.svg)
Tuesday’s U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on sports betting drew a variety of reactions from stakeholders throughout the industry looking ahead at the prospect of federal intervention.
“It is very clear that gambling is no longer seen as only a state-by-state issue,” said Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG), who spoke with žž GamblingCompliance after testifying before the Senate panel.
“It is now crystal clear that there is a national or federal component to gambling policy and that is something the industry is going to have to reckon with, state governments are going to have to reckon with and we are going to have to reckon with.”
Whyte added that the senators’ comments were clearly motivated by concerns about problem gambling, and that simply wishing away a federal role or insisting states have the issue under control is “increasingly untenable”.
On the other hand, David Rebuck, former director of the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, said he hoped that the committee took away a message that state regulation is only continuing to improve.
“My position is what we’ve done in sports wagering as a regulator sets the bar higher than any other form of legalized gambling," Rebuck said. “That doesn’t mean we’re done; what it means is we are going to push it further.”
Charlie Baker, president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), attracted most of the attention from the committee, with the NCAA advocating for a federal prohibition on proposition bets involving collegiate athletes.
After the hearing, Baker pointed out that sportsbooks have shown a willingness to take some prop bets off the board with professional league partners such as the NBA in the wake of the Jontay Porter scandal earlier this year.
“When the NBA went to the sportsbooks and said, we don’t want this prop bet anymore on [players going] back and forth between the G League, sportsbooks said okay,” Baker said. “It’s not like we can’t fix this stuff; we can. We just need to be willing to do it.”
Baker added that the often-stated challenges of a state-by-state regulation of any online product can lead to some benefits with federal regulation.
“I think the whole idea people have of that you can’t draw lines around states when you are dealing with online sports betting is true, you can’t,” Baker said. “So, one of the benefits of the feds [is] establishing some basic rules and parameters.”
Brianne Doura-Schawohl, a consultant on responsible gaming issues who runs her own firm, Doura-Schawohl Consulting, was in attendance for Tuesday’s hearing and expressed some frustration about how the hearing was frequently sidetracked by other issues, most notably an extended stretch where multiple senators confronted Baker over the NCAA's handling of transgender athletes.
“My initial gut reaction is shockingly disappointed,” she said. “It was a real opportunity for a powerful group of individuals to start talking about what is taking place around our nation and the implication on our homes, and people in our communities.
“There is an opportunity for the federal government to rise to the occasion but to be waylaid by other topics, although important, is unfortunate,” she continued.
Doura-Schawohl added, however, that it was encouraging to see the committee take up the subject and ask tough questions about the federal government’s potential role in sports betting.
“Today was not nearly into the weeds enough to decide what is the role, if any, for the federal government and what does that look like,” she said. “There needs to be a lot more education both at the federal level and at the states to decide what, if any, federal role looks like.”
One group conspicuous by their absence at Tuesday’s hearing was representation from sports-betting operators themselves.
Although Rebuck acts as a consultant for the American Gaming Association (AGA0, he said during the hearing that he spoke representing himself.
“[Tuesday’s] hearing notably lacked an industry witness,” the AGA said in a statement. “This unfortunate exclusion leaves the committee and the overall proceeding bereft of testimony on how legal gaming protects consumers from the predatory illegal market and its leadership in promoting responsible gaming and safeguarding integrity.
“We remain committed to robust state regulatory frameworks that protect consumers, promote responsibility, and preserve the integrity of athletic competition.”
