The NFL on Its Opposition to DE Sports Betting

Filed in National by on August 20, 2009

The Sporting Blog (where you’ll have to sit through the usual snarkiness about Delaware) has been following the sports betting drama here and found themselves asking the same questions we do:

Why then, are professional sports leagues trying so hard to block this from happening? Late last week, there were reports that a federal appeals court will expedite a hearing on the litigation between Delaware and the entire American sports world, including the four major leagues and the NCAA. Originally set to be heard in December, an appeals court will review the case starting August 24.

Why would the leagues be so adamant about blocking Delaware from having sports gambling in the first place? You can make the case for the NCAA in that the organization, while making money hand over fist, claims to maintain an amateur, non-profit status. Add to the fact that Delaware has several universities and colleges that play NCAA-sanctioned sports and a clear conflict of interest arises.

But Delaware has no professional sports teams (save minor league baseball). And sports gambling is already legal in this country and has been a multi-billion dollar, taxable business. So what’s the big deal?

So they asked the NFL and got this answer (there’s more at their blog):

“We oppose further state-operated gambling on individual NFL games because it presents a threat to the integrity of those games and to the long-term relationship between the NFL and its fans,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told me via email.

“If you make it easier for people to gamble then more people will. This would increase the chances for people to question the integrity of the game. Those people who are upset will question whether an erroneous officiating call or dropped pass late in the game resulted from an honest mistake or an intentional act by a corrupt player or official.”

This is pretty much the standard answer from the NFL here and this has never made any sense to me. People question the integrity of the game when there are real signs of corruption of conflicts of interest from players, owners or officials. A legal game is much more above board and provides a method to at least track back questionable activity. Besides which — whenever I watch the sports talking heads having on about football games, a discussion or at least a report of the point spread is a part of it. Wonder why the NFL doesn’t mind advertising the point spreads but doesn’t want people to bet.

Tags:

About the Author ()

"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas." -Shirley Chisholm

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. How can ANYBODY believe the NFL’s crocodile tears on increased gambling when virtually all NFL teams have either already consummated agreements to co-sponsor state lotteries or are currently in negotiations to do so?

    All the league is doing now is judge-shopping and hoping to find someone willing to ignore the merits of the case in granting some sort of delay.

  2. Dave M. says:

    Didn’t one NFL member once become famous for betting (on dogs)? I won’t mention any names, as upper-management of this site has an unhealthy attraction to the Eagles.

  3. The hypocrisy of the NFL is stunning. The NCAA are big hypocrites as well. They don’t ban playoff games in Las Vegas do they? I think the problem is that the NFL and whatever partners it chooses want to keep all the gambling revenue to themselves.

    Integrity of the game? Oh, please.

  4. cassandra_m says:

    And if the betting on dogs guy can actually come back and play for the Beagles, it it pretty hypocritical of them to complain about a state looking to enhance its revenues via a legal option that does not harm animals.

  5. Another Mike says:

    And what other sport requires that every team provide a detailed list of injured players by Thursday of each week? What team would willingly do that, since it gives your opponent a competitive advantage?

    All that does is allow the sports books time to change or remove a betting line.

  6. Belinsky says:

    The NFL is execrable, but every other sports entity opposes state-sponsored sports betting – NBA, MLB, NCAA, NHL, etc.

    Unstable: there is no playoff game in Nevada. There is a locally sponsored bowl game in that state, which the NCAA is powerless to prohibit.

  7. G Rex says:

    I just want to be sure I can still bet on dog fighting. Are there fantasy leagues for that?

  8. Jim Ridgway says:

    The position of the NFL is absurd; if they were to get a portion of the take and be a business partner in the DE sports gambling authority they would be all for it. Gambling saves the NFL week in and week out as some of the games are so pathetic that only a gambler could watch the entire game.

    The public has been wagering (illegal wagering outside of Nevada) on NFL games for over a century and the politicians and stuffed shirts that outlaw the ability for the public to legally make a single wager on the outcome of an NFL game in states outside of Nevada are making the underworld of gambling including many offshore internet wagering marketplaces wealthy.

    Gambling should be put in place in all 50 states and should be taxxed accordingly. Anyone under the age of 40 with a computer can set up an illegal wagering account in less than 5 minutes so once again we have a commodity and put our heads in the sand and allow for the mass export of US Dollars to other countries.

    Wake up and smell the dollars you white collar jack asses!

  9. Jim R says:

    Exactly

  10. Rakeback says:

    Is sports betting legal in USA.I heard that every sort of betting is illegal.Is it true?