The NCAAs suggestion to prohibit collegiate athletes from wagering on player props is a multifaceted matter.
On certain Sundays, Charles Moore discovers himself seated behind professional or collegiate athletes at church. He commences contemplating: What kind of gambling instruction are these athletes receiving? If their performance falters, will they be subjected to intimidation? What actions can I undertake to assist them?
The NCAAs proposition to forbid college athletes from prop betting is not a straightforward issue.
Charles Moore serves as the executive director of the Wyoming Gaming Commission (WGC). Casper, with a population of 58,543, holds the distinction of being the second-largest city in the least densely populated state in the United States. It also serves as the birthplace of Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Logan Wilson.
Wyoming’s current claim to fame in the realm of sports is Buffalo Bills starting quarterback Josh Allen, a graduate of the University of Wyoming. There are four current NFL players who pursued their collegiate education in Wyoming, along with one current NBA player (Larry Nance Jr.). New York Mets’ Brandon Nimmo hails from Cheyenne, the state’s most populous city (population 64,795).
Is intimidation directly linked to prop wagering?
Each of them occupies a place in Moore’s thoughts.
“We possess irrefutable evidence that our student athletes are being subjected to harassment,” Moore stated. “We are also aware that this phenomenon is occurring in the NFL. However, how do you weigh this against those who are placing bets on props? We are cognizant of the fact that they are being harassed. It transpires in Little League. But to what extent is it directly associated with prop wagering?”
This is a challenging query, and it’s not simple to respond to. In recent months, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has been encouraging states to prohibit wagers on college athletes. The organization claims its objective is to safeguard student athletes. Louisiana, Maryland, and Ohio are among the few states that have heeded this call.
Starting March 1st, wagers on college players in Ohio will be prohibited. Matthew Schuler, executive director of the Ohio Casino Control Commission, declared today that he endorsed the NCAA’s request to ban such gambling. All remaining futures will be nullified by next Friday. pic.twitter.com/b9MXDJmZJE
“The NCAA is striving harder than ever to safeguard student-athletes and the integrity of competition from the harms of sports betting, and hopes to see all states remove collegiate individual player prop bets from their books,” the NCAA stated in a declaration. “The association has been collaborating with states to address these threats, and many states are responding by forbidding college prop bets.”
Maryland and Ohio implemented the new prohibitions before March 1st, in anticipation of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. Louisiana’s ban will take effect on August 1st. Other states, including Arizona, Massachusetts, and New York, have prohibited college player prop bets since opening their markets.
A lack of data is a cause for worry.
The NCAA and the University of Wyoming contacted Moore’s WGC and requested they consider a ban.
The group will convene its inaugural informative gathering on the subject this Thursday, May 9th.
“We don’t oppose the dialogue,” Moore stated. “I believe there’s insufficient information at this time. I think we’re still in the phase of wanting to acquire more knowledge. To be frank, I don’t know its trajectory, or where it should head. That’s because I believe there’s a lack of evidence.”
Moore isn’t alone. There’s scant evidence to demonstrate whether or how collegiate or professional athletes are being negatively impacted by prop betting. Major legal operators in the United States reportedly only offer prop wagers on college baseball, basketball (men’s and women’s), and football. Some don’t even offer baseball betting, as it’s a specialized sport.
One source indicated that 85% of college prop wagers are concentrated on approximately 100 student-athletes. Many of these 100 are among the most recognizable student-athletes in the nation, with substantial name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements. According to NCAA data, its member institutions had over 520,000 student-athletes as of 2021-22. Of those, 192,103 athletes competed at the Division I level.
One industry source, who requested anonymity, characterized the NCAA’s efforts as “using a sledgehammer to kill a fly when all you need is a fly swatter.”
Is the NCAA engaging in political maneuvering?
Some believe the NCAA’s desire for a prohibition is purely political. Some have labeled the ban a “low-hanging fruit.”
Interested parties assert there’s no opposition to the NCAA’s declaration that it will safeguard its competitors at any price.
“All you’re doing is pushing everything into the clandestine market,” stated Brandon Busman, leader of betting advisory BGlobal. “The NCAA is attempting to conceal the reality, doing everything in their power to bury the facts. [NCAA President] Charlie Baker is gaining a lot of political influence from something he’s going to regret later.”
Baker is a former Massachusetts governor who joined the NCAA last year. He’s a seasoned politician, and the NCAA isn’t generally viewed as a mild-mannered organization. The appointment was carefully considered, and the issue has the potential to earn the organization a lot of political influence from its member institutions and student competitors.
“I see what the NCAA is doing, they’re playing politics to try and get public backing,” said a source who requested anonymity. “Charlie Baker is a seasoned politician. This is part of a rebranding effort for the NCAA.”
The mistreatment of college competitors is nothing new. The “Fab Five” from Michigan lost two NCAA championships, one famously remembered for Chris Webber’s timeout that led to their loss to Duke in the 1993 championship game. The team was subjected to “retaliatory” and “racist and hateful” mail after that game, according to The Guardian. Sports betting was largely unlawful at the time. The NCAA did nothing to stop the abuse.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) must take a more forceful position, stated Bussmann. When I converse with teams and leagues about this matter, they endeavor to comprehend the distinction between the marketplace and Charlie Baker. The NCAA has disregarded this matter for over two decades, but Baker is utilizing it as a political triumph.
Prohibiting wagers is merely the initial step, but harassment is unacceptable.
Setting politics aside, interested parties concur that, although the number of athletes involved is a minuscule fraction of the total number, they ought to be safeguarded.
“The sports wagering industry does not condone the harassment of student athletes,” declared an anonymous source. The industry “is actively collaborating with regulators to ensure they establish regulations that eliminate unethical actors, as in Ohio and West Virginia.”
However, many question whether prohibiting prop bets will achieve the desired outcome.
“I believe that prohibiting prop bets is merely one component of the solution, and if we do not take further steps to educate about gambling and how to address these intricacies and novel issues, it will be a systemic failure,” stated Brianne Doura-Schawohl, an advisor on problematic and responsible gambling.
JMP’s Jordan Bender estimates that an NCAA-backed prohibition on collegiate prop bets would reduce the legal sports wagering market by $200 million, benefiting illicit bookmakers.
Ultimately, bettors will discover a method to wager on games and players, and we believe that the endeavors to prohibit… will be futile. pic.twitter.com/71dUgUEuhO
The concept of a collegiate prop bet ban has raised numerous issues for the wagering industry.
Each operator desires to provide access to as many markets as possible. Some believe that removing a market will force bettors to seek out offshore options, where they are no longer shielded and may not even be assured of receiving their winnings.
“Unlawful and offshore sports betting firms offer player props, and denying customers the ability to place legal wagers will only push bettors towards unregulated markets,” stated Joe Maloney, senior vice president of strategic communications for the American Gaming Association. “Our sector strongly supports the shared objective of minimizing athlete harassment and upholding integrity, and we eagerly anticipate engaging in constructive discussions with gaming regulators and other interested parties to ensure that robust legal sports betting markets retain regulatory safeguards that protect consumers, athletes, and the integrity of the game.”
Unlawful markets will offer anything that generates revenue for them.
Currently, there is no evidence to suggest that prohibiting any market will drive players to offshore locations – or to neighboring states. Evidence suggests that the average American sports bettor has approximately three applications on their mobile device. Thus, if a player who bets in a legal market downloads a new application offshore to place a wager, they are likely to remove one of their legal applications, resulting in the operator losing that business.
“It is logical to assume that if consumers have a strong interest in college player prop markets, illegal sports betting companies will offer such markets,” remarked Chris Grove, an investor and executive in the sports betting industry.
If these marketplaces can provide unlawful sports wagering businesses a competitive edge akin to DraftKings or FanDuel, then this assumption is particularly sensible.”
If individuals accept the notion that athletes will travel abroad to discover prohibited markets, then forbidding collegiate player proposition wagers won’t resolve the NCAA’s predicament. Additional wagers on collegiate athletes will continue to be placed outside the range of what’s provided in lawful marketplaces.
“If collegiate player props aren’t generating substantial consumer interest, why would the NCAA be concerned about these marketplaces?” Grove stated. “Thus, either collegiate player props are popular and unlawful operators will provide them, or they’re not popular, and a prohibition won’t address the significant harm.”
Harassment is a “cultural occurrence”
Whether the wagers are placed in legal marketplaces or overseas, society appears to have accepted the harassment that athletes encounter for losing wagers. Some assert that’s the genuine issue.
“I believe this is absolutely a social/cultural phenomenon,” remarked Susan Sheridan Tucker, president of the National Council on Problem Gambling. “Observe how individuals respond to everything. Social media has opened Pandora’s box for people to react without restraint. While these threats may not be actionable, the fact that someone thinks they can threaten a collegiate athlete, my goodness!
“An adult loses a wager and blames the athlete? There’s no responsibility.”
Sheridan Tucker and Dura-Shawver stated that proposition wagers and micro-wagers will “intensify problem gambling.”
Nevertheless, both parties concur that wagering itself is not the fundamental cause of the predicament. The capability to wager from electronic devices and a society that condones improper conduct are also pivotal factors.
Certain states are prohibiting tormentors.
Ever since sports wagering became lawful, Dora Shavor asserts that it has engendered an atmosphere where it is more convenient for bettors to express their aggressions.
“If you are an irate gambler and wagering is illicit, you are less inclined to acknowledge it and utter anything,” she remarked. “Presently, it is simpler to declare, ‘Hey, you have wronged me.’ Because now they are engaging in a lawful activity. We also reside in a culture where there is significantly less editing and filtering of external information.
“There is evidence that demonstrates an upsurge in wagering can result in harassment, but it is also a cultural matter originating from the widespread utilization of social media.”
In Ohio and West Virginia, individuals discovered to be harassing collegiate and professional athletes will be prohibited from participating in the legal wagering market. However, they can still wager abroad, so merely relying on regulators to crack down is insufficient to halt harassment.
“It would be advantageous if the betting industry resolved to penalize these individuals,” Sheridan Tucker stated. “We need to attain a point where this conduct is not condoned, enough is sufficient.”
How NIL is presently influencing NCAA sports
This year, there have been prominent harassment incidents in Ohio and North Carolina. Cleveland Cavaliers coach JB Bickerstaff received menacing text messages from a gambler.
North Carolina’s leading player, Armando Bacot, expressed his frustration during the NCAA tournament, stating he received “over a hundred messages from people criticizing him for not grabbing enough rebounds. He believes such criticism is a bit extreme.
Will Zach Edey surpass 25.5 points? Can Paige Bueckers secure more than 6.5 rebounds? How many three-pointers will Caitlin Clark make?
As the Final Four approaches, worries about the risks associated with college prop betting are mounting. [@EricPrisbell](https://twitter.com/EricPrisbell?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw): [https://t.co/m0cP0662Qo](https://t.co/m0cP0662Qo) pic.twitter.com/bLSkMzzc66
Bacot is among a select group of athletes whose popularity is substantial enough to warrant prop bets. One way he achieved this recognition was through NIL agreements.
The ability of prominent college athletes to earn money through NIL deals has significantly increased their financial resources and fame. Bacot has partnerships with companies like Dunkin’ Donuts and Frosted Flakes, reportedly earning $1 million.
That figure doesn’t even come close to the $3.1 million Caitlin Clark of Iowa has earned through NIL deals. USC freshman basketball player Bronny James – LeBron’s son – has made $4.9 million so far.
A shift in culture is necessary to protect athletes
Dura-Shawvor stated that athletes who are harassed “feel like their world is falling apart.” Some struggle to manage the pressure. She and others agree that these athletes require protection. However, she believes banning prop betting is merely the first step.
Its a significant issue if we don’t educate individuals more about wagering and how to manage these challenging new aspects, she stated. States truly need to take a firm stance against intimidation.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association desires to prohibit proposition wagers, asserting it’s detrimental to the sport and intensifies player harassment.
Illinois coach Brad Underwood expressed, “I don’t desire to witness a day when no one is willing to leap for a jump ball due to proposition wagers.”
An individual associated with a gambling enterprise, who requested anonymity, remarked, “Everyone detests this conduct. We require to rectify the behavior itself, modify the way people think so they cease engaging in these actions. We need to empower fans to feel comfortable informing each other, ‘Hey, what you’re stating is inappropriate.'”
“The leagues, teams, sports media, organizations, gambling companies, we all share a common objective. Certain groups are endeavoring to convey, ‘Hey, don’t be a bully,’ and make fans feel empowered to call out individuals who cross the line. This shift in mindset appears to be the most effective solution to address this issue, rather than simply relocating proposition wagers from legal venues to illicit ones.”
Subscribe to the iGaming newsletter.
