The nation’s sports betting landscape would likely be limited to Nevada and New Jersey today if the Garden State would have enacted single-game sports wagering by 1993 as a federal law allowed.
Jennifer Roberts, associate director of the International Center for Gaming Regulation at the University of Nevada Las Vegas, raised the question during her presentation Wednesday on what’s next on the sports betting landscape at the 17th International Conference on Gambling & Risk Taking at Caesars Palace. UNLV’s International Gaming Institute produces the show.
Single-game sports wagering is now legal in eight states with more on the way this year, 12 months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) that grandfathered in Nevada to keep its single-game sports wagering. New Jersey had year to enact sports wagering or be prohibited. Oregon, Montana and Delaware were allowed to offer small scale sports wagering, but nothing like the full-scale sportsbooks in Nevada.
“Unless there was some other effort to repeal PASPA, we would just have two states with sports wagering and three with an exemption,” Roberts said. “Unless someone decided to challenge it on the federal prohibition. It’s kind of fascinating to think about.”
New Jersey lead the way to the ultimate repeal with court challenges at the federal level, including the case that led the Supreme Court to overturn PASPA in May 2018.
“Unless the tribes decided they wanted to get in this space, then maybe no one challenges it,” Roberts said. “Look what is happening in the marijuana industry (even though states have legalized it). Not a lot of people are challenging the federal government, and there’s not a whole lot of movement in Congress to take action.”
Roberts said the 1961 Wire Act that prohibits sports betting over state lanes, which she will discuss on Thursday at the conference, also hasn’t seen any movement in Congress.
“This would be a whole different landscape,” Roberts said. “I think you would still have what you see today is a big robust illegal market and have pockets of New Jersey and Nevada. Most people aren’t going to drive two-and-half-hours from a major city to Atlantic City to place a bet. They’re just going to go with their local bookie or online app.”
Some $4 billion is bet legally and estimates have illegal betting at a range of $80 billion to $380 billion, Roberts said.
Roberts’ presentation Wednesday most primarily about giving an introductory lesson to where the U.S. stands in the sports wagering marketplace, with some Nevada history.
“One of the issues is why should we look to Nevada (as a regulatory model),” Roberts said. “People say it’s antiquated, and the UK is better to look at. I’m not here to say you should cut and paste the Nevada model. What you should do is look to jurisdictions that have histories. We’ve had legalized casino gambling since 1931 and legalized sports wagering since 1949. We’ve learned some tough lessons.”
Not every lesson should be taken from the state, Roberts said. She joked about a casino and sportsbook that was operated in the state prisons through 1967. The casino started in 1932. It was operated by the prisoners for the prisoners and known as the Bull Pen, she said.
“You definitely didn’t cheat in this casino,” she said to laughter of the audience. “They shut it down because there was a riot in the prison unrelated to the casino.”
Roberts praised the United Kingdom, which adopted sports wagering in 1961, for going into mobile wagering in 2005. She questioned why that model is given preference by some over Nevada.
“A lot of early discussion was let’s replicate the UK because they’re much more technology focused,” Roberts said. “I’m not advocating against that. There are good portions of the UK model, but the problem is the UK does it differently. About 70 percent of their sports betting is done by mobile device, and it’s 80 percent in New Jersey that’s taken a UK model. They also allow for credit cards to be used for sports betting. There are a lot of jurisdictions in the U.S. that would be pretty resistant to that, especially for problem gambling purposes.”
