NBA scandal toxic, but regulated gambling beats alternative
Portland Trail Blazers head coach Chauncey Billups leaves court after his arraignment in the NBA betting scandal, on Thursday in Portland. Credit: Getty Images/Mathieu Lewis-Rolland
Sports gambling scandals are as old as sports and gambling.
More than a century ago, eight players on the Chicago White Sox were banned from professional baseball after they were accused of throwing the World Series in a conspiracy with professional gamblers. In 1951, dozens of players from multiple colleges were arrested in a widespread match-fixing and point-shaving conspiracy.
And of course baseball great Pete Rose was banned from the sport in 1989 for betting on games, including on his own team, the Cincinnati Reds.
In the years since the Supreme Court allowed state-by-state gaming legalization, and as mobile sports betting became more ubiquitous, the link between sports and gambling tightened.
But the gambling-related accusations that now engulf the National Basketball Association seem particularly toxic in their size and scope. In one, an NBA coach and a former player were allegedly involved in an elaborate effort to rig underground poker games. In another, the FBI has accused players and coaches of sharing inside information to allow gamblers to win so-called "prop bets" — bets focused on individual events within the game, or a particular player's performance. It was often as simple as a player allegedly faking an injury and taking himself out of a game, allowing gamblers who knew in advance to easily profit.
The obvious response might be to point fingers and say it's indicative of shortcomings in oversight. In reality, however, existing regulations and other checks uncovered the scheme. The sportsbooks themselves, combined with the NBA's integrity monitoring company, U.S. Integrity, detected unusual betting patterns that sent up the first red flags.
In other words, the system worked.
That's not to say change isn't warranted. Particularly problematic are the thorny partnerships and financial deals that closely tie professional sports leagues and sports betting companies together. The ads are everywhere; the commentary on those prop bets that take place during a game, a constant.
How could or should all of this impact brick-and-mortar casinos, including those proposed for New York City? Three bidders — Resorts World at Aqueduct Racetrack, Bally's Corp. at Ferry Point in the Bronx, and Metropolitan Park at Citi Field — now are vying for three licenses.
While the casinos themselves have internal security, close attention from the state will be warranted.
At first glance, the Citi Field bid might seem particularly fraught. A professional sports team owner could also own a casino featuring sports wagering just steps away from where that team plays. But even that's not really new. Just look at Las Vegas since major league sports came to town. The Las Vegas Raiders are within walking distance of multiple casinos, and the planned baseball stadium for the Athletics there is expected to be at the center of a 35-acre casino complex.
So far, such proximity doesn't seem to change the odds of a problem. And as gaming industry observers like to point out, anyone anywhere, even inside a stadium, already can place a bet at any moment — from the phone in their hands.
While all of that requires a closer look, legalized, regulated gambling is far superior to the alternative. In any game, from baseball to chess to poker, there always has been and always will be those who try to cheat. That means that even as play continues, we keep working to make the playing field fair, to stay one step ahead of those trying to beat the system, and to make sure anyone who does is held accountable.
That's a bet worth making.
Columnist Randi F. Marshall's opinions are her own.
Randi Marshall is a member of the Newsday editorial board.
