Six years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Murphy v. NCAA that it was unlawful for Congress to urge state to refuse sports betting without the existence of a related federal normal.
Congress still has a chance to reaffirm its authority and choose a national standard. A new bill introduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet ( also called” the SAFE Bet Act”, H. R. 9590 and S. 5057 ) would do just that. The work seeks to address the issues that sports betting raise for public health.
Introduced by U. S. Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N. Y. ) the act would require states to obtain consent from the Justice Department to offer legalized sports gambling, according to U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn. ). Authorized states would need to follow sports betting regulations that, among other things, prohibit sports betting broadcast advertising between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. local time, prohibit those ads during life sporting events, and forbid advertisements that attempt to entice players through “bonus bets” and other similar campaigns, and block marketing strategies that target problem or unsuitable players ( such as those under the age of 21 ) and urge them to place bets.

Proper stakes, also known as “prop bet” or in-play wagers, are prohibited under the law, which prohibits wagers on particular occasions or outcomes in a game. For instance, ball bets are whether a soccer player will score during a time or whether a person will document a certain number of rebounds during a fourth of a match. The NCAA has aggressively urged states to outlaw prop bets, which are notoriously difficult to spot under the leadership of president Charlie Baker. A player, coach, or referee can rig a play in a way that favors or denies a prop bet, which does n’t have an impact on who wins or loses a game, and thus frequently dodges notice.
Congress should take action now that it seems too late.
Consider Murphy and its aftermath. The ruling was a defeat for the Justice Department, major pro leagues and the NCAA and, from a practical standpoint, opened the door for states to legalize sports betting. As of this writing, sports betting is legal in 38 states plus Washington, D. C., and Puerto Rico.
Meanwhile, the same pro leagues that firmly pushed for PASPA’s passage and that openly decried sports betting’s addictive qualities, worried that players and coaches would fall prey to “underworld figures” and warned that bribed athletes would undermine the integrity of games by exhibiting” selective effort”, pivoted 180 degrees after losing Murphy. They turned legal defeat into business profit by partnering with sportsbooks, negotiating lucrative data licensing deals and striking gold with new revenue streams that tap into a growing, multibillion-dollar industry.
In recent months, legalized sports betting has attracted more attention. Sports betting ads, be they on television or online, are incessant and bombarding. Children are constantly reminded of how simple it is to place bets on phones, and they can place prop bets on how a particular player will perform at the end of the game or even during a portion of the game as well.

Then there are the scandals. Several pro athletes, including Jontay Porter ( NBA ), Tucupita Marcano ( MLB ) and Kayshon Boutte ( NFL ), have run afoul of league rules and in some cases laws because of their betting activities, and there have been several high-profile betting scandals involving college athletes. While greenlighting sports-related business ventures that encourage betting, professional leagues awkwardly punish athletes for their sports wagers.
Social scientists and the legal profession have been drawn to these developments.
Charles Fain Lehman, a Manhattan Institute fellow, recently penned” Legalizing Sports Gambling Was a Huge Mistake” in The Atlantic. According to the article, academic research indicates that more than one in three Americans bet on sports, that betting money results in less money being invested in investment accounts, that online sports betting causes more households to default and have debts, and that legal sports betting is linked to increases in domestic violence, anxiety, and depression. One in five people with a gambling addiction, according to a legislative fact sheet provided by Tonko’s office, will attempt suicide, the highest rate of any mental health condition.
Altogether, it’s a harrowing picture.
Leagues and player associations have spent significant resources on putting forth “responsible gaming initiatives” in their defense. The NFL, for example, recently extended a multimillion-dollar partnership with the National Council on Problem Gambling and, with the NFLPA, mandates extensive gambling-related education for players, coaches and agents. Additionally, there are restrictions on gambling-related signage in NFL stadiums, and each team is assigned an integrity representative, typically a former police officer or retired FBI agent, who monitors for suspicious activity and coordinates with local law enforcement.
Although responsible gaming policies have a limited scope of application, they are likely to help solve gambling issues, particularly those involving players, coaches, and other league and unionized players. Additionally, responsible gaming is n’t intended to address underlying public health issues entirely.
One of the reasons why the act is considered crucial by a number of legal and health experts is because of this.
The Public Health Advocacy Institute ( PHAI), a nonprofit organization that works with smokers at Northeastern University, describes sports betting as an addictive product supported by an industry that, like Big Tobacco, once did, diminishes the impact of advertising on behavior while downplaying the role that advertising plays in driving behavior.
Daynard is a legendary figure in legal circles. He was instrumental in litigation against tobacco companies, has spearheaded initiatives to address obesity, opioids, gun control and e-cigarettes, and has advised Tonko and Blumenthal on the act. In a Massachusetts Superior Court in December, the PHAI filed a class action against DraftKings, alleging deceptive practices, false advertising, and other allegations centered on deposit requirements relating to bonus sign-up promotions ( Dailies any wrongdoing and contends the allegations should be barred ).
Daynard sees the action as advancing crucial objectives. ” Online sports betting”, he told Sportico in an email, “has much more in common with casino slot machines than with traditional sports betting”.
Dr. Harry Levant, PHAI’s director of Gambling Policy who has also advised Tonko and Blumenthal, concurs. He describes the legislation as the start of the federal government joining a movement that will require urgent public health reform and regulation.
” We have known for more than 10 years that gambling is an addictive product and gambling disorder is an addiction similar to heroin, opioids, tobacco, alcohol and cocaine”, PHIA said in a statement. ” With every other addictive product, the government seeks to regulate advertising, distribution, and consumption. The exact opposite is happening with online sports gambling because the gambling industry and its sports partners encourage players to place bets on every micro-event in each game.
It’s still to be seen whether Congress will support sports betting reform. As seen in other legislative issues involving the sports industry, particularly name, image, and likeness, Congress has exhibited a pattern of displaying a keen interest in reforms and holding high-profile hearings but failing to pass any bills. Given the public health issues that the act addresses, perhaps the sports betting reform will have more traction on Capitol Hill.
We’ll see.