Why A Crackdown On Gambling Isn't The Answer To The NBA's Corruption Woes
from the if-gambling-is-outlawed-only-outlaws-will-gamble dept
In recent days, the NBA has been rocked by allegations that one of its referees was gambling on games that he was officiating. The claims have yet to be proven, but the official has already resigned from the league. NBA commissioner David Stern has called this an isolated incident, but at the same time is calling for a greater crackdown on illegal sports betting. The league could employ advanced statistical monitoring techniques to determine whether its referees have suspicious foul-calling patterns, although it would be difficult to prove anything definitive. In a New York Times op-ed, economist Justin Wolfers makes the contrarian argument that the solution is to lift anti-gambling laws that are in place throughout much of the country. Because sports betting is illegal in most areas, the industry is dominated by organized criminals, whose modus operandi is point shaving, the practice of paying players and refs to affect the final score of the game, but not actually the outcome, in order beat the Vegas spread. To those who participate in it, it feels like a harmless crime, since they're not actually throwing the game itself. Legalizing sports betting would help solve this problem as organized crime would have little to gain by operating in this business (customers would just go to legal, safer alternatives). Some entities may still opt to bet on games and then attempt to influence them, but as all betting would go through legitimate enterprises, suspicious activity is much more likely to get reported. Thus, while it sounds nice to "get tough" on gambling, it's the fact that we're already tough on it that's causing the problems.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
First
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weak argument
Legalizing sports betting nationwide would mean a dramatic inflow of money which would exacerbate problems with crooked players and refs. And the people who have the wherewithal to identify and connect motivated, ethics-challenged players with shaving opportunities are still likely to come from organized crime. It matters not whether the gambling is legal or illegal.
And there still would be plenty of bets against the point spread, because the market has found that to be an attractive and suitable format for houses and bettors.
I'm not saying legalizing sports gambling should not be considered, but this is not a convincing presentation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: weak argument
"are still likely to come from organized crime. It matters not whether the gambling is legal or illegal."
I guess you didn't read (or failed to process)
"Legalizing sports betting would help solve this problem as organized crime would have little to gain by operating in this business (customers would just go to legal, safer alternatives)"
and "Some entities may still opt to bet on games and then attempt to influence them, but as all betting would go through legitimate enterprises, suspicious activity is much more likely to get reported."
If you really feel the need to formulate an opinion, at least make it an informed one, regardless of how wrong your opinion is, at least it'll be informed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Argument proven time and time again
And, as we have seen when these activities have been relegalized, the number of participants does not increase substantially, the amount of money spent does not increase (usually decreases) and those who are compulsive about the activity stays about the same. All that happens is that organized crime loses its financial incentive and quickly moves on to other "illegal" activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too general a discussion
But like the NBA problems, it wouldn't eliminate the current problem, which would still be disallowed by the league whether it was illegal or not.
To the folks who argue that we always find these problems with "victimless" activities that shouldn't be illegal... they are never victimless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too general a discussion
Follow-up question: how did government get rid of those victims prior to legalizing in the regions where gambling is (made) legal?
To quote a comic: next time you have a thought...let it go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one else is allowed to.
Now go buy a lottery ticket like a good little pleb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't want free money, Uncle Sam?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gambling or betting on it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]