- The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee this morning held its hearing on the U.S. sports betting industry
- Federal sports betting regulation discussions are likely to continue in 2025
- Majority of expert witnesses support the SAFE Bet Act to impose federal regulations on the industry
A nearly two-hour Senate hearing on U.S. sports betting was likely the first step into continued discussions on potential federal oversights for the industry in 2025.
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee discussed the possible need for federal regulations to safeguard customers from an industry that many on the committee believe has led to problematic increases in professional and student-athlete harassment from gamblers, problem gambling rates, and unchecked advances in technology that target vulnerable populations in the country.
“It’s critical that Congress looks into sports betting’s impact on America and determine how the industry should be regulated moving forward,” Committee Chairman Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said.
Harassment of Athletes on the Rise
Five witnesses provided their testimony to the 21-member committee. The witnesses ranged from ex-professional athletes to problem gambling experts, who fielded questions for nearly two hours from the Senate committee.
The witnesses were as follows:
- Johnson Bademosi, a former NFL player and representative of the National Football League Players Association
- Charlie Baker, President of the NCAA
- Harry Levant, LP.D, MA PCC, ICGC-I, JD, Director of Gambling Policy and Certified Gambling Counselor, Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University School of Law
- David L. Rebuck, former Assistant Attorney General, former Director of the Division of Gaming Enforcement
- Keith S. Whyte, Executive Director, National Council on Problem Gambling
It’s nearly impossible now to watch a sporting event without being bombarded with an advertisement on sports betting, Durbin noted. Americans bet more than $30 billion on sports in the third quarter of 2024 alone, a 30% increase from the third quarter totals in 2023. Fans are caring less about the outcomes of a sport, he said, and more about point spreads and totals.
“But what’s at cost for the bettor? What’s the cost to the sport? What’s the cost to the school and the athletes?” he asked.
The overwhelming reach of sports betting is a major problem for today’s student-athlete, Baker responded. The rise in harassment of student-athletes from angry gamblers is prevalent, especially on social media where sports bettors can do so anonymously and have increased access to student athletes.
The harassment doesn’t end in college, however. Bademosi, who played eight years in the NFL as a cornerback for six teams, said its common for sports bettors to attack athletes through social media if their wagers aren’t successful.
“Players are regularly targeted by gamblers who seek insider information or pressure them to perform,” he said.
Curtailing Sports Betting Advertising, Technology, Problem Gambling
Three concerning trends have become apparent since PASPA was repealed in 2018, Whyte told the committee. Increases in gambling advertisements, advances in technology that allow bettors to gamble 24-hours a day, seven days a week, and an unlimited menu of betting markets has led to increases in problem gambling rates throughout the country.
Add in the fact that states had underfunded problem gambling programs, just $134 million in total in 2023, and customers with addictive gambling habits are not provided with the necessary tools to address their problems. State problem gambling funding is at just 50-cents per capita, which is 338-times less public funding than for substance abuse programs, Whyte said.
The country is currently witnessing the early years of a fast building publish health crisis that can be compared with the opioid crisis, Levant told the committee. Now is the time for Congress to act to impose minimum regulations on states to offer sports betting within their boundaries.
Micro-betting, for instance, targets extraordinarily vulnerable populations of bettors by making every moment of every sporting event a potential sports bet. DraftKings’ recent acquisition of SimpleBet, he said, allows the operator to leverage artificial intelligence technology to custom-create betting opportunities for every single of their customers.
“With use of technology and AI, the industry and its sports and media partners have turned every micro moment in each game and event into more and more gambling action,” he said.
States Are Doing Enough
Rebuck was the only witness to speak during the hearing to advocate for states to continue regulating sports betting on their own. State and tribal government are best equipped to regulate sports betting on their own, he said, with federal oversight of sports betting being more than unnecessary.
“I urge the committee to respect the successes the states have achieved in regulation in the past. Federal oversight is clearly not needed. Federal cooperation from states on certain issues have already begun,” he said.
Federal concerns for the need of safeguards, customer guardrails, and the reduction of risks for vulnerable populations is already being shared by “every jurisdiction today that engages in gambling,” Rebuck said.
So What Can Be Done?
Baker outright called for a federal ban on NCAA player props as a way to combat harassment against student-athletes. In the last year, the NCAA has urged states to consider their own bans of the prop bets, with Ohio, Louisiana, and Maryland all complying.
Only 19 states continue to allow these bets, he said, but a federal prohibition on the props would be quite welcome.
He also praised Ohio and West Virginia legislators for passing bills that allow their state regulatory gaming bodies to ban customers who are found to be harassing student-athletes over sports betting outcomes. It’s worth noting, however, that neither of these states have yet to ban any patrons under these policies.
Bademosi suggested a potential federal ban on allowing customers to place bets on “negative outcomes” as a way to curtail harassment against athletes.
“Fans wouldn’t gamble on negative outcomes, and therefore would not have an incentive to heckle players or encourage negative outcomes in a game,” he said.
Several witness also supported the passage of Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s (D-CT) Supporting Affordability & Fairness with Every Bet Act (SAFE Bet Act), which is designed to reduce gambling addiction, gambling related harms, and establish minimum federal standards for sports betting advertisements and use of artificial intelligence.
Majority of Witnesses Favor SAFE Bet Act
The SAFE Bet Act would require states to apply with the Department of Justice to offer sports betting and would establish penalties for those who do not comply. States with an existing sports betting program would have to come into compliance with the SAFE Bet Act within one year of enactment.
A large part of the SAFE Bet Act will be to set national advertising standards for sports betting operators. Restrictions will be placed on advertisements to limit them to times and spaces where children are not likely to be in the audience. Restrictions will also be set on celebrities endorsing particular sportsbooks or ad types, similar to Canadian restrictions that prohibit athletes and celebrities from endorsing sports betting companies.
It would also ban player prop bets on NCAA athletes.
Blumenthal asked each of the witnesses point-blank during the hearing if they supported the act. The majority supported the act and answered as folows:
- Baker: Yes to the provisions he’s familiar with, especially a national ban on NCAA player props
- Bademosi: Yes to the provision’s he’s familiar with
- Rebuck: No, states are entitled to do the best they can to regulate and deal with the issues presented in the bill
- Whyte: Neutral on bill, but says it contains positive solutions
- Levant: Yes, helped write the bill
Continued Discussions in 2025
Sen. Thom Thillis (R-NC) presented his own solution, calling for the creation of a task force in 2025 to put together necessary federal regulations and safeguards states would have to comply with if they want to offer sports betting.
“We need to start thinking ahead to the next Congress,” he said.
Durbin also promised the next Congress will continue discussions on possible federal regulations of the sports betting industry.
“This is not the end of this discussion, but only the beginning. As we see there are many aspects to this whole issue in terms of the future of sports, treatment of athletes, colleges, and basically the gaming industry nationwide,” he said.
Sports Betting Industry Responds
Mere minutes after the meeting concluded, several sports betting industry associations released statements in response to the committee hearing. American Gaming Association Vice President of Strategic Communications Joe Maloney issued a statement criticizing the lack of an industry witness at the day’s event.
“Today’s hearing notably lacked an industry witness. This unfortunate exclusion leaves the Committee and the overall proceeding bereft of testimony on how legal gaming protects consumers from the predatory illegal market and its leadership in promoting responsible gaming and safeguarding integrity. We remain committed to robust state regulatory frameworks that protect consumers, promote responsibility, and preserve integrity of athletic competition.”
Dr. Jennifer Shatley, executive director of the Responsible Online Gaming Association (ROGA), said the association recognizes the need to work collectively to prioritize the wellbeing of all players.
ROGA is comprised of eight of the nation’s largest online gaming operators.
“Over the last year, ROGA and its members are creating a strong foundation to help address issues that may impact players’ experience. We as an industry will continue to invest in research and technology to evolve responsible gaming programs, tools, and resources. Furthermore, we are working closely with our advisory committee, state regulators, and local entities to help the industry comply with all applicable laws and regulations and support operations according to industry standards,” she said.
Prior the hearing, iDevelopment & Economic Association (iDEA), an association representing the interests of the regulated U.S. online gaming and sports betting industry, warned of federal mandates on the sports betting industry.
State regulations have already established robust consumer protections, supported economic growth by creating jobs, and generated significant funding for state programs, according to an iDEA spokesperson.
“Imposing federal mandates on sports betting would risk undermining this progress and introduce confusion and inefficiencies in a regulatory environment that is functioning well. Federal intervention threatens to stifle innovation, disrupt state economies and jeopardize the benefits that regulated sports betting has delivered to communities across the country.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee recently began discussions on the topic of federal oversight of sports betting in the United States. This comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) in 2018, which effectively opened the door for states to legalize and regulate sports betting within their borders.
The committee’s discussions are centered around the potential need for federal regulations to ensure consistency and integrity in the rapidly growing sports betting industry. With more and more states legalizing sports betting, there is a concern that a patchwork of state regulations could lead to inconsistencies and potential issues such as match-fixing and corruption.
One of the key points of contention in the discussions is whether a federal framework is necessary to oversee sports betting or if individual states should continue to regulate the industry on their own. Proponents of federal oversight argue that a uniform set of regulations would help protect consumers and maintain the integrity of sports competitions. They also point to the need for a centralized authority to address issues that may arise across state lines.
Opponents, on the other hand, argue that states are better equipped to regulate sports betting within their own borders and that federal intervention could lead to unnecessary bureaucracy and restrictions on states’ rights. They also raise concerns about the potential for federal regulations to stifle innovation and competition in the industry.
The Senate Judiciary Committee’s discussions are expected to continue in the coming weeks as lawmakers weigh the pros and cons of federal oversight of sports betting. Ultimately, the outcome of these discussions could have far-reaching implications for the future of sports betting in the United States.
