This blog has previous posts which discuss issues with the Delaware effort, particularly the problems with the government tax structure and the parlay-only offering. Those posts can be found here and here.
The leagues can't stop Delaware from offering parlays, as even the federal law, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), allowed Delaware as one of the four states grandfathered (the others being Nevada, Oregon and Montana) to offer sports betting. Delaware, having offered parlays before, can resume that game whenever they wish. Offering single-game betting is being viewed as an expansion of previously offerings.
From the lawsuit, the leagues claim single-game sports betting in Delaware "would irreparably harm professional and amateur sports by fostering suspicion and skepticism that individual plays and final scores of games may have been influenced by factors other than honest athletic competition." OK...but Nevada's been doing this since like...the 1940s. If any harm would have occurred, wouldn't it have occurred by now?
Besides, the leagues know gambling is an important component to their games' popularity. Why are point spreads published in just about every newspaper in the country, even though sports betting only happens (legally) in Nevada? Why does the NFL publish their injury reports publicly and not just send them confidentially to the various teams? Because they want information in the hands of sports bettors, both legal and illegal.
According to the federal law, the sports leagues have the authority to seek an injunction against operators of sports betting operations - those that aren't grandfathered in. Since Delaware is looking to expand, this might appear to fall outside the grandfathered area. Until now, the leagues have never tried to exercise the law. This is where the situation could get very interesting, and very dangerous for the leagues.
PASPA had some very strong arguments during its deliberation that it is unconstitutional. In essence, the argument was that you can't say 4 states can do something the other 46 can't. Also, since when does the goverment say a private entity has the authority to enforce federal law? States generally have sovereign immunity, so by and large they are immune from being sued unless they allow it. That immunity could be an easy defense. New Jersey has recently challenged the constitutionality of PASPA. A post discussing that case is here, which I recommend reading to learn more of the flaws in this law.
It is in Delaware's interest to keep PASPA in place so that Delaware would have a competitive advantage over neighboring states. It could have sports betting where the others could not. With the New Jersey suit challenging PASPA, Delaware was not likely going to join in as it would not be in its best interest. With the leagues going after Delaware, Delaware will have to fight back. If successful, it will be able to allow single-game sports betting. If unsuccessful, it will only be able to allow parlays.
Here's something very interesting. What if Delaware was too successful in its defense? What if it succeeded in throwing out PASPA? If that happened, every state could offer sports betting if it wanted and Delaware's current advantage would disappear. How Delaware responds to the lawsuit will be telling. They may use the sovereign immunity defense as well as use their constitution saying that a single-game sports bet is basically a one-game parlay. They may not challenge PASPA, or if they do, limit the challenge to the ability of private entities to enforce federal law...not challenge the law in its entirety. Delaware wants the competitive advantage. For that to be maintained, PASPA needs to stay in force.
It will be very interesting to see how this case turns out.
No comments:
Post a Comment