For almost a week now, I’ve listened as very serious sports journalists have used their very serious voices to talk about a pair of very serious gambling cases involving the NBA.
The solemnity has been unfortunate for a few reasons:
Not enough people have mocked the names bestowed on the two operations: “Nothing But Bet” and “Royal Flush.” Does the FBI seek out that kind of corniness or is it just the bandwidth its agents operate on?
Terry Rozier’s stupidity has gone largely overlooked. The man who once Tweeted that Osama bin Laden “should’ve hooped instead of tryna kill ppl because he tall as hell” was going to make $26 million to play basketball for the Miami Heat this season. Now he’s been placed on leave by the NBA because the federales say he gave his friend some inside information about his playing status for a game back in 2023. The friend allegedly sold that info for $100,000.
The underground poker game that Chauncey Billups is charged with being a part of included X-Ray tables, marked cards and—at times—special contact lenses (!!!!!).
All of that is objectively hilarious, yet it was generally skipped over so someone could bemoan the fact that players, games and entire sports were being compromised, tainted by all this gambling. In the case of ESPN’s Mike Greenberg, he did it while a graphic promoting ESPN Bet was on the screen.
The posturing is a bit much in my opinion. It’s also pretty self-serving. But most significantly, it is aimed in entirely in the wrong direction.
The biggest danger of legalized sports betting does not involve the reputation of sports leagues nor the eligibility of its athletes.
The biggest danger of legalized sports betting is that it will result in more compulsive gamblers, and all the dysfunction and harm that entails.
This danger is no longer hypothetical.
In 2018, states were given the power to allow and regulate sports betting. Washington is among the 38 states that currently allow some form of gambling on sports, though here, it’s only permitted on the premises of tribal casinos.
Last year, Scott Baker of Northwestern and several colleagues looked specifically at the impact of legal sports betting on vulnerable households. They found that the legalization of sports betting increased both the number of people wagering and the amounts they bet. The study concluded that every $1 that was bet equated to $2 not placed into savings or investment accounts.
It’s more than just financial, though.
A separate study at the University of Oregon looked at a potential connection between gambling and domestic violence, finding that after an NFL team suffered an upset loss at home, incidents of intimate-partner violence increased more in states where mobile gambling was legal compared to those where it was not.
OK. Let’s pause for a second.
I’m not here to argue that sports betting should be illegal. Outlawing it in the past didn’t prevent people from placing bets or becoming compulsive gamblers. Legalization allows for regulation, and most people who bet on sports do so without it becoming a recurring problem in their lives.
I do believe that sports betting needs to be monitored, though. I believe that how it is marketed, to whom it is marketed and what types of bets are offered are all valid public-policy concerns. I specifically believe we should be looking at whether gambling apps amplify gambling habits and the losses they can produce.
But instead of talking about that, the people who cover sports in this country tend to be focused on the reputation and integrity of the leagues they cover.
I get it. I don’t want sports moving toward professional wrestling, either.
But sports journalists are not exactly impartial in this regard. They want people to continue to trust the leagues and teams they cover, and when I listen to them discussing gambling and its dangers, I can hear the self-interest in their fears that the leagues have compromised themselves.
I have no interest in defending or guarding the reputation of the NBA and its players. The league decided that the money it could make from partnerships with gambling companies was worth the risk of appearing complicit and/or hypocritical.
It has been openly pushing for legalized sports betting since way back in 2014, when Adam Silver, as commissioner, wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times that argued individual states should be permitted to allow and regulate sports betting. If the NBA takes a hit to its reputation, it has absolutely no one to blame but itself.
They’ve decided to take the cash. They should face the scrutiny that comes with it.
Same goes for the players. Not only are the rules about gambling clear, it’s pretty obvious why it would be a problem if players could make bets on games in their league or share information with people who were making bets. This idea that the league’s agreements with gambling companies makes it somehow hypocritical or unfair to punish players for betting is stupid. When I worked at 710 ESPN Seattle, the station aired advertisements for a liquor company. Didn’t mean I could drink liquor while on the air or in the building.
Sports gambling does bear some similarities to drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes. These are activities that some people enjoy. Others consider them vices. For many, they’re an indulgence enjoyed in moderation. For others, they are habit-forming and can wind up causing substantial harm.
It doesn’t mean they should be illegal. They should come with a warning label, though, and it’s worth monitoring the real-world effects, though. That is what I think we should be doing instead of worrying about the reputation of these various sports leagues and their players.
They’re not the ones who are most at risk here.
Danny O’Neil was born in Oregon, the son of a logger, but had the good sense to attend college in Washington. He’s covered Seattle sports for 20 years, writing for two newspapers, one glossy magazine and hosting a daily radio show for eight years on KIRO 710 AM. You can subscribe to his free newsletter and find his other work at dannyoneil.com.