It’s been nearly 100 years since eight Chicago White Sox players were accused of intentionally throwing the 1919 World Series against the Cincinnati Reds. Since then, player salaries have increased exponentially throughout professional sports, reducing incentives to intentionally lose a game. But the same can’t be said for unpaid collegiate athletes, raising concerns about how the NCAA’s nearly 500,000 athletes may be affected by a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court that opens the door to nationwide sports betting.
A ruling on Christie v. NCAA, expected anytime between tomorrow and late June, will determine whether the court invalidates as unconstitutional the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a federal statute that bans sports betting outside of Nevada. A favorable ruling for New Jersey would allow states to individually regulate legalized gambling within their borders, which would potentially unlock betting opportunities across the U.S.
The NCAA has adamantly opposed this, fearing its league would be severely debilitated by sports gambling as unpaid athletes would be more incentivized than high-paid pros to throw a game. But with $200 billion a year funneling from the U.S. to offshore sports gambling markets, according to Sportradar, and just under $10 billion predicted to have been illegally wagered on the 2018 NCAA March Madness tournament, according to gaming industry lobbyist The American Gaming Association (AGA), sports betting advocates believe the NCAA will eventually have to get on board with a robust technological framework to diffuse the potential for corruption and ensure the integrity of collegiate sports.
“What we can say is that authorizing sports betting with a robust framework in place is needed, that will assist in terms of protecting the integrity of sports, including NCAA,” said Sportradar Deputy President Laila Mintas in an exclusive Q&A with SportTechie.
Get The Latest Sports Tech News In Your Inbox!
Mintas says the current system of laws governing sports gambling in the U.S. has failed and needs to be replaced. Should the court rule in favor of broader, legalized sports betting, a framework that would leverage technology as a tool to track inconsistencies would help leagues, including the NCAA, identify irregularities and suspicious behavior indicative of match-fixing, according to Mintas.
The NCAA is particularly sensitive to corruption because its athletes aren’t provided the same kind of incentive as pro athletes to ensure the integrity of the game. Taking the morality of athletes out of the equation, match-fixing is a legitimate concern when you take into account the fact that collegiate athletes aren’t paid a salary and are barred from signing endorsement deals, says Marc Edelman, a law professor at Baruch College’s Zicklin School of Business.
“They run a reasonable fear that there will be some athletes, somewhere, that believe the purported benefits of fixing a sporting event will outweigh whatever benefits they get continuing to play college sports,” said Edelman, who provides consulting services on sports law and gaming/fantasy sports law.
While major leagues, such as the MLB, NBA and PGA Tour that are each in favor of sports betting, see sports betting as another revenue stream, the NCAA would have a more difficult time doing something similar when it comes at the expense of athletes it refuses to pay because of the principle of amateurism — the league’s no-pay policy.
“The NCAA is opposing sports gambling because allowing it would push attention to the other pink elephant and lead to questions about whether there is a risk of players losing games on purpose,” said Edelman. “As player salaries have gone up, I don’t think there’s a significant chance that any professional baseball, football, or basketball player would take the risk of collaborating with gambling. But if you look at the same issue with respect to a college athlete who is not likely to play on the professional level, the revenue they are getting from playing college sports is zero. When you balance that zero up against what they could make if they threw a game on purpose, there becomes a much greater interest of a collegiate athlete throwing a game on purpose. I think that scares the NCAA to death, especially as they continue to purport amateurism rules.”
If the Supreme Court allows broader, nationwide sports betting, the NCAA would need to consider how all of these factors play together to maintain the integrity of collegiate athletics. Of the $10 billion the AGA estimated would be bet on March Madness this year, it expected just $300 million (three percent) to be wagered legally through Nevada sports books. The scales would undoubtedly tilt if sports betting were more widely legalized, and having a technological framework in place to identify inconsistencies would help the organization avoid any 1919 World Series-esque corruption scandals.
Suggested further reading:
Sportradar Expounds On Need For Centralized Authority For Sports Betting