criticisms of defenders of public health –are doubtful that Many frequently suggested proposals will have their planned effect.
Take the only example for which there is direct evidence: game using credit cards. At first glance, it is absurd that anyone who is allowed to play with borrowed money. The regulators in England also thought, Banning, in 2020, the use of credit cards for the game. The problem is that this idea of good paper was definitely not good paper. Although it has had positive effects, the percentage of at risk or problems using credit cards In fact increase Following the ban, as people found work solutions, for example, eliminating cash advances from the credit card and using money to play. However, prohibit credit cards sounds Well, so it is grouped with other reform ideas. Like a new Hampshire The legislator saidWhen you discuss a bill on online casino, “if I had to allow (bet using) credit cards, the invoice will … will die on site.” But if even the most apparently simple regulation can turn against him, how confident legislators should be that their more complex ideas will have the expected effects?
The other problem facing those who wish to curb sports betting is the persistence of illegal bets. Before the decision of the 2018 Supreme Court, but especially since then, the game industry said that states could just as well legalize sports betting, because so many things were already played through local bookmakers or via illegal offshore sports books. This money, according to lobbyists, could be given to the security of a regulated market, where it would also produce tax revenue.
Well, it’s been seven years and the illegal game stubbornly. Some people will always prefer the anonymity of bets illegally – in particular the tax season – or, in the case of bookmakers, the possibility of betting on credit. Congress, for its part, did nothing to fight against illegal suppliers (as it tried to do in 2006). The result is that if someone develops a dependence on the game thanks to the sudden ubiquity of legal sports betting, limiting their game will not change How much They bet. He will only change Or They bet. Unable to help but play, they will rush into the arms awaiting offshore sports books, which do not even claim to protect players.
Even if they will not have all their effective effects, many of the regulations of good on paper are worth trying, except for the current generation of players, then for the next. Young people who have not yet been flooded with sports betting ads, who have not already developed a habit of play, could acclimatize to the game in a safer environment, where they cannot so easily continue their losses, be seduced by a VIP program and enter a spiral down towards a problematic game. Occasional bettors will always revolve to legal providers. If these providers can be made to offer better railings to avoid dangerous bets, such as imposing a period of waiting between the deposit of money and the placement of betting, they could accomplish the important task of preventing people from developing game problems in the first place.
The events of last month, however, question the Whack-A-Mole nature of the sports regulation. While this year’s NCAA tournament was without incident On the ground, with the best dominant seeds, the world of games of chance offered its own fireworks. At the dawn of the tournament, Robinhood and Kalshi joined forces to offer prediction markets on the NCAA matches. Then, the market for the prediction of the galactic media announced a peer Paris market between peers Illustrated carriers brand brand. If predicts, as it is called, as the Kalshi market, will be apparently available in the 50 states, including those which have not legalized sports betting. (This is possible due to the technical distinction between gaming and contract exchanges, even contracts on sporting events.) could have put pressure on legislators and I bought them cigars To help secure the rules they wanted, but at least they had the decency to obtain the approval of the governments of the States. These new entrants do not even care, insisting rather on the fact that they have or will receive the green light from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an independent regulator focused on derivative markets. Dustin Gouker industry analyst Summarize the implications Well: “Are the laws on games even more important?”
They do it again, at least for the moment. At the time of writing these lines, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio and Illinois published letters to stop ceasing and desistence to suppress the prediction markets of the NCAA of their states. (Kalshi continued Nevada and New Jersey to protest.) Gouker told me that the main sports books could see the prediction markets as an opportunity, that entering the company themselves could allow a way to effectively offer sports betting in states that have not yet legalized it (notably California and Texas). But for the moment, in a recent Deposited by the Commission des Vairy SubsièresThe leader in the Fanduel industry has recognized that its operations could be “affected by new competitors.
It is difficult to feel bad for Fanduel and Draft Cooks. When sports betting has been unleashed, these companies have plunged, helping states to adopt regulations as quickly as possible, with little consideration for possible damages. They have designed a business model that is based on a percentage Players losing a lot of money. And they designed an advertising blitz that put bets everywhere. For a century, the game on sport had been the case of the Black Sox scandal or this guy Since Sopranos. Now it was exciting. During each commercial break, Jamie Foxx, Kevin Hart and the Manning brothers boasted of the ease with which it was to bet. In pursuit of profit, large sports books have normalized the online game as quickly as they could.
The nation now sees the consequences of this normalization. A decade ago, Fanduelle and Draftkings built a daily fantasy company on an escape in anti-acquisse laws. It should not be surprising that new competitors, claiming to be outside the competence of state regulators, try to disturb the sports ecosystem that the two companies now dominate. Even if the sports prediction markets that depreciate disappear, there will be other companies that will exploit their own gaps or operate outside the limits of American surveillance. As predatory as operators like Fanduel and the Draftings were, there is a chance that at one point, they start to look downright benign and benevolent in comparison.
Sports betting seem to follow a classic American formula: to introduce a product on the market, then, once the negative consequences become obvious, call the government to clean the mess and set up guarantees for the future. But this formula may not work for sports betting. The genius can simply be too far from the bottle to be easily put back inside.
The regulations can therefore only be part of the effort to ensure safer sports betting. The younger generations should be educated on the dangers of online game. The dependence on the game must be detigmatized. And more aid should help treat those who are already dependent. The nation does not need to return to a time of ban, but change is desperately necessary. States and federal legislators and public health defenders should absolutely put pressure on the regulations concerning the sports game. They should simply be ready to cover their Paris.