Do You Approve or Disapprove of the NFL’s Embrace of Gambling Sponsorships?

[Alphadawg7]

6 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Here's the thing:

 

I don't hate the idea of legalized sports gambling. It's not as if being illegal ever stopped it and if anything it funded organized crime. And I don't hate the revenue stream from gambling. In my mind it's preferable to the trend of putting games on all of these exclusive platforms.

 

But man, it is really hypocritical for the league to hammer players for using the gambling services that they themselves are promoting. I know I don't want a Pete Rose situation but Im supposed to freak out about a football player betting on baseball while the sports networks and radio shows are putting our parlays?

 

But is it really hypocritical?  To me it would only be hypocritical if the NFL was putting out statements that Gambling in general is bad and that no one should gamble in general.  But the NFL is not condemning gambling in general, it's a big part of all sports.  

 

What the NFL is saying to players by banning them from gambling is really that you can't CHEAT...its not really about gambling...it has to do with violating the integrity of the game through cheating and manipulation of the outcomes or scores.  The real issue is built around players, refs, etc cheating on games, or just as bad, being perceived to be cheating just on the fact they gamble on the games even if they aren't actually impacting the games they are betting on.  Perception to be is almost as damaging to the trust in the game as actually really cheating.  

 

So I don't find the strict policies against players gambling vs allowing gambling sponsorship as hypocritical because the NFL stance isn't anti-gambling...its anti-cheating.  

[Mat68]

1 hour ago, Billy Claude said:

They definitely paid out the first time and he would have probably not been caught if he didn't get it twice in a few months.

 

But I am not saying it is the smart thing to do but sooner or later there will be players desperate enough or stupid enough to do it.

The reported story I saw.  The initial bet was being investigated.  The second bet was made and the book removed it from the board.  

[Billy Claude]

1 hour ago, Mat68 said:

The reported story I saw.  The initial bet was being investigated.  The second bet was made and the book removed it from the board.  

 

I think that is basically correct.

 

Porter did make numerous (13) smaller bets on NBA games including betting against the Raptors but those weren't the ones that triggered the gambling investigation.  The bets that he made himself were only discovered during the investigation and he did not play in any game that they know he personally bet on.  He made about 20K on 50K of bets.  Considering his lifetime NBA income was about 2.7M, it was obviously stupid to risk it for 20K but it was probably as much about adrenaline as the money.

 

The bets that aroused suspicion were in January and March.  For the first game, there was an unusually large amount of money bet on Porter making all the unders and also on him making less than the average number of three pointers.  In that game, he removed himself after 4 minutes due to injury. Draftking stated that it was the biggest winner on any individual player prop that night.   These bets were paid out but I assume that it caused the gambling houses to start paying attention to Porter.  I don't believe these winnings were ever clawed back.

 

The 2nd game that triggered the actual investigation was in March when Porter removed himself after a few minutes due to illness.  That was the night with the 80K bet and these bets were voided.  If he hadn't been so greedy to try it the second time they would probably not have went after him.

 

It is hard for me to believe he is the only player to ever try something like this and it would be only a matter of time before somebody in the NFL is caught.

 

Edited May 30 by Billy Claude

[Sestak4ever]

It’s a shame how money motivates these decisions. Betting on football isn’t the problem, it’s that it is shared and promoted by the NFL.

[TedWilliamsFrozenHead]

Better start paying game day officials, big bucks.

[White Linen]

This will not be a net positive.  It never is and can't be.  

[Mr. WEO]

less than 1% of their 2022 revenue.

 

big deal...

[billsfan89]

Sports Gambling should be legal but much like cigarettes the advertising of it should be heavily restricted 

[BullBuchanan]

I don't care at all, and I don't think It'll have any material impact on the game except perhaps being brought up in the news cycle by pearl clutchers and cults. It was easy to gamble online before it was legal/sponsored and I still use the same offshore places because they offer better deals and it isn't legalized in Texas.

[TheBrownBear]

I disapprove because I hate gambling.  I've seen far too many friends and family ruin their lives (and their spouse's lives) due to gambling addiction.

[DapperCam]

I would say no, but because of a different reason than included in the poll. I hate sports gambling because the nonstop advertisements and discussion (even while the game is going on) is completely annoying. I just want to watch the game.

[HappyDays]

I think that people draw the line at very weird places. Beer and liquor commercials are commonplace, and alcohol is by far the worst social affliction this country has ever seen. Athletes can endorse fast food restaurants that contribute to the obesity epidemic. But legal gambling is the thing that makes us uncomfortable.

[machine gun kelly]

I could care less whether people gamble.  It’s not for me, but if others want to gamble, it’s fine.