Peter King warns of unintended consequences of gambling

Getty Images

On Monday, the floodgates and/or Pandora’s box opened. (Chris Simms learned on Tuesday’s PFT Live that Pandora refers to something other than a music service.) On Wednesday, Peter King of SI.com has sounded the alarm (a little) about the potential problems that gambling can cause for the NFL, along with some of the questions it raises.

“If the NFL prohibits players from betting on football games, and a player is found to have done so, will he be suspended the same length of games a player gets whacked for PEDs? More games? Less?” King writes. “Will the NFL have to employ a gambling czar? And 32 enforcements officers, one per team, to make sure there’s no funny business going on? Will the NFL have its own Pete Rose case?”

For all we know, the NFL already has had its own Pete Rose case. And its own Tim Donaghy case. And, quite possibly, plenty of players and coaches providing inside information about game plans and injuries and non-injuries to people who would pay very good money for that enhanced knowledge.

The point is that gambling has been around for decades. Making it more prevalent and acceptable by the general public shouldn’t corrupt the sport any more than the widespread ability to play fantasy football for money.

Then again, maybe fantasy football for money already has corrupted the sport, with players and/or coaches secretly involved in high-stakes leagues (possibly through a third party), using what they know about the games and/or how they can affect them to make plenty of money on the side.

The point is that the temptation to do things that the NFL doesn’t want players and coaches to do as it relates to the “integrity of the game” won’t suddenly appear with eventual gambling on a widespread basis. If anything, the prevalence of legalized gambling will make it harder for players and coaches to get away with it.

King, by the way, will be spending a full hour in studio during Wednesday’s PFT Live, from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. ET on NBCSN and NBC Sports Radio. I have a feeling that this topic may come up.

19 responses to “Peter King warns of unintended consequences of gambling

  1. “For all we know, the NFL already has had its own Pete Rose case. And its own Tim Donaghy case. And, quite possibly, plenty of players and coaches providing inside information about game plans and injuries and non-injuries to people who would pay very good money for that enhanced knowledge.”

    I would BET on that!

  2. Why can’t people understand that Vegas and the offshore books are the main and best watchdogs against games being fixed? Any deviation in the betting patterns is instantly recognized.

    All this blathering about fixing games comes mainly from the conspiracy nuts who think that the games are already “fixed”.

  3. Will we finally get to the bottom of why the Colts failed to disclose Andrew Luck’s broken ribs and lacerated kidney?

  4. nhpats: I wonder if we will finally get to the bottom of how much money changed hands to get Bellichek to bench Butler for the Super Bowl? Sounds dumb, doesn’t it?

  5. The difference between fantasy football and straight betting is that it is much harder for the efforts or information of one player to influence a fantasy result than it is for a number of bets. Fantasy is league-wide and involves the play of hundreds of players.

    Meanwhile, with prop bets and situational bets, a player could easily adjust his effort on a play here or there to have an effect on whether the bet pays out or not.

    All that said, betting is happening widely now, both legally and illegally. I don’t think a new world of risk is being introduced.

  6. “For all we know, the NFL already has had its own Pete Rose case. And its own Tim Donaghy case. And, quite possibly, plenty of players and coaches providing inside information about game plans and injuries and non-injuries to people who would pay very good money for that enhanced knowledge.”

    I would BET on that!
    =====

    Certainly would explain the Patriots losing to average Giants teams in 2007 and 2011.

    Perhaps that’s the real reason Goodell threw the book at them so many times.

  7. These situations could have popped up last year too. you know, when gambling was legal in vegas and all over the world. Nothing will change.

  8. aarons444 says:
    May 16, 2018 at 10:12 am

    Certainly would explain the Patriots losing to average Giants teams in 2007 and 2011.

    Perhaps that’s the real reason Goodell threw the book at them so many times.
    _____________________________________

    Would it also explain the ‘average’ Giants beating the Packers (among others) in GB both times in the playoffs to get to the SB? That Pats obsession really is getting the best of you, lol.

  9. Since most teams have their first ten to twenty plays set, all a player has to do is let a friend know what they are. Money in the bank.

  10. I don’t see the need or concern for a Pete Rose deal. The only thing the US Supreme Court did is rule PAPSA unconstitutional because it forbade states from making laws to legalized gambling except in 4 grandfathered states. States are still free to make gambling illegal in their state, and I’d expect many to do so.

  11. What about all the sportsbooks paying people to “pay” or “create leverage” over all the top college kickers. Then at some point all they have to is miss “just one kick” when told, if they make it to the NFL. Against the spread, a kicker has the most chances to affect the outcome of a game. 3 points in the final seconds of a game could be the difference between winning or losing tens of millions for sports books. What about that hypothetical??? Where you at King??? Also, with what they make and how often they are seen as interchangeable, a 10 million dollar bribe seems like it would work pretty well. Let’s not forget players and referees in their last season. In 10 years it’ll be as bad as Wallstreet, so, it’ll be fine.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!