What the Supreme Court's Gambling Ruling Could Mean for the NFL, Uncle Sam, Daily Fantasy, More

Social Navigation

What the Supreme Court’s Gambling Ruling Could Mean for the NFL, Uncle Sam, Daily Fantasy, More

Chicago Bears

Fallout from the recent Supreme Court announcement – which overturned a 1992 law outlawing sports gambling in every state (except Nevada, because duh) – continues. Indeed, this will be a transformative decision, no doubt, but there’s still a lot to comb through between now and when states actually get things going on the legalized sports gambling front.

  • Amber Phillips of the Washington Post dives into the muddied waters of sports wagering, pulling in different angles. Pouring over the details of the battle over sports wagering is tedious and can be a mind-warping experience. There are so many factors in play such as online gaming, daily fantasy, and each state’s ability to regulate itself. The most important thing to know is that states can now regulate sports betting, which is an all-important first step.
  • Richard N. Velotta of the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports the Supreme Court’s ruling will have a limited impact in Nevada, a state that was exempt from the sports betting ban after being grandfathered in. Nevada Gaming Commission Chairman Tony Alamo doesn’t believe it will affect the state at all. Though, Alamo warns that states expecting a significant increase in gaming tax revenue will be disappointed. “Everyone needs to keep in mind that this is a small-margin business, and it’s not going to move anyone’s needle in any of the states.”
  • A simple reminder from Sarah O’Brien of CNBC, who writes that the government is going to want its cut once it’s all systems go when it comes to sports betting. Fair enough. Living in Illinois, I can envision what legalized sports betting could potentially do to balance a budget that could definitely use an injection of life. O’Brien offers up some perspective on how much the government could take in taxes depending on your winnings and your income. That it’s possible that the tax rate for someone of a particular income class might not be enough to cover taxes on winnings is something we should be aware of.
  • WFAN interviewed legal analyst Michael McCann, who outlines what the ruling could mean for gamblers and pro leagues. The states being able to decide whether they want to offer sports betting is at the heart of it all. Remember, the Supreme Court didn’t make sports gambling legal. What it did do was allow states to regulate sports betting. There is a difference.
  • Over at SI.com’s The MMQB, Albert Breer tries to figure out what it all means for the NFL – a league that has long been synonymous with gambling and completely at odds with everything about it. At the root of it all is the almighty dollar. Breer sees the NFL viewing this ruling as an opportunity for a cash grab. The idea of casino sponsorships, in-game betting, and a possible one-percent fee that comes from money wagered on the sport. That cut could be split among players and owners, which seems like a logical (if not optimal) solution. However, money changing hands is going to be something that comes up at the bargaining table when the next Collective Bargaining agreement needs to be written. Just keep that in mind.
  • Charles Robinson of Yahoo! Sports takes a guess at how the NFL will eventually come around to embracing this ruling. It’s a bitter pill to swallow for the NFL, whose statement in the wake of the news was uninspiring and seemingly out of touch with reality. Like Breer, Robinson expects the NFL to put itself in a position to cash in. At minimum, the legalization of gambling could bring more eyes to the product, especially if it becomes more culturally accepted without the offshore middle-man.
  • Yahoo! Sports teammate Dan Wetzel breaks down what is on the horizon. Wetzel notes that six states (Connecticut, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia) have already passed legislation on legal sports betting, but it’s not like any of those states are ready to jump right in and hit the floor running. In short, the ruling is a game-changer that could have coast-to-coast impact on citizens, teams, and the business of sports. But again, we’re really looking at the tip of the iceberg as we’re just one day removed from the ruling being handed down. Think of it like one of those slow-turning semi trucks making a right turn at an intersection. It might be awhile before it completes the process.
  • Surely the NFL’s owners will be happy to hear that this ruling could ultimately lead to the value of their teams could double, according to Mark Cuban – who owns the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks.
  • Locally, Rich Campbell of the Chicago Tribune explores the questions the Bears (and the rest of the NFL) will face after the Supreme Court’s ruling. In March, Bears Chairman George McCaskey said protecting the game’s integrity was “the primary consideration” in talks that occurred during the league’s annual meetings. Neither McCaskey or Commissioner Roger Goodnell would offer up details about what went down in the conversations, which really keeps everyone out of the loop. Then again, that is to be expected from this particular league. Unlike the NBA and MLB, the NFL has not been at the forefront of change. In fact, it’s done as much as possible to distance itself from what was happening in Washington, D.C., and yet, still wants its cut at the end of the day. Go figure.
  • I hope you find this graphic as neat and informative as I did:

  • Dan Bernstein and Connor McKnight of 670 The Score shared their reactions to the news, which should serve as a reminder that we should all bone up on the topic. This ruling should lead to more informed conversations on the matters at hand:

  • Over at Bloomberg, DraftKings CEO Jason Robins discusses how the popular daily fantasy giant will enter the market:

Author: Luis Medina

Luis Medina is a Writer at Bleacher Nation, and you can find him on Twitter at@lcm1986.