| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| The morality/legality of sports gambling https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=129&t=20843 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Brick [ Mon May 05, 2008 3:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | The morality/legality of sports gambling |
Why is horse racing legal in Illinois and in most states, including off track betting within 30 miles of just about everyone but sports gambling is only legal in Nevada? I don't understand why one would be legal, but the other would not be. Why are there not off casino sports gambling or why can't OTB establishments also take sports bets? Is this just one of those laws that it's "because it's always been that way"? |
|
| Author: | Hawkeye Vince [ Mon May 05, 2008 3:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There was a federal law in 1994 (The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act) that banned all states but 3 from participating in sports gambling. The states are Delaware, Oregon, and Nevada. Those states had sports betting before the law and were grandfathered in. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Mon May 05, 2008 4:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hawkeye Vince wrote: There was a federal law in 1994 (The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act) that banned all states but 3 from participating in sports gambling. The states are Delaware, Oregon, and Nevada. Those states had sports betting before the law and were grandfathered in.
So we'll file that one under "because it's always been that way". I think with the advent of the internet that the government is stupid to do this. Why send the money to Costa Rica when they could just tax the heck out of it? |
|
| Author: | Hawkeye Vince [ Mon May 05, 2008 4:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
They should just ask the mob how much money they can make a year doing this. |
|
| Author: | Irish Boy [ Mon May 05, 2008 5:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'd rather place my bets through Costa Rica than have the government tax the hell out of it. It's hard enough to win with a -110 line; those taxes are going to just make it more difficult. |
|
| Author: | good dolphin [ Tue May 06, 2008 8:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
You are only taxed if you win, so you have nothing to worry about IB. NPR reported today that The Tropicana Corporation filed for bankruptcy and gambling across the country is down big over the last 4 months. In a note related to North, part of the blame has been placed on smoking bans in several states. |
|
| Author: | Irish Boy [ Tue May 06, 2008 2:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't buy that the taxation will be only on winnings. Things have a way of creeping. |
|
| Author: | Coast2Coast [ Tue May 06, 2008 2:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oregon, Montana and Delaware have exemptions from the Federal law. Bringing legalized sports gambling to all states would require a new Federal law. John McCain was one of the leaders behind the offshore sports gambling act a few years ago. His argument is that amateur sports can be corrupted by betting. It wasn't the offshore vs. domestic argument so much for him as it was, "we should not bet on college sports." So if he's president, such a proposed new law is going nowhere. And unless Congress changes substantially and all the reps. who decry gambling for moral reasons are voted out of office, nothing is going to change. All of the professional sports leagues, and the NCAA, have reacted strongly at any hint of increases in sports gambling outside Nevada. It will take a group of very strong members of Congress, and then some very strong state legislators, to enact new laws that will be strongly opposed by the sports leagues. That's not going to happen. To wit, recent history: Oregon had a "sports action" game as part of its lottery, which basically consisted of parlay cards with ridiculous lines and shaved payouts. The NCAA told the state of Oregon that it would not hold an NCAA event in the state as long as the state had the lottery. The NFL didn't like it, the NBA sued the state and the NCAA said it would not hold a postseason event (like the NCAA tourney) in the state. It was all pretty silly, considering the maximum bet was $20 and limits in Vegas are much higher. Nonetheless, the Oregon hospitality industry put pressure on the legislature and they killed the sports lottery effective right after the Bears lost the Super Bowl. No sports bets have been legal in Oregon since then. And the NCAA responded by giving Portland an NCAA tourney regional next year. Montana allows sports betting pools, largely organized by bars and taverns, with a maximum payout of $500. NCAA tourney pools are entirely legal in Montana, as long as the payout is $500 or less. The NCAA doesn't like it, of course, and you won't be seeing any NCAA tournament games in Montana...that there would be anyway. There has been a bill in the Delaware legislature to legalize sports gambling again, but it's going nowhere. |
|
| Author: | Coast2Coast [ Tue May 06, 2008 2:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Irish Boy wrote: I don't buy that the taxation will be only on winnings. Things have a way of creeping.
Losers pay taxes indirectly already. Losers pay 10% juice to the bookie and bookies pay income taxes on their net. So you could argue the 10% juice does become taxable when it becomes bookie income. Winners pay income taxes on their winnings (or they are required to by law, anyway). So the government effectively gets a piece of both sides of every bet. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Tue May 06, 2008 2:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Interesting. So the NCAA and professional sports don't like sports gambling but obviously the horse racing establishment embraces it. That makes sense. Pro and college sports can't make money off of it. |
|
| Author: | Coast2Coast [ Tue May 06, 2008 2:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Of course, it's hypocritical of the sports leagues. They know they benefit from gambling but have this mindset that they aren't supposed to admit it. The horse racing establishment at least is honest. They know few people would watch horse races or care one whit about the sport if we couldn't bet on them. |
|
| Author: | good dolphin [ Tue May 06, 2008 2:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote="Coast2Coast bookies pay income taxes on their net. .[/quote] I know of a guy who does not. Unfortunately North outed him on the air the day after Thanksgiving about a decade ago. |
|
| Author: | Mustang Rob [ Tue May 06, 2008 3:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Coast2Coast wrote: Of course, it's hypocritical of the sports leagues. They know they benefit from gambling but have this mindset that they aren't supposed to admit it.
I'm not sure that's the main concern. If the NBA can't ensure that all of their dozen or so officiating crews can remain above corruption, how could NCAA screen a 150 crews? Coast, you've said it many times that Vegas monitors action for irregularities. On the surface, the decentralization of wagering would seem create more opportunities for corruption on smaller & less detectible scale. |
|
| Author: | Coast2Coast [ Tue May 06, 2008 3:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sports gambling is decentralized now, with thousands of street bookies taking bets. Nationally, they reportedly bring in more on NFL and college football games than Vegas does. That is a lot of action that is not necessarily being monitored. In fact, in many sports, the limits are much higher with street bookies than they are in Vegas. I don't know any street bookies, but if I did, I suspect they would take more of my action than Vegas will. I can only bet a maximum of $500 on a college basketball total, $2k on a baseball game and $10k on an NFL or NBA game at any place in Vegas or offshore. I've been told that six figure NFL bets are common with street bookies in Chicago. The reason that the NBA ref Donahy escaped attention for so long is that he was betting with illegal bookies who concealed his action. That would not change with or without more legal places to bet. If a ref wants to cheat and bet on their cheating, they will surely bet on the street, not in casinos. It's when others get in on the action and the total number of bets on one side get so out of whack that monitors take notice. If a casino in one location took in huge bets on a game totally out of whack with the ordinary, that would be a red flag that would draw attention. Today, those huge bets could be made on the street and nobody might be the wiser (unless the street bookies were laying them off to legal books). |
|
| Author: | Mustang Rob [ Tue May 06, 2008 3:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Maybe I'm just being naive believing that it's not all morality driven, Coast, but you have much better knowledge of the industry so I'll take your word for it. BTW, The soccer parlay cards are huge business in every European country I have ever visited or lived in. The are as popular as NFL confidence pools here in US, and successfully contribute to funding government functions without the stigma of a Tax. |
|
| Author: | Coast2Coast [ Tue May 06, 2008 3:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's "morality" for a lot of Congressmen. Some also want to protect the purity of amateur sports. For the NCAA, it's not morality, but protecting the purity of amateur sports and not having their games influenced by gamblers. For the pro leagues, it's purely protection of their games from the influence of gamblers. I just think games would be protected from gambling influence much more if all sports gambling and every bet were out in the open. |
|
| Author: | Chus [ Tue May 06, 2008 4:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
good dolphin wrote: North outed him on the air the day after Thanksgiving about a decade ago.
You mean, the guy who calls everybody else a rat, is a rat ? |
|
| Author: | Mustang Rob [ Tue May 06, 2008 4:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Coast2Coast wrote: For the NCAA, it's protecting the purity of amateur sports and not having their games influenced by gamblers
That's the most laughable motive of all. Everyone knows that the purity of amateur sports should be influenced by cheating recruiters & bankrolled by boosters, not some degenerate gamblers. To borrow a phrase, "It's a tradition like no other" 
|
|
| Author: | Coast2Coast [ Tue May 06, 2008 4:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Agreed. We don't have  that are large enough to do that statement justice.
|
|
| Author: | Irish Boy [ Tue May 06, 2008 6:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Coast2Coast wrote: Irish Boy wrote: I don't buy that the taxation will be only on winnings. Things have a way of creeping. Losers pay taxes indirectly already. Losers pay 10% juice to the bookie and bookies pay income taxes on their net. So you could argue the 10% juice does become taxable when it becomes bookie income. Winners pay income taxes on their winnings (or they are required to by law, anyway). So the government effectively gets a piece of both sides of every bet. That's why I don't like the idea of "taxing the hell out of it", whatever it may be. I don't want a situation where, say, a bookie's earnings are taxed at a higher rate than regular income because it is lumped in with other sin taxes. I'm afraid those -110s will become -115s or -120s. |
|
| Author: | reents [ Wed May 07, 2008 5:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Wagering |
Yes the sports benefit from gambling, I remember Beano Cook in 01 said that if the NFL didn't have gambling or fantasy football, rartings would be down 60%, as much as people love the game, that is probably a true statement. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|