The NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL, and NCAA all opposed New Jersey’s case from the beginning (the case was originally called Chris Christie vs. NCAA et al.), not because they opposed legalized sports betting, but because they didn’t want to deal with a messy, state-by-state legal landscape. Too bad: New Jersey won its case, which means that New Jersey and other states can now move to legalize sports betting in their state.
The ruling does not mean that sports betting is now legal at the federal level, which is what the leagues would prefer: a uniform federal framework. And the leagues (led by the NBA) are still pushing forward with that separate lobbying effort. But that will likely take years to play out.
The NBA was quick to reiterate its stance in a statement after the May 14 SCOTUS ruling (bolding ours): “Today’s decision by the Supreme Court opens the door for states to pass laws legalizing sports betting. We remain in favor of a federal framework that would provide a uniform approach to sports gambling in states that choose to permit it, but we will remain active in ongoing discussions with state legislatures. Regardless of the particulars of any future sports betting law, the integrity of our game remains our highest priority.”
The concept (in particular the name choice) has been mocked by some, but others see it as an inevitable step, and a positive one because it means the players get a cut of the betting.
NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has not specifically voiced support for integrity fees, but did tell CNBC last week that he now believes legal betting will be good for hockey. (And in light of the SCOTUS ruling, the NHL looks ahead of the curve with the Golden Knights expansion team in Las Vegas; the NFL aims to follow with the Las Vegas Raiders in 2020.) On the issue of fees, Bettman is likely to fall in line with whatever NBA Commissioner Adam Silver and MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred do. “The NHL won’t be driving the car,” says Dustin Gouker, managing editor of the website Legal Sports Report. “They’ll sit on the passenger side and generally be amenable to what the others want.”
According to ESPN’s Don Van Natta, speaking this week on Outside The Lines: “The NFL just doesn’t think an integrity fee, a one percent fee, is in anyone’s interest.”
A fan displays a sign welcoming the Oakland Raiders, who plan to relocate to Las Vegas (AAP)
NFL takes a different tack
Rather than demand a direct cut of the betting, the NFL appears to be focusing on getting paid for selling rights to its own data and video footage—intellectual property that legal betting operators will want to pay for in order to help them set lines and prop bets.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell confirmed this approach when he broke his silence on the issue this week in a statement: “We have spent considerable time planning for the potential of broadly legalized sports gambling and are prepared to address these changes in a thoughtful and comprehensive way.” He also voiced support for “Congress to enact uniform standards for states that choose to legalize sports betting,” like the other leagues want.
“The NFL is sort of aligned with the NBA and Major League Baseball, in that they think regulation is the best way to go,” says Gouker. “The difference is in how they are going about it. The NFL doesn’t seem to be interested in getting a cut of all wagers like its counterparts are. They may see those ‘integrity fees’ as problematic both legally and from an optics standpoint.”
How the NFL approaches sports betting will also surely be scrutinized.
The sports betting ruling, and how the pro leagues are reacting, was the subject of a recent episode of the Yahoo Finance Sportsbook podcast with guest Dustin Gouker; listen below.
—
Daniel Roberts is the sports business writer at Yahoo Finance. He hosts the podcast Sportsbook and the video series Business + Coffee. Follow him on Twitter at @readDanwrite.
