Federal scrutiny on US sports betting turned up a notch Tuesday as lawmakers held the first congressional hearing on the industry.
The US Senate Committee on the Judiciary held its initial hearing Tuesday on the sports betting industry, “America’s High-Stakes Bet on Legalized Sports Gambling.” In its last meeting of 2024, the committee heard from five industry witnesses, including representatives from responsible gambling organizations, the NFLPA and a former regulator.
“It’s critical that Congress looks into sports betting’s impact on America and determine how the industry should be regulated moving forward,” Committee Chair Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said in his opening statement, which also included references to collegiate athlete harassment and several sports betting scandals.
Durbin concluded the hearing saying it is only the beginning of the sports betting discussion.
US sports betting witnesses
The committee’s members spent time interviewing the five witnesses and expressing their thoughts on the situation.
The five witnesses:
- Charlie Baker, NCAA president
- David Rebuck, former director of the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement
- Harry Levant, director of gambling policy and certified gambling counselor at the Public Health Advocacy Institute at the Northeastern University School of Law
- Johnson Bademosi, NFLPA representative
- Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling
AGA, operators not present
While Rebuck provided some weight to advocating for the regulated market, there were no direct industry representatives.
The American Gaming Association noted the omission and issued a statement immediately following the hearing.
“Today’s hearing notably lacked an industry witness,” said Joe Maloney, the AGA SVP of strategic communications. “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.”
Witness opening statements
Baker used his opening statement to further advocate for a nationwide ban on college prop bets. Bademosi also discussed the effect on players and fans and the broader societal impact. He asked for action to ban betting on negative outcomes.
Whyte mentioned three concerning trends:
- Increase in gambling advertising
- Advances in technology
- Unlimited menu of betting opportunities
Levant, a recovering gambling addict, said it is the “early years of a fast-building public health crisis. Now is the time for Congress to act.”
Rebuck provides industry voice
Rebuck began his testimony as a “proud advocate for state-led regulation of legal gaming.” He said states and tribes are best suited to handle the regulation.
“Before legalization, millions of people wagered billions of dollars annually through illegal operations, committed fraud, evaded taxes and many instances were tied to organized crime,” Rebuck said. “These illegal operators offer no protections.”
He said federal oversight is unnecessary, but cooperation is already happening and welcomed.
Tillis equates sports betting to marijuana
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) compared the state-by-state sports betting regulations to marijuana.
Tillis said it is time to start thinking about the “rules of the road.”
He suggested creating a task force to help create federal guardrails on the industry.
SAFE Bet Act support?
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) co-authored the Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet Act with Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY). He asked the witnesses if they support the SAFE Bet Act.
Baker said he supports some aspects without knowing the full scope, while Bademosi supports it, as does Levant. Whyte said the NCPG remains neutral on bills that suggest a prohibition, which the SAFE Bet Act does temporarily.
Rebuck said, “It’s not a good bill,” and states should remain entitled to regulate and deal with the industry’s issues. He also said the concerns around safeguards are shared by every jurisdiction that engages in the industry.
