“There’s nothing more important to the league and its fans than the integrity of the competition,” National Basketball Association (NBA) Commissioner Adam Silver said.
He was referring to dual indictments unveiled on Oct. 23, which alleged that NBA players and coaches had disclosed nonpublic team information to a criminal gambling ring; engaged in wire fraud and money-laundering conspiracies; and participated in rigged poker games that involved elaborate cheating technology, an assortment of hustlers, four mafia families and a bouncer known as Albanian Bruce. “Integrity” is not the first word that comes to mind.
Since the US Supreme Court opened the US gambling market in 2018, 39 states and counting have legalized sports betting to varying degrees. Americans made about US$150 billion in legal wagers last year, up from US$13 billion in 2019. Nearly half of young men have an active gambling account. Unfortunately, as the NBA’s dustup showed, this experiment is turning out to be a terrible bet.
Criminality aside, the social effects of widespread wagering are alarming. One study found that the legalization of online sports gambling in a given state is associated with deteriorating credit scores and rising bankruptcy rates, debt collections and auto-loan delinquencies. Another found rising credit debt and bank overdrafts. There might even be a link to domestic violence.
The pairing of gambling and smartphone technology has proved especially pernicious. Even casual punters find themselves beset by texts, e-mails, push notifications, in-game ads and other prompts, while the sports books — such as any casino company — fine-tune their offers to keep everyone coming back: Less than 5 percent of gamblers withdraw more money from their apps than they deposit. It is no surprise that indicators of addiction are soaring.
All this — debt, addiction, desperation — has an obvious appeal for organized crime. The industry worsens matters by offering so-called prop bets on the performance of individual players. Such wagers are a standing invitation to corruption: NBA players Jontay Porter and Terry Rozier are accused of removing themselves from games to capitalize on props. Rozier has denied wrongdoing, while Porter pleaded guilty last year to wire fraud conspiracy. For unpaid college athletes, the temptations might be worse.
With so much money coming in — to gambling companies, sports leagues and state governments — this genie will not be rebottled anytime soon. Public support for gambling is waning quickly. Policymakers should pay attention and seek to make sports betting fairer, and less harmful and prone to manipulation.
At a minimum, prop betting on college sports should be banned, as the National Collegiate Athletic Association has explicitly urged. For pro leagues, sports books should be required to limit props to prominent athletes, void them if a key player’s injury or participation status is in doubt and subject them to minimum statistical thresholds (for example, only over a full game rather than a quarter).
Lawmakers should also do more to break the mobile gambling doom loop. Banning push notifications and restricting the use of artificial intelligence to customize offers would be a start. Ideally, wagers should have to be placed in person, at a casino or similar venue. States could experiment with various other approaches, but the goal should be simple: Make it harder to place impulsive bets.
Finally, sports leagues need to accept more responsibility of their own. In the NBA, for instance, insider information — about injuries, “load management” decisions and tanking — appears to have been routinely exploited for corrupt purposes. If the league wants to continue its partnerships with the likes of DraftKings and FanDuel while maintaining its credibility (sorry, “integrity”), it needs to make a serious effort to protect such information. If it does not, it should expect further attention from the US Department of Justice.
As with any vice, gambling is fun while the good times roll. However, the bill — for the country as for the chancer — always comes due.
The Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS