Connect with us

Illinois Govt

Supreme Court Ruling Overturns Ban On Sports Betting

Eric Broughton

Published

on

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of New Jersey in the case that was formerly known as Chris Christie vs. NCAA (Christie’s name has been supplanted by Phil Murphy, the state’s new governor), striking down a 25-year old federal law known as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) that largely outlawed sports betting outside of Nevada.

The court overruled a decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, saying PASPA violates the state’s 10th Amendment rights, thereby creating a path for New Jersey and other states to offer sports betting.

“Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own,” the opinion reads. “Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not.”

What happens next?

New Jersey has been preparing in earnest for legalized sports wagering since 2012, and many locations are ready to move quickly. Monmouth Park — a racetrack on the Jersey Shore — says it could open betting windows within the next two weeks.

It could take other states weeks, or even months, to follow New Jersey’s blueprint, if they choose. One exception is Delaware, said Daniel Wallach, a sports gaming law expert and attorney at Becker & Poliakof, noting that the state already as infrastructure in place and doesn’t require any legislative tweaks.

Which states will be next?

Many state legislatures have been working on bills in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s ruling, and many were waiting to see whether the court would strike down PASPA entirely. Many places have already concluded their 2018 legislative sessions, which could mean state lawmakers can’t address the matter until next year.

While New Jersey and Delaware could have betting windows open soon, states such as West Virginia and Mississippi are also poised to move quickly. States such as Pennsylvania and Connecticut could be racing to get in the game, as well. Nearly 20 states have introduced bills that could legalize sports betting, and a 2017 report from Eilers & Krejcik Gaming estimates that as many as 32 states could offer legal sports betting within the next five years.

What sports will I be able bet on?

The Supreme Court opinion means states can offer the same betting options as any other sports books, including college and professional sports, horse racing, golf, combat sports and non-American sporting events.

Is there anything I won’t be able to bet on?

Some sports leagues have urged states to ban some prop bets, primarily the situational variety that can be easily impacted by a single player or decision without necessarily altering the game’s outcome. For example, the leagues don’t want to see betting lines offered on which player will commit the first foul of a game, or whether the first pitch of a game is a ball or strike.

Most sports books are likely to offer single-game bets, over-under bets, prop betting, teaser bets and parlays, as Nevada sports books do.

Will mobile and online betting be available?

Many bills are encouraging mobile and online betting options. Without these options, gambling advocates warn that bettors will still turn to offshore accounts and illegal bookmakers.

New Jersey sports books will be able to take bets via phone or computer, but not right away. There will be a licensing process that could take weeks — possibly a few months — before books will be able to take bets remotely. Even then, only intrastate wagers will be permitted.

Can I place in-game wagers?

Like many of the details, in the absence of federal legislation, this ultimately could vary from state to state. Some of the proposed bills specifically allow for in-game betting, such as those in West Virginia and New York.

I already have accounts with DraftKings and FanDuel. Will they offer sports betting?

A: Many expect both these companies — the two giants in the world of daily fantasy sports — to quickly jump into this space and offer a large menu of sports betting options. They already have much of the infrastructure in place, and a long list of users familiar with their platforms.

In the meantime, those companies could still partner with specific casinos or venues, particularly on the mobile and online side of the business.

Are the pro sports leagues happy about this?

In 2012, the five biggest sports entities in the United States sued to prevent New Jersey from entering the sports gaming business. But since then, some have altered their stance. The NBA and Major League Baseball have both said some form of legal sports gambling seems inevitable, and have teamed together to urge states to pass bills that would help protect the integrity of their sports – while also directing some profits in the direction of the leagues.

While all of the leagues will likely take on added costs – education, monitoring and investigations, for example – they could also stand to make plenty of money through new partnerships and business opportunities.

What about the NCAA?

The world of college sports, relying on amateur student-athletes, has been resolute in its opposition of sports wagering.

There has been talk that the leagues will want a percentage of the money wagered? Is that happening? Does it impact bettors?

Major League Baseball and the NBA have proposed states mandate a 1 percent kickback to the leagues for assuming added risk. They liken to this to an “integrity fee,” or a “royalty to the league.” Some states have balked and the leagues have expressed a willingness to take less than 1 percent.

Some gambling advocates say cutting into sports books’ profits with such fees could force them to offer tighter odds, which could push bettors back to the illegal markets to make their wagers.

How big is the sports gambling industry?

While it’s probably impossible to accurately estimate, experts suggest that illegal betting in the United States is a $50-150 billion business – perhaps significantly more.

According to research by UNLV’s Center for Gaming Research, legal sports betting in Nevada totaled nearly $5 billion last year, led by football — both college and professional — which accounted for $1.76 billion.

A 2017 report from Eilers & Krejcik Gaming estimated that legal sports gambling could be a $6 billion industry — perhaps as much $16 billion if more states eventually get onboard.

Could this lead to corruption or scandals?

That has certainly been the big fear, which has prompted the leagues to dig in their heels on this issue for so long. The leagues know they’ll have to take on added costs to educate players and monitor betting trends to guard against any suspect activity.

But gambling advocates are quick to point out that sports gambling already takes place on a massive scale, meaning the leagues are already vulnerable to corruption.

What happens to that federal law that largely banned sports betting outside of Las Vegas?

Even with PASPA struck down, Congress could still move to establish federal guidelines that would produce uniformity from state to state.

On Dec. 7 — the same day the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case — Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., introduced the Gaming Accountability and Modernization Enhancement Act, or GAME Act. His proposal doesn’t set federal guidelines, per se, but it does aim to remove obstacles and provide the legal framework for states to adopt sports betting.

What will Illinois do? Is there a plan and desire to allow for sports gambling in this state?

The gambling industry wants to capitalize on what’s long been a valuable black-market industry. They contend strict state regulations and high taxes could keep legal businesses from being able to compete with illegal bookkeepers, saying they already have incentive to make sure games stay clean to preserve their own bottom line.

Will Green, an official of the American Gaming Association, said high taxes could “burden a legal sports book with unnecessary costs” and make legal businesses unable to meet the higher payouts of illegal companies that currently operate offshore.

“It will cut the legs off of legal sports betting, quite honestly, before it has the chance to walk,” he said.

Opponents, though, say expanded gambling does more harm than the potential tax money could do good. Anita Bedell, executive director of Illinois Church Action on Alcohol and Addiction Problems, said online gambling is a “gateway” that could get kids hooked, saying children are already “bombarded with gambling ads” on social media.

Gambling industry officials estimated sports betting could net the state about $85 million in taxes.

Illinois is was not the only state betting on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the federal ban. Similar legislation to regulate and tax sports betting has been proposed in at least a dozen states across the country, including Indiana, Missouri, California and Massachusetts. State legislatures in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Mississippi also passed laws in recent months.

 

 

 

Print Page

CEO & Co-Founder of Springfield Daily. Former financial analyst and project manager, turned online entrepreneur. Eric also owns Interactive Media, a digital marketing and consulting firm located in Downtown Springfield as well as the fitness startup FitTube. Eric received his Masters in Business Administration from Benedictine University, prior to that played college football at Quincy University, and is a Springfield High alumni.

2018 Election

Bourne, Manar, Murphy, and Scherer are going to the statehouse

Thomas Clatterbuck

Published

on

With the final votes being tallied, we can announce the state representatives and senators for the Springfield area. State Senator Andy Manar (D-48) will hold onto his seat. Manar will be joined by Steve McClure (R-50) who will be taking over Sam McCann’s old district. Republican Bill Brady (44) ran unopposed.

In the House, Representatives Avery Bourne (R-95) and Sue Scherer (D-96) were both reelected. Mike Murphy (R) was elected in the 99th to replace outgoing Republican Sara Wojcicki Jimenez. Tim Butler (R-87) and C.D. Davidsmeyer (R-100) ran unopposed in the general election.

Many precincts still need to report, but it appears the Democrats have pulled off a clean sweep of the executive offices. But it remains to be seen if any of the third party candidates will break the five-percent threshold.

Continue Reading

2018 Election

Illinois House candidate Herman Senor w/ Thomas Clatterbuck

Thomas Clatterbuck

Published

on

In this episode of the Thomas Clatterbuck Show, we had Illinois House candidate Herman Senor. Senor is the Republican candidate in the 96th House district.

Senor currently serves as the Ward 2 Alderman in Springfield. He explained some of the state issues he has encountered on the city council. Regulations and new taxes from the state often make things difficult for municipalities. Over regulation also poses a problem for schools. Senor proposed making it easier for substitute teachers to gain teaching credentials or allowing retired teachers to come back could help alleviate the teacher shortage.

When it came to guns, Senor said that punishing law-abiding citizens was not the right way to curb gun violence. While bad actors should be punished, innocent people should not have their rights infringed. Similarly, he expressed an openness to both medical and recreational marijuana, but wanted strong oversight to ensure bad actors were not taking advantage of the system.

We touched on a number of other issues as well, including new taxes, shell bills, and fighting sexual harassment in the statehouse. You can watch our full interview in the player.

To learn more about Herman Senor, and the other candidates in the 96th, check out our Campaign Headquarters page.

You can see all the past episodes of the Thomas Clatterbuck Show on the Springfield Daily Shows page.

Continue Reading

Illinois Govt

Anti-abortion group rescinds endorsement in Illinois governor race

Published

on

A state senator is defending using money from pro-union groups to go after House Republicans, a move that cost him an endorsement from an anti-abortion group.

Just last week, Conservative Party gubernatorial candidate Sam McCann, who is a Republican state senator from Plainview, picked up the endorsement of Illinois Family Action for his anti-abortion position.

“With early voting for the November general election underway, we want to remind you how important it is to exercise your civic duty to vote and be good stewards of God’s amazing gift of self-government,” IFA Executive Director David Smith said in a video posted online Oct. 12. “McCann … share[s] our conservative Christian values and we urge you to support [him] when you cast your ballot.”

Then this week, McCann sent out mailers against an anti-abortion Republican calling him a “Rauner RINO,” or Republican in name only.

Smith said that triggered his board to decide to take back its endorsement, a first for the group.

“What Sam McCann is doing with this mailer is actually enabling a pro-abortion Democrat to get an upper hand on a pro-life incumbent state lawmaker,” Smith said.

With McCann getting big dollars from union interests, Smith said it’s clear to him McCann is more interested in fighting “right to work” candidates than supporting anti-abortion candidates.

“That’s what it really is about,” Smith said. “So we were misled. We were lied to. We were deceived.”

McCann dismissed Smith’s criticism, saying he’s 110 percent anti-abortion. He said it’s the House Republicans that are falling in line with incumbent Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner, who McCann has called the state’s most liberal Democratic governor in history.

“Is it really about being conservative and leading or is it about being sheep and getting re-elected,” McCann said.

McCann this month alone has gotten $1.2 million from a group called Fight Back Fund that supports union politics. He said that’s money from a mix of people in unions who support his campaign.

State Rep. Jeanne Ives, R-Wheaton, said what McCann is doing with that union support is effectively working to give more power to Democrats, and, by extension, House Speaker Michael Madigan.

McCann said that’s not true.

“To use the governor’s term, that’s baloney,” McCann said. “What we’re doing is we’re calling people out.”

One of McCann’s targets, Palatine state Rep. Tom Morrison, said it’s imperative Republicans maintain and gain seats in the House to stop Madigan’s use of a supermajority. He said a supermajority would allow Democrats to push an agenda that’s wrong for Illinois.

McCann said Republicans and Smith are doing Rauner’s bidding.

Smith said IFA is now telling voters to support none of the above in the gubernatorial race.

Article by Greg Bishop, Illinois News Network. For more INN News visit ILnews.org 

Continue Reading

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored

Trending

[embedsocial_stories_popup id="4a0e77961a73a7758afee3caea4e621a89b255c1"]