Imagine, for a moment, sports media roughly 20 years ago. SportsCenter, national broadcasts, bundles of paper people would have delivered to the houses called newspapers or magazines, and even blogs in their infancy. How much of that focused on gambling?
The answer is little to none. Gambling in sports was reserved for either casinos or underground bookmakers. At a glance, most wouldn’t even know it existed unless you were looking for it. Today, it’s the opposite. Sports books are everywhere. They bombard broadcasts with advertisements, in-arena signage, and live lines; it’s never-ending. They even own some local sports networks. The worldwide leader itself, ESPN, has its sportsbook, ESPN Bet.
If this seems like things are out of control, it’s because they are. The issues are not in short supply. To cover how things got out of hand, it’s important to cover how sports books make their money. It’s not as most would think.
Perhaps counterintuitively, books aren’t going after action that favors the house. They don’t have a long list of clients constantly losing money, well, they do, but that's a side effect of their overall strategy. Books want just as many winners and losers in their book of business.
What sports books focus on is getting balanced action on both sides of the lines. For them, it’s a game of volume. It’s for this reason that lines will shift as more action comes in. Books want things to balance. If action is heavy on one side of the bet, they will shift their lines to make the other side of the wager look more appealing. From there, it’s supply and demand economics.
They do this because they take a little off the top of every bet, known as the vig. This is why a bet with “even” odds will still have a money line of -110. That -10 is their cut to balance their spreadsheets. Roughly, they want an equal amount of action on both sides of a bet so they balance out to zero after paying winners and losers and then keep their cut on top. This is similar to a stock brokerage that might have $0 commissions, but they are taking a few cents per trade built into their quotes.
For those interested further, Geoff Ulrich offers a great breakdown of all of this and more [here](https://www.fantasylife.com/articles/betting/how-do-sportsbooks-make-money).
This is why you see relatively no barrier to entry on these sites and apps, constantly advertising bonuses and free money to bet with upon activating an account. Winners, losers, it doesn’t matter–the books want volume. This is why those trying to consume the sports are bombarded with relentless ads. For instance, during any given basketball game: it might be broadcast on FanDuel Sports Network; the arena will have hundreds of sports book ads (even in a state without legalized sports gambling); on television, there will be at least one if not three or four different books advertising; and live lines will show throughout the broadcast.
Arguably, this overwhelming and constant advertising combined with a low barrier to entry has led to more scandals, more issues, and an overall change in how many fans view the gam and for the worse. There is no shortage of [stories](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6077963/2025/02/12/nba-sports-betting-players/) of players being harassed or even threatened online and at games for how they performed relative to someone’s bet. What’s more concerning, two basketball players (Terry Rozier, Malik Beasley) are currently under investigation, and another (Jontay Porter) has pleaded guilty, resulting in a lifetime NBA ban.
And then there are the conflicts of interest. As explained, books will move lines around in order to balance the action out. But now they have much more power in the form of the media they influence, own, or are owned by.
For local sports networks, this comes in the form of live lines and sponsored segments. Again, this might toe the line of conflicting interests but doesn’t outright cross it. What should be alarming is the aforementioned ESPN Bet.
ESPN taking bets should be an obvious red flag, especially knowing how lines will shift with the action. ESPN is one of the largest tastemakers in sports. It offers opinions, breaks news, and can largely dominate the zeitgeist of sports and how it’s perceived and discussed, whether fans like it or not. To be clear, there is no evidence of this happening as of yet, but who’s to say ESPN can’t use its influence to shift public perception of any given narrative? Who’s to say it can’t use its power to sway some of the betting public’s opinion?
What this means is that, being the machine that it is, ESPN potentially has the power to balance its action with its narratives. SportsCenter already has segments giving picks, what’s to stop them from offering picks that favor balancing their books?
For example, early on in Victor Wembanyama’s rookie season, there was discussion around Chet Holmgren as an early pick to win Rookie of the Year. It was ludicrous then, and it’s ludicrous in hindsight. But what if ESPN was pushing that narrative, or at least showcasing the pundits that thought that way, because the action of Wembanyama was so heavy and they needed to balance out their numbers?
Once it’s pointed out, it’s hard not to see this everywhere. Regardless of whether ESPN is doing this or not, the perceived conflict of interest is enough for it to be an issue. It puts into question every story and segment they have. And ESPN isn’t the only one with the potential to do this, to be clear, but they are the most egregious example. There are sponsored segments giving picks everywhere in sports media but no one actually owns their own book-making and has it all within one giant Mickey Mouse umbrella.
Ultimately, what this all sheds light on is the lack of boundaries. What we are experiencing is what could be looked at as a drastic repeal of prohibition. Compare this to the soft repeal of cannabis prohibition, which slowly and trepidatiously saw more allowances instead of widespread legalization.
Alcohol, on the other hand, was drastically repealed as well. And those same concerns that passed the 18th Amendment still existed, but were slowly mitigated after it was apparent it needed more boundaries. The boundaries differ from state to state, but are mostly all in effect to curb the dangers of drinking. The obvious ones are driving while intoxicated, bars have to stop serving at a certain time, minors aren’t allowed to consume or purchase, et cetera. Texas even forbids alcohol sales reps from working second jobs at bars because of the conflict of interest in that they might push their own products.
Sports betting appears to have very few of those boundaries. It has the 1-800-gambler at the end of every ad read, and some limitations on its advertising around college events, but for the most part, this is the wild west in a gold rush. It’s everywhere and everyone wants a piece of the pie while they can still get it. The concern now is if the ball is rolling too fast and has accumulated too much mass to stop.
It can be hoped that there won’t be any foul play or scandalous activity. But that hasn’t worked given the circumstances the industry already sits in. There isn’t anything inherently wrong with gambling or other vices, but they need checks and balances to mitigate potential issues. With several scandal investigations, glaringly unchecked conflicts of interest, and players receiving threats, it’s hard to argue things are under control. The idea of ignoring issues until they have to be dealt with isn’t a real strategy.
If sports betting is going to continue to exist outside of the underground it came from, it needs some sort of guide rails. That could come in the form of a stronger oversight committee at the national level, stronger enforcement of fan harassment, and/or limits on advertising. Something needs to be done because things can’t keep going the way they are.