NFL Announces Official Sports Betting Partners

Remember how the NFL (and most other American sports leagues) spent years and years and years trying to disassociate themselves from gambling and sports books? Well, things change. 

The NFL has announced formal partnerships with Caesars Entertainment, DraftKings, and FanDuel, granting them "the exclusive ability to leverage NFL marks within the sports betting category and activate around retail and online sports betting." This will include "the right to integrate relevant sports betting content directly into NFL Media properties including NFL.com and the NFL App." NFL highlights, footage, and Next Gen Stats content will be available at DraftKings and FanDuel. Caesars will retain its exclusive casino rights to use NFL trademarks in its marketing. All three properties will use the NFL's official league data feed.

Comments

14 comments, Last at 23 Apr 2021, 12:21pm

1 I'm sure the referees…

I'm sure the referees completely botching a review, followed by a 'brought to you by Caesar's Palace' chiron is going to greatly increase people's faith in the fairness of the game. 

8 IF a game were to be fixed,…

IF a game were to be fixed, which is what you are suggesting, it would be much easier to determine with legal sports wagering run by regulated corporations. Such companies would have massive data sets concerning betting patterns, etc. which could be used to spot unusual activity. Such companies would also have a vested interested in outing such schemes in that even if they didn't lose money because of the fixed game, they would ultimately lose money if the public were to begin to believe the games were fixed. So, yes, the more parties(like Caesar's) with vested interests in the game outcome being fair, the more faith people should have in the game.

2 As a UK resident, and…

As a UK resident, and sometime sport bettor, I'm intrigued to watch the US finally embrace sports betting. The betting industry as a whole over here is huge, thanks to generations of liberal policy making, but it is coming under increasing attack from social welfare lobbies concerned about 'problem' gambling and its corrosive effect on society (I have my own thoughts on that which I won't share here). It is hard to see how there isn't going to be increasingly strict regulation in years to come. So it will be fascinating to me to see how things turn out in the US. 

Of course the objections raised by the NFL against gambling in the past have revolved around the potential for match-fixing, which is obviously complete nonsense. So I'm happy that good sense has finally prevailed there. 

3 Avoiding the whole "politics…

Avoiding the whole "politics and social issues" bit ("no politics") an additional concern for online betting from a governmental issue is the money laundering issue. A *lot* of the issues that betting places face are related to that (and it's a strong reason why I don't gamble).

5 It's hard to avoid politics…

It's hard to avoid politics on such a politicized issue.

It's kind of amusing watching modern American progressives advocate the same prohibitive policies enacted by colonial Puritan theocrats 400 years ago. This all goes back to Puritanical American attitudes towards "sinful" behaviors: drinking, drugs, prostitution and gambling. Obviously, none of these activities (especially prostitution) are super productive, and they can be quite destructive in excess, but there's nothing inherently violent about them, and if done in moderation, they're relatively harmless fun. People are going to do them no matter what, so if you support their illegality, you're essentially bankrolling Mafia empires and drug cartels, as well as bookies, gangs and other petty criminal organizations. Why do you think Capone emerged during Prohibition, or Siegel et al during the 40s, or the ultra-violent Latin American drug cartels of nowadays? Notice that you don't see many liquor gang wars these days, post-Prohibition. The violence and money laundering issues surrounding gambling and casinos are 100% the unintended consequences of misguided paternalistic lawmaking.

If you personally find wagering distasteful, fine, but not everyone feels that way, and realize that legal restrictions on it have caused immensely more harm than good. If someone is willing to bet $110 that the Eagles will beat the Redskins by 4 points or more, and is willing to lose that money if they don't, well, I really don't think it's a great use of taxpayer resources to stamp out these voluntary transactions, wretched, immoral and aberrant as some people might find them.

6 I have the opposite view: I…

I have the opposite view: I think gambling scours all the fun out of an activity, unless the stakes are so small that no one can take it seriously, e.g. pretzel sticks. 

Why do you assume the anti-gambling agents are progressives? There are plenty of 'social welfare' groups that are not particularly progessive, such as MADD or the anti-marijuana groups. 

7 I made some inferences based…

I made some inferences based on Pat's post, but I might have put some inaccurate words into his mouth. My post was a bit of an unnecessary broadside in general. My bad. It's certainly true that people across the political spectrum can approve (or disapprove) of a given policy, for completely different reasons.

If that's your view on betting, well, congratulations, you have defeated gambling addiction! ;-) For me (and the vast majority of the population, in my experience) a wager can turn a blowout, or a contest between two normally uninteresting teams, into a nail-biting affair. That, for me, is part of what makes it fun. A 30-point underdog down 35-0, driving into their opponent's red zone with :30 left, with $100 on the line?? Riveting sporting theater!

12 "Some" inferences? Literally…

"Some" inferences? Literally the only thing I commented on was pointing out an additional reason for regulating sports gambling. There was literally no judgement in there whatsoever. (The comment regarding *my* preferences is solely due to my doubts about how well companies follow the spirit of those regulations).

The other reason is avoiding tax fraud, although that's a relatively easy thing to deal with (...mostly).

Personally, the only time I think government really has a driving need to restrain gambling is if it's promoted by the government (through taxes, etc.) to counter the conflict of interest. But again: "no politics rule."

11 Maybe if I said "online…

Maybe if I said "online gamble"? Just ethical concerns regarding those companies. You see investigators pressure sports books regarding not doing enough for compliance, that always makes me suspicious.

14 As was suggested above,…

As was suggested above, money laundering is less likely to occur if the betting firms are properly regulated in the US, as opposed to offshore, or entirely unregulated.

I'm not naive enough to assume it couldn't or wouldn't occur, and the key phrase there is, of course, "properly regulated". But one would hope that, the bigger and more mainstream the industry, the more incentive there would be to keep it 'clean'.