The leagues will get a cut. They couldn't care less if that means you can't make a living by betting, and rightfully so.

Have you ever noticed how Vegas has "Football Big Game" rather than "NFL Super Bowl" parties? Intellectual property is a real issue. Plus integrity of the game, "protect the children", etc. With their lobbying efforts, leagues can make a credible threat of onerous federal regulation or an outright ban.

You don't just get to magically make laws because lobbies.

Sports wagering polls well nationally, even while illegal, and is about to become a revenue source for a lot of states.

How will this affect offshore gambling?from what i read there s no middle ground opinions

what i can assure you from my own country is ,for the avg betting joe,Vig is Mandarin and no one cares about it.

maybe so. maybe not. we will have to wait and see.

one thing for certain is that Vegas won't move away from the -110 model, so pros will always have a home in Nevada.

I said "credible threat", not magically make laws. States and casinos could choose to go to battle against the leagues and cut them out of their negotiations, but it seems like a bad business decision.

You seem pretty sure of yourself though. Care to prop bet on which way it plays out?

It's not a bad business decision if the leagues have no leverage. So far your claim is that they do have leverage because they have magical lobbies which might convince a majority of lawmakers to vote for unpopular legislation that raids their own state treasury.

no pay bookie in a A plus magazine

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissm.../#427f01131af0


Costa Rican online bookmaker ****** is among the leading offshore bet takers, and spokesperson Scott Cooley acknowledges that the company may soon be in troubled
waters: “We are going to be exposed. That’s something that, again, we’re concerned with and we’ve been concerned with. Certainly as more of these local sports books start popping up, the bettors are going to gravitate to those eventually.”“Exposed” is quite the understatement: A whopping 97% of ******’s total action is from the United States.

Cooley argues that there will always be a place for offshore bookmakers, given the anonymity they offer, and Schwartz suggests that it remains to be seen just how disastrous the new sports gambling landscape is for those outside the States: “If [legal gambling] is taxed at such a ruinous level that the sports books that are legal can’t really compete … then it might not impact [offshore books] as much.” But ****** has also been hedging its position by “acquiring properties and building brands outside the sports betting industry,” and Cooley even floats the idea of licensing the company name to a Stateside operation.

So you want to prop bet? How much?

It didn't take you long to abandon using the wordy things and instead pull the dick out and pray that it's big enough. Much impress.

Nobody is interested in holding money in escrows for years in order to gamble with random internet strangers.

Now let's see if you can pivot back towards using the wordy things.

The problem with collecting "integrity fees" or whatever the leagues want to call their cut, is that states will regulate sports betting, with the feds taking a back seat. At least that is the way I see it. For the leagues to get their cut they will need to approach each state with sports betting and negotiate a deal. That seems impractical to me.

If I were NBA/MLB/NFL I would protect the stats as IP, and get revenue from that, as the PGA Tour has done. PGA Tour has anticipated this move and they seem to be well suited going forward with wagering on their events and benefiting from such.

Courts have already held that names and stats are not protected IP. This came up in relation to fantasy baseball sites and MLB's attempt to require them to provide a licensing fee.

The most likely approach is the one we're seeing now, leagues will lobby/bribe a few Congressman and get them to include an integrity fee at the federal level that would apply to sports betting in all 50 states. Sadly I think this will be a pretty easy sell for them. It's pretty similar to how MLB got Congress to include a provision limiting the rights of minor league players in a bigger bill.

Magical lobbies making magical laws!

https://www.pgatour.com/company/2013...tasy-game.html

This thread got terrible pretty quickly.

Obviously no one is doing an indefinite prop bet on the internet. Also hearty LOL at the idea that professional sports leagues have no leverage. Somehow they managed to get sports betting banned. But somehow can't get a finger in the pie they helped work to get unbanned? Must be incredibly naive to think that commissioners whose job is entirely raising revenues don't see the massive increase that a fee would provide.

Okay, well what is the leverage then?

PASPA was passed when sports gambling's net favorability rating was 40 points lower in polls, and it costs zero states any money.

That is a fundamentally stupid way to view how national legislation gets passed. Much less drawing the spurious correlation between sport betting polling and whether the leagues get a cut.

There is really nothing to discuss when you're so inept at basic logic and say completely false things like "raids their own state treasury".

I mention the polling because a previous poster mentioned that they can credibly threaten to ban it nationally, and you mention that they managed to ban it previously.

I'm open to the idea that they have the power to make demands. It's not clear to me where that power comes from, and I've been unable to find anyone able to describe what that power looks like.

Feds currently have a 0.25% excise tax on all sports wagers. Prior to 1983 it was 2%, before that it was 10%. So it seems the only legal matter is to raise the rate, the law is already there. How that gets back to the leagues would need to be legislated though.

Nevada won't like it obviously, but Harry Reid is gone.

Or leagues could go state-by-state route, which still seems impractical to me.

I don't know. Collectively having businesses in the 100s of billions and a source of major entertainment and employment in America is enough IMO. Beyond that state/local governments bend over backward to subsidize leagues/etc, and considering the historical power the leagues have had over gaming (David Stern providing testimony on the Bradley Act for example, countered with Adam Silver's current position) it seems incredibly naive to pretend they do not wield some degree of control over how the law is shaped.

But it seems you may not even realize how laws are formed in America. Guess who actually helps shape most of the legislation that exists today? Hey! Lobbyists! (See the weird carveouts for horse racing/etc.)

I agree that their lobbyists will be able to exert some influence, but the NBA is asking for 1% of every bet. That's money the states can take for themselves, so it's a direct cost to them. That's not the case with some horse racing carve out.

You are right that there are a lot of handouts given by state and local governments, but a team has to threaten to move to get them.

Couldn't a league just prohibit any betting stations inside their stadiums or at their events? This would seem to be a major source of revenue for the gaming companies, so if these companies want betting stations inside stadiums, they may have to give the league a small percentage of what's wagered.

I expect the feds will raise the excise tax because it is too easy for them to do it and collect the revenues it generates. Harry Reid is gone and there really is not a strong enough advocacy group representing gaming interests to stop it. So while raising the tax to 2% previously would bring in only an additional 1.75% of NV wagers, it will now bring in 2% of all US wagers. And the states will be powerless to stop it.

The next step will be for team owners and player unions to negotiate a piece of that revenue stream with Congress, in the form of an integrity fee. That is where the lobbying effort will take place. I don't foresee an integrity fee going directly from wagers to team owners and players.

I doubt it. Because if betting is widespread and legal, announcers will probably bring up the spread especially during those sticky situations.

What motive does a coach have to fix a game? How is he going to achieve this?

How easy do you think it is to fix an NBA match?

The huge salaries typically deter players from taking such a huge risk maybe the coach but the refs are the actual only issue I could see since we have seen that before in the NBA. Europe seems to handle wagering on sports outside of the Serie A ref influencing scandal which the teams involved were punished for severly.