Charles Moore finds himself in church on Sundays sitting next to a college or professional athlete. He starts to ask himself: what kind of gambling instruction is this player receiving? He will he harassed for losing a bet? What can I help with?
Charles Moore is executive director at the Wyoming Gaming Commission. Casper is home to 58,543 people and ranks as the 2nd largest city in this least-populated state. Logan Wilson, a Cincinnati Bengals player is from Casper.
The University of Wyoming is Wyoming’s most famous athlete. Buffalo Bills quarterback Josh Allen graduated from the University of Wyoming. Four active NFL players and one NBA player, Larry Nance Jr., attended college in Wyoming. New York Met Brandon Nimmo hails from the largest city in Wyoming, Cheyenne, with a population of 64,795.
Has harassment a “direct relation” with props?
Moore is thinking about each of them.
Moore stated, “We are certain that student-athletes in our school have been harassed.” We know it happens in the NFL. How do you balance that with someone who made a prop wager? They are being harassed. Little League is not immune to this. How much is it directly related to prop betting?”
This is a great question, and it’s not easy to answer. The National Collegiate Athletic Association has asked states in recent months to prohibit prop bets against college athletes. It says that it is protecting student-athletes. Louisiana, Maryland and Ohio have all responded.
The NCAA released a press release saying that it is “doing more than ever” to protect the student-athletes, the integrity of the competition and to prevent the harmful effects of sports gambling. It would also like all states to ban the individual prop bets placed on college games. The Association is working closely with the states in order to combat these threats, and some have responded by banning prop bets on college competitions.
Maryland and Ohio implemented the ban on March 1, ahead of NCAA basketball postseason tournaments. Louisiana’s prohibition will take effect on the 1 August. Other states such as Arizona, Massachusetts, and New York have also banned college player prop bets.
The lack of information is a problem
The NCAA and University of Wyoming contacted Moore’s WGC and requested that they consider an outright ban. The first meeting will be held on this topic by the agency on Thursday, 9 May.
Moore stated, “We won’t say no to this discussion.” I think there’s not much information at this stage. We still want more information. Sincerely, I have no idea where this is going or what it should be. “I believe that there’s a shortage of data.
Moore is not the only one. It is difficult to find any data that shows if college athletes or professional sportsmen have been affected by prop betting. According to anecdotal evidence, the major US legal operators offer prop bets only on college football, men’s basketball, and women’s basketball. Baseball is not even offered by some operators because of its niche nature.
According to one source, 85% of all collegiate prop wagers are placed on 100 or so student athletes. One source said that 85% of the collegiate prop bets placed are on approximately 100 student athletes. Many of these 100 students have significant deals for name, likeness and image (NIL). The NCAA reports that as of 2021-22 its member schools possessed more than 520,000 students-athletes. Of these athletes, 192.103 participated in a sport while attending a school that was a part of Division I.
A source in the industry who asked to remain anonymous called NCAA’s efforts “using a baseball bat as a flyswatter when they need one”.
NCAA Playing Politics?
Others see the NCAA’s call for a blanket ban as strictly a political decision. The ban was referred to as “low hanging fruit” by one person. Stakeholders say that saying it would protect athletes at any cost is a position no one will be opposed to.
Brendan Bussmann is the principal of the BGlobal gambling consultancy. He said, “All you are doing is sending everything to an illegal market.” The NCAA has pulled out its head from the sand, and it is trying to give a bad situation a nice face. Charlie Baker, the president of the NCAA, is getting political mileage from something that he will have to face later.
Baker, a former Massachusetts Governor, became a member of the NCAA in 2013. Baker is no stranger in politics, and the NCAA doesn’t have a good reputation as an institution that is warm and fuzzy. This hire is calculated, and it has the ability to purchase a great deal of political capital among the member schools and the student-athletes.
The anonymous source stated, “I can see the NCAA playing politics to try to convince the public of its position.” Charlie Baker is an experienced politician. “This is part of a brand-rebuilding exercise the NCAA is going.”
The harassment of college athletes is nothing new. Michigan’s Fab Five, who lost both NCAA championships games in 1993, are remembered by many for Chris Webber timeout that cost them their title against Duke. The Guardian reports that the team received “racist” and “hateful” emails after this game. Sports betting was largely illegal at that time. It was not until recently that the NCAA took action to stop this abuse.
Bussmann stated that the NCAA needed to be more proactive. As I speak to leagues and teams about this topic, they try to understand what the market is versus Charlie Baker. “The NCAA has ignored this issue for over 20 years. But [Baker] will take it as an political victory.”
It’s not okay to harass, but banning the props is just one step.
Politics aside stakeholders all agree on the need to protect athletes, even though the percentage is so small.
The anonymous source stated that “the sports betting industry does not support the harassment of student-athletes”. It is “actively working with regulators” to make sure that rules are in place for weeding out bad actors.
Many people wonder whether banning prop betting will achieve the desired result.
Brianne Doura Schawohl, gambling problem consultant and expert on responsible gaming, said: “I believe that the ban of prop bets only represents one part. If we do not educate people about how to handle these new issues and nuances, then it is a failure systemically.”
A ban on college prop bets raises many questions in the betting industry. Every operator wants to provide as many betting markets as they can. Some claim that eliminating a particular market will send bettors overseas, where their bets are not protected and they may even be unable to receive payment.
Joe Maloney, SVP of strategic communications at the American Gaming Association said that “player propositions can be found on offshore and illegal sportsbooks. Removing customers’ abilities to place legal wagers would deter players from switching to a regulated market.” Our industry supports the shared and universal goal to reduce athlete harassment while preserving integrity. We look forward to a constructive dialogue with gaming regulatory authorities and other stakeholders in order to maintain robust, legal sports betting markets that provide protection to consumers, athletes and games integrity.
The illegal markets offer anything that makes money for them
No data is available that shows that a ban on any particular market would send players to another state or country. According to data, the average US sports bettors has three different apps installed on their phone. If a sports bettor, who is betting on a legal offshore market downloads an app and then places a wager there, it’s likely that the bet will result in the deletion of one of the legal apps. This will cause the operator to lose business.
Chris Grove, a sports betting executive and investor, said that it’s logical to expect illegal sportsbooks to offer college player props when there is a high level of consumer interest. This assumption is reasonable, especially if illegal sportsbooks have a competitive edge over DraftKings and FanDuel by offering these markets.
The NCAA will not be able to solve its problem if you believe that the players are going offshore in order to locate banned markets. There will be more betting on college players that the legal market can offer.
Grove stated that it was unclear as to why the NCAA would be concerned with such markets if there wasn’t a significant interest from consumers. The NCAA is concerned about the market for college player props because illegal sellers will sell them. Or they are not popular, and there’s no harm to be done by a ban.
The culture of harassment is “a thing”
The harassment of bettors is accepted by society, whether the bets are placed offshore or legally. Some say that this is the true problem.
Susan Sheridan Tucker is the board president of National Council for Problem Gambling. She said, “I believe it’s a social/cultural issue.” Look at how people react to anything. The social media platform has unleashed people’s wildest responses. The threats may not have been carried out, but the mere fact that someone thought they could threaten a student athlete is hysterical!
What if an adult loses a wager he made? Should the blame be placed on the sportsperson?” “There is no accountability.”
Sheridan Tucker, Doura-Schawohl and others say microbetting and prop betting can “exacerbate problem play”. Both agree, however, that this type of gambling is not the only culprit. The ability to place bets on a mobile device, and the acceptance of bad behavior by society are other key factors.
Some states banning harassers
Doura-Schawohl stated that since sports betting became legalized, disgruntled punters are now more inclined to voice their opinions.
She said that if you were an angry bettors and gambling was illegal, it would make you less likely to admit this and speak out. Now it is easier to say ‘hey, you hurt my feelings’ because they’re doing something legal. There is also a much less edited and filtered culture.
There are data showing that more betting can lead to harassment. But this is a culture issue arising from social media proliferation.
All those who harass college or professional athletes in Ohio or West Virginia will be prohibited from gambling on the legal markets. They can bet on offshore sites, but they still have the option to harass athletes.
Sheridan Tucker stated that it would be good if the gaming industry penalised people. We have to get to the point that this is no longer tolerated. Enough!
NIL is now a part of NCAA sport
In Ohio and North Carolina, harassment incidents have been reported this year. JB Bickerstaff, the coach of Cleveland Cavaliers received threatening texts from a bettors. Armando Bachat, a North Carolina player who played in the NCAA tourney, said he received “over 100 text messages” from bettors telling him he was sucka and other things because i didn’t have enough rebounds. It’s gotten out of control.
Bacot belongs to a small but elite group of players whose name is so well-known that they are able to offer prop bets. He gained his name through NIL bets.
It has helped boost the bank accounts of many well-known college athletes. Bacot’s deals with Dunkin’ Donuts and Frosted Flakes, among others, result in reported compensation of $1m.
This number is not even close to the $3.1m reported by Caitlin Clifton, a basketball player from Iowa who earned NIL contracts. Bronny James, LeBron’s child and USC freshman basketball star Bronny has earned so far $4.9m.
A culture change is needed to protect the athletes
Doura-Schawohl says that athletes harassed by others “feel like their whole world has fallen apart”. Others don’t understand how to deal with the stress. Both she and other athletes agree that these athletes need to be protected. She says that banning prop betting is only the first step.
She said: “If we do not educate people more on betting, and the nuances of these new issues and nuances that come up in this area, then it is a failure systemically.” States need to focus more on harassment.
A source who refused to be identified said: “Everyone despises this type of behavior.” Fundamentally, you need to change culture and the behavior itself. Make it comfortable for fans to tell each other “look, that’s not cool”.
All parties involved in this matter have a common interest. This includes teams, leagues, media outlets, and operators. Some organisations try to make their fans believe that it’s ok to criticise others for breaking the rules. This is the type of culture-change attempt that’s more likely to solve the issue than just moving prop betting from legal to illegal markets.”
