Quote:
Originally Posted by curtinsea
Guaranteed if this were true, the leagues would be pushing for expanded sports betting. It simply isn't true.
Betting on a game doesn't mean you watch the game to see how it turns out. You bet on many games, and simply check the scores later.
There is no return for the leagues, and as stated, they assume risk with no reward. No way they go for that.
It is human nature to resolve suspense as soon as possible. The only way to resolve the suspense of whether a bet has been won or lost, is to watch the game in real time.
The NFL opposes because they believe expanded sports betting would taint their sport in certain ways and thereby undermine the long term profitability of their product, and because they are narcissistic bastards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDarkElf
But I would bet on the leagues to win this one.
According to opinions offered by lawyers earlier in this thread and confirmed by reports in the media, PAPSA, nor any other federal law, makes the act of placing or accepting bets a crime. PAPSA merely prohibits the states from implementing a regulatory regime. I guess they (Bradley) thought the absence of a regime would prevent the states from cashing in and thereby legalizing the activity. What they didn't count on, I suppose, was the motivation brought on by an economic down turn.
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/..._mulshine.html
"That strategy focuses on a weakness in the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). That federal law does not criminalize sports betting; it merely bans states from setting up sports-betting regimens."
Without a law in place I am not sure what the courts could do to stop NJ from, essentially, not doing something.
I suppose what could happen is the NFL will turn to Congress to fix the loophole, but it is tough to get anything through Congress, esspecially when a big state opposes. So, a deal might be made to cut NJ in as an exception state.