Supreme Court could remove federal ban to sports wagering

Getty Images

At a time when Congress has launched an effort to scrap a 1992 law that prevents most states from legalizing wagering on sports, another branch of the government could get the job done more quickly.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that challenges the federal prohibition on expanded betting on sporting events. The case, arising from efforts by New Jersey to enact sports wagering, will be presented as early as October 2017, with a decision coming in the weeks or months thereafter.

While the decision doesn’t mean New Jersey will win, it’s an encouraging sign. New Jersey had lost at every step of the process, and a decision by the Supreme Court not to hear the case would have ended it with an “L” for pro-gambling interests. A victory remains possible, and some will predict that the current makeup of the Supreme Court points to a win.

The argument against the law flows from the notion that states should be permitted to decide whether to allow gambling on sports. The 1992 law was written in a way that allowed places like Nevada to continue to permit sports wagering, forbidding other states who didn’t already allow this form of gambling to join in.

The development puts the NFL in an awkward spot. At a time when it has embraced Las Vegas by allowing the Raiders to eventually move there, many think the league also secretly longs for the day when fans can play the odds via NFL.com and/or each of the various team websites, with the league acting as the bookie at most, middleman at a minimum, for widespread wagering. To get there, federal law first must change, and then the states must embrace betting, one by one.

The NFL had no comment on the news of a new effort in Congress to scrap the federal law prohibiting sports wagering. PFT has submitted a request for comment to the league regarding the Supreme Court’s decision, which on the surface will be met with a profane muttering of frustration but which at a deeper level could prompt a profane shout of joy, thanks to the many billions the league will earn every year if/when it can finally get a piece of all of the money that currently changes hands illegally by people who bet on sports, regardless of what the law allows.

43 responses to “Supreme Court could remove federal ban to sports wagering

  1. I live in Michigan. Casino Windsor is literally visible from All 3 of the current stadiums where the teams play in Downtown Detroit.

    Casino Windsor has a sports book.

    You can literally be across the border to Canada, place a bet, and be back over to the USA in an hour if there is not a bunch of traffic at the border.

    There is no logical reason to not be able to do that at the 3 casinos that are in Detroit.

  2. Even so, most states would only offer a lottery form of betting that shovels massive juice into their own coffers and provides the bettor a no-win proposition.

  3. This should be determined by each State. Vegas Mob monopoly influences are the only reason the original law ever passed. There is no reason one State should have a right to offer products that every other state is banned from offering. That is as clear as any Constitutional question.

  4. Dont you just love how a bunch of rich people make up laws for us poor folk. the same laws that dont apply to them.

  5. —————————————————
    screwmemean says:
    Jun 27, 2017 12:58 PM
    99% of people that gamble and bet are chronic losers. I work hard for my money and spend it wisely.
    —————————————————
    I’d bet (a lot) that you’ve never been accused of being the “life of the party.”

  6. The NFL wants to become a bookie for NFL games? Yea, THAT’s a smart idea. Please. Let’s ratchet up the corruption in sports and America tenfold or so–this is the Trump administration, after all. Mob president.

  7. bannedfromchoirpractice says:
    Jun 27, 2017 12:55 PM
    Even so, most states would only offer a lottery form of betting that shovels massive juice into their own coffers and provides the bettor a no-win proposition.
    ——————————————-

    You are half right. Many states would probably opt for allowing wagering through their lottery systems but a correct bet would hardly be a losing proposition and money from wagering going back to cities and towns is far sight better than where it is going now.

  8. ————————————————————-
    finnymcphin says:
    Jun 27, 2017 1:22 PM

    You are half right. Many states would probably opt for allowing wagering through their lottery systems but a correct bet would hardly be a losing proposition and money from wagering going back to cities and towns is far sight better than where it is going now.
    ————————————————————-

    You should be okay, then, since your bets are mostly correct.

  9. There’s no reason why both gambling and prostitution shouldn’t be legalized. People do it anyway and it is permitted in those countries where the government doesn’t feel the need to legislate personal morality.

  10. screwmemean says:
    Jun 27, 2017 12:58 PM

    99% of people that gamble and bet are chronic losers. I work hard for my money and spend it wisely.
    —————————————
    And we’re all very impressed.

  11. This is a simple binary solution from the NFL standpoint.

    Do we get a piece of the money?

    Yes = gambling is excellent and we embrace it !!!!!!!! (see daily fantasy gambling sites)

    No = gambling is bad and could result in corruption if players gamble, we don’t want it !

  12. Even so, most states would only offer a lottery form of betting that shovels massive juice into their own coffers and provides the bettor a no-win proposition.
    ———-
    You have to win apx 80% of your bets to stay profitable if all the bets are of equal amounts. (The house gets their 10% win or lose)

    I’m not saying yeah or neigh as much as providing context from an experienced (mostly former) gambler. Now that I’ve gotten older I prefer to have to go all the way to Vegas for a week of gambling. I’m not sure if I want that temptation that close to home? I could see some potential danger in making it too easy and convenient that one could do it from anywhere at any time.

  13. Here in Abbotsford BC Canada I am a 6 minute drive from Washington State and The Seahawk Nation.

    I can wager on the NFL

    However, I can not wager a single game. Minimum bet is A TWO GAME PARLAY.

    It is possible to fix one game.

    A two game parlay makes it way too difficult for shaky characters to fix an outcome.

  14. charger383 says:
    Jun 27, 2017 2:08 PM

    People will bet, smoke dope, drink moonshine, drive fast, pay prostitutes ect ect no matter what the law says
    ———————————————————-
    We should hang out.

  15. topcide says:
    There is no logical reason to not be able to do that at the 3 casinos that are in Detroit.
    *******
    Ever seen the TV show “Hardcore Pawn”, taped in Detroit? That dude will have to open 8 more branches and they’ll be overflowing into the parking lots if sports betting were legal in Detroit.

  16. I’m just thinking this through as I type…

    Seems to me the problems with gambling are the violence committed by bookies who don’t get paid, the staggering personal losses suffered by people with gambling addictions, and the potential for tainting the game by having players take dives.

    If the states themselves or the league are the bookies, there’s no risk of accepting bets on unestablished credit (i.e., you can’t make a $10,000 bet if you don’t have $10,000), which probably satisfies the first two problems. Regarding the potential for players taking dives…eh. They’re rich enough as it is, and I doubt you could get away with that today, given how sophisticated media and metrics have become.

    This sounds a lot to me like the prohibition on alcohol…outlawing it doesn’t stop people from doing it. It just pushes it underground where the bad guys are in control. Legalize it, and it will be much easier to keep a leash on it.

  17. This is a complete joke. Seriously Sports Gambling should have always been legal. Have you guys ever heard of The Lottery? It is the exact same concept. In both cases you wager you money with very slim chances of winning a big sum. And to make matters worse, the Lottery is advertised daily on basic cable here in New York State. That’s right the state is encouraging its own citizens and residents to gamble their hard earned money. Personally I am against the act of gambling because it is a waste of money. However, if a person truly wants to gamble their money they should have every legal right to do so. The only caveat is that the gambler must take full responsibility for all consequences.

  18. You allow sports gambling into football fan will be quick to call a game fixed (Like the past few super bowls)

    It’s one thing to be emotionally attached to a team but everyone is emotionally attached to their money. Ultimately people believe their emotions over anything factual. Could ruin the NFL’s already shaky foundation.

  19. Betting on games=problem. Betting on which player will do good each week=ok lol hmmmmm… fantasy football is ok but I can’t play poker online wtf

  20. Oh boy! The Raiders will really love moving to Vegas now!!

    This is a joke anyway. I’ve been playing football tickets every season for probably 40 years. I do it for fun and if I win a few shekels at the end of the season, it’s even more fun. If I don’t, it’s still fun.

    The NFL knows fully well they’ve been making millions from the gambling that goes on, for years. It gets people who couldn’t care less about football into the sport, big time.

    This country is breaking down all the rules and laws which once had to do with values, so it’s not a surprise at all that the Supreme Court is hearing this case. It will shock me if this suit is dismissed.

  21. drunkraider says:
    Jun 27, 2017 1:13 PM

    Dont you just love how a bunch of rich people make up laws for us poor folk. the same laws that dont apply to them.
    ____________
    For the longest time, Congress exempted itself from laws against Inside Trading and currently is still exempted from having to be part of ObamaCare.

    End professional politicians: Two terms and you’re done and the pay is $50K/year plus a ticket to a Redskins’ game because you are going to serve not get rich or make a career.

  22. You can bet on soccer games in England and other European countries. Do you hear any of screams about those games being fixed?

    You’d have to have several players and ultimately a coach on the take, to fix a game. Even though many players make bad financial decisions, many are multimillionaires. How much can you offer a multimillionaire to fix a game? If they’re on a first contract that didn’t pay a lot, they’re hoping to get paid on the next one. How many MILLIONS are you going give them to throw a game and mess up the potential multimillion dollars payday? Second, how would the player justify getting that payoff money? The profit margin for the casinos to even attempt to fix games is not great enough to make it worth while. The league gets most of their money from the TV contracts which pays them BILLIONS. EVERY business wants to maximize their profits. But what would happen to the advertisers, who fuel the billion dollar TV contracts, if they even THOUGHT games were being fixed? I don’t see those MULTIBILLIONAIRE owners sacrificing the TV contracts, to make a few millions by fixing games.

  23. Is there a sports page (website) in the US that refrains from printing the lines for NFL games? Everyone with the slightest amount of knowledge of the sport is aware that betting has long been a very large part of the NFL’s popularity.

  24. whodat5150 says:
    Jun 27, 2017 5:11 PM

    I don’t see those MULTIBILLIONAIRE owners sacrificing the TV contracts, to make a few millions by fixing games.
    ———————–

    The NFL lied to the entire country, simply because one team was more successful than the rest. These people would steal money out of a beggar’s cup if they thought no one was looking.

  25. Great allow sports betting! But if the NFL is going to get any money out of it then all tax exempt status that they have needs to go away!

Leave a Reply