Sports Betting: A Debate

On February 11th, the Blue Ridge Center hosted a thought-provoking debate on the legalization of sports betting, featuring Charles Lehman, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and Brent Scher, managing editor at the Daily Wire. The discussion, co-sponsored by the Interfraternity Council and Civil Discourse Initiative, drew a diverse audience and engaged students in a lively exchange of ideas.

Scher began with his opening statement, arguing that the legalization and permutation of sports betting is a net benefit for both the sports and gambling industries. It has increased transparency and accessibility for more casual fans to place bets, increasing both viewership and attendance in many professional sports. “Sports betting has been around way longer than what you see now on ESPN,” Scher remarked as he explained how placing bets used to be an underground activity, with local bartenders setting the odds and acting as the “bookies” (bookmakers). Betting lines were mostly controlled by Vegas oddsmakers, underground bookies, and offshore sites. As a result, many people would get their information by word of mouth, phone calls, or online forums.

“Before everyone knew the line, Vegas and the mob could rig games all the time. Points shaving and the famous White Sox scandal were commonplace; you just didn’t hear about it because there was nobody to check them.” Scher proceeded to discuss the Supreme Court ruling in Murphy v. NCAA (2018) that opened the proverbial floodgates to sports betting across the country. The ruling overturned the 1992 PASPA Act that prevented states from legalizing and regulating sports betting. Las Vegas held a monopoly on legal sports betting, meaning that if you wanted to place a bet on a game legally, you had to do it in Nevada. The case originated in New Jersey, where then-Governor Chris Christie had long fought to legalize sports betting in the state. New Jersey voters approved a referendum in 2011 to allow sports betting, but the NCAA and major professional sports leagues sued to block the law, citing PASPA. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in May 2018 that PASPA was unconstitutional because it violated the Tenth Amendment, which protects states’ rights.

With PASPA overturned, each state was now free to legalize and regulate sports betting as it saw fit. New Jersey quickly launched legal sports betting, and many other states followed suit. The sports betting industry exploded, with major companies like DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM becoming dominant players. The ruling led to increased revenue for states and more fan engagement. Concerns have risen around the addictive nature of easily accessible gambling, but Scher took a liberal view, stating, “Just because it can be bad, that doesn’t mean we should ban it.”

Lehman, a “prohibitionist at heart” cited the detrimental effects of gambling addiction, arguing that the proliferation of such behavior has sent countless Americans into crippling debt. “When three percent of sports bettors account for 50% of profits, everyone knows it is an inherently addictive industry,” he noted. Lehman prefers a return to how things worked under the PASPA Act. The cost associated with high-stakes gambling outside of simple bets with your friends requires a long trip and finding a bookie. In the same vein as illicit drugs and obscenities, Lehman believes “The government has a legitimate interest in limiting addictive behavior. This doesn’t inhibit liberty, it protects it.” 

“If you want to be controlled then go to China.” Scher retorted. The debate was fiery but cordial, with both speakers showing respect and a healthy dose of wit. Lehman used a stark example of a study that found even harsh drugs like heroin could theoretically be used in small enough doses to be enjoyed recreationally, asking his colleague, “Where do you draw the line?” Scher found this argument preposterous, sparking a fundamental disagreement over the quantitative effects of not only gambling but addictive substances altogether. 

Before taking questions from the audience, Lehman concluded by reiterating that betting companies, by nature, prey on addicted consumers who they know will lose money. “If you are too good, they will restrict your wagers or ban you if they detect arbitrage. They can’t increase their profits unless enough people are losing out.”

At the end of the debate, they did reach one shared consensus: please do not do heroin.

To learn more about the Blue Ridge Center and stay updated on future events, click here.