Should government rethink its wager on sports betting?

With the return of NFL and college football, the Beacon’s Counterpoint columnists—liberal Rick Dollinger and conservative Geoff Rosenberger—tackle a very timely topic of debate: gambling on sports.

GEOFF: So Rick, football season is upon us. You know what that means—Fat City time for FanDuel and DraftKings. State governments around the nation must be pretty annoyed by those guys stealing market share from their Lotto, Mega Millions and OTB franchises. Any thoughts on the subject?

RICK: You bet your sweet bippy, I do. Before we get to the technical financial part, just understand: I hate the notion of gambling. Gambling is based on the theory that if you are “lucky”—whatever that means—you can “succeed,” or—as the gambling crowd suggests—”prosper.” Nothing could be further from the truth: Success comes with hard work, preparation, strategic thinking, diligence to detail, and forecasting future changes or opportunities. It has never been a product of a “dollar and a dream.”

Geoff: Stop me, please, I am shedding my liberal gloss and devolving into a rambling Elmer Gantry-style moralist—no one wants to hear that out-of-fashion bully pulpit lecture from an aging liberal.

GEOFF: I think all those fantasy football players would contend that “hard work, preparation, strategic thinking, diligence to detail” is exactly what they do prior to making their educated bets. Sports betting, including horse racing, which I happen to enjoy, is different from buying lottery tickets or playing slot machines where the bettor has no control over the process. Aren’t those folks practicing exactly what you’re preaching?

RICK: Fantasy football players—educated bets? That’s an oxymoron. I get that when college buddies have fantasy drafts before the season, throw $20 a piece in the kitty and that winner takes all—that may be an “educated bet,” even though I find those terms an unwarranted couplet. In the fantasy football with the brothers scenario, someone in the group “wins” the money.

But DraftKings or FanDuel—they are taking bets on field goals, who scores the first touchdown, whether a team makes a two-point conversion. What does education have to do with guessing that result? Does the bettor have any “control over” that process?

To use a gambling phrase, “not a chance.”

Remember, DraftKings and FanDuel make their money—gobs of it—off “losers.” And the state takes a share, too, probably to make up for revenue lost from fewer sales of Lotto tickets.

GEOFF: Government is every business’ silent partner, not just those in the gambling trade. Its hand is in everyone’s till. But let’s get to the point. You don’t seem fond of DraftKings and FanDuel. What’s your beef with them? They cater to consenting adults—minors are admittedly a different conversation—who play of their own free will. What’s your issue with free will?

RICK: Free will? Who said “gambling”—any form, but especially online FanDuel/DraftKings—was “free”? You have forgotten an old proverbial saying: “a fool and his money are soon parted.”

Remember when government restricted access to “vices”? The government prosecuted people for catering to vices—the local bookie, the pimp. Then, the government figured: “Why not take our share of the ill-gotten profits from people’s free will?” Cigarettes and alcohol were the first “vices” to be subject to government taxation. Drugs—marijuana—followed.

But the “free will” as a substitute for restricting “vices” has consequences. Alcohol addiction, cigarette addiction, marijuana addiction have not been considered to be free—the social cost is astronomical. Families lose income, government costs for health care and social services rise.

Gambling addiction—now fed by a blizzard of online and the television ads for online betting—runs the same risk.

Would you have bet your lunch money at McQuaid on whether Wilt Chamberlain could make a free throw in an online bet? He was mediocre free throw shooter—you could have gotten good odds or you might have been hungry at dismissal.

GEOFF: I might have. What odds would you have given me? But that’s the point. It’s my choice to make, not the government’s—keep them out of my life! If my foolishness separates me from my money, then that’s on me.

You reference alcohol addiction. How did Prohibition work out? Before sports betting was legal, wasn’t the mob running numbers games? Were there no bookies pre-FanDuel and DraftKings? Was marijuana illegal when you were in college? Was it available anyway?

History shows that when governments ban something, a black market always develops to meet the demand. With cigarettes, the government took a more thoughtful approach. Instead of banning tobacco, they taxed the heck out of it, making it prohibitively expensive to smoke while at the same time, doing everything in its power to inform people of the health risks. For the most part, it worked. Societal mores changed. And tobacco use has declined dramatically.

History has lessons to teach. If only policy makers would pay attention to them! 

RICK: Ah, “the lessons of history.” Santayana said it best: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  

But ask yourself, what has online gambling done except make most people poorer—including those who can least afford it—and create a new fancy addiction: moment-to-moment gambling?     

Remember the 1951 college basketball point shaving scandal, financed by gamblers? It hooked a huge number of players from colleges (including Bill Spivey from your alma mater Kentucky). 

Are we “condemned to repeat it” with huge sums of cash floating around in the ubiquitous betting parlors that flourish in college and professional towns and can be carried into the arena on your phone?

It is another dangerous addiction—and old-fashioned “vice,” as it used to be called—permitted by the states and taxed to benefit the states, but it is not worth it, as I see it.

The odds that it will go away? 10,000 to 1—it is safe bet. Alas, and sadly, it stays.

GEOFF: Matthew 27:35 reads: “And after they had crucified him, they divided his garments, casting lots. …” The soldiers cast lots. That was almost 2,000 years ago. Gambling has been around for a long, long time. I share your concern about the downside challenges and so I’m supportive of regulations designed to ensure fair play. Everyone wants a level playing field. But wise governments pick their battles carefully. The Puritans among us are destined to lose this one. We’re agreed. Gambling, in all its myriad forms, is here to stay.

Rick Dollinger is a retired Court of Claims judge and a former state senator who lives in Brighton. Geoff Rosenberger is retired co-founder of Clover Capital Management Inc.

The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected].