US Senate Hearing on Sports Betting–Gambling executives and experts have criticized the US Senate Judiciary Committee hearing America’s High-Stakes Bet on Legalized Sports Gambling, which took place on Tuesday, December 17, for lacking industry input and devolving into a debate about transgender athletes.
Joe Maloney, Senior Vice President of Strategic Communications for the American Gaming Association, stated that today’s hearing was notable for the absence of an industry witness. This unfortunate exclusion deprives the committee and the entire proceeding of testimony on how legal gaming protects consumers from the predatory illegal market and its leadership in promoting responsible gaming and safeguarding integrity.
“We remain committed to robust state regulatory frameworks that protect consumers, promote responsibility, and preserve the integrity of athletic competition.”
NCAA President Charlie Baker called for federal legislation to prevent problem gambling and the ‘insidious’ mistreatment of athletes.
“For most athletes, there is no gated community, no private security, and yet we, alone, are exposed to the threats associated with problematic gambling,” he told us.
He also stated that Congress should approve legislation to prohibit prop bets on collegiate athletics, which are now permissible in 20 states.
The hearing became focused on transgender athletes’ eligibility to compete in NCAA women’s sports.
See also:
- KSA continues its CRUKS advertising campaign
- UK Children Exposed to Illegal Gambling via Robux Casinos
- Rhino Entertainment Partners with Pragmatic Solutions
Josh Hawley, a Republican senator from Missouri, stated that no federal court has ordered the NCAA to accept biological men in women’s sports. There isn’t a single example that has required the NCAA to do so. In truth, Title IX expressly states, “No person in the United States shall be denied the benefits of any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance solely on the basis of gender.”
Mr Hawley added: “You are in court right now arguing that Title IX doesn’t apply to the NCAA, which is astounding to me given the amount of federal money the NCAA receives.”I cannot tell you how disappointed I am. But I’m not just dissatisfied; I’m outraged for the student-athletes who are suffering as a result of your rules, and you refuse to defend them. You will not even accept responsibility. It is obscene. It’s really ridiculous. Why don’t you go to Amazon and purchase a spine to take a stand?”
Carlo Santarelli, a Deutsche Bank analyst, commented: “We are not clear how this advanced the conversation on sports betting, and we are quite convinced that it did not. We are also very convinced that Governor Baker is not now shopping on Amazon for “a spine.” The session’s lame-duck date strikes us as unique, but analyzing the timing and its ramifications is tricky. We continue to believe that the sector is under increased regulatory and media scrutiny at the moment, however we are unsure whether today’s hearing will provide additional light on this.”
The Responsible Online Gaming Association’s executive director, Dr. Jennifer Shatley, stated, “Over the last year, ROGA and its members have built a strong foundation to address issues that may impact players’ experiences.” The industry will continue to spend in research and technology to develop responsible gaming initiatives, tools, and services. We collaborate with our advisory committee, state regulators, and local bodies to ensure compliance with laws and regulations, and support operations in line with industry standards.”
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) stated, “This is not the end of this discussion, but only the beginning, and we see many aspects to this whole issue in terms of the future of sports, treatment of athletes, colleges, and basically the gaming industry nationwide.”
Duane Morris, a gaming law specialist, stated: “One important point at the hearing was whether the federal government should take a role in regulating sports betting, despite the Supreme Court’s judgment that states have the ability to do so. The hearing was rife with concerns about the current state of sports betting across the country, including concerns about prop bets in college athletics, “negative” sports bets (e.g., interceptions, missed free throws), data collection from consumers, consumer protections from the dangers of gambling, protecting the integrity of sports as a whole, and protecting athletes—particularly student athletes—from harassment by gamblers.”
“The proposed legislation wants minimum federal standards for states to follow, including with respect to advertising, affordability, and artificial intelligence to create safer products, as well as address the public health implications caused by the rapid growth in legalized sports betting in recent years,” according to the senator.
The Safe Betting Act proposes
• To provide sports betting, states must file an application to the Attorney General of the United States.
• Sports betting broadcast advertising is restricted from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. local time.
• Sports betting broadcast advertising is not permitted during live sporting events.
• Sports betting commercials promoting “bonus,” “no sweat,” “bonus bets,” or odds enhancements are forbidden.
• Sports betting advertising that demonstrates how to gamble or explains how wagers function is illegal.
• Operators cannot receive more than five deposits from a consumer in a 24-hour period.
• AI tracking of players’ gambling behavior is banned.
• Using AI to produce personalized client offers and promotions is forbidden.
• AI-generated gaming items, such as microbets, are outlawed.
Mr Morris said, “The hearing was enlightening in that it demonstrated how federal politicians see the present sports betting sector, and that this issue has piqued the interest of lawmakers in Washington. However, the federal government’s interest in regulating the business, even with modest rules, is expected to face opposition from state agencies empowered to oversee sports betting in their individual jurisdictions.”
According to David Rebuck, former Director of the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, “Federal oversight is clearly not needed.”
He stated that consumer protection was critical, and that some states had recently allowed sports betting to combat unlawful betting. He feels that Mr. Rebuck and the federal government should collaborate, and that the issues mentioned have previously been expressed by the states, who handle these difficulties through their own distinct regulatory frameworks.
Join us on all our social channels and groups
Gameongazette is present on:
