On Thursday, New Jersey’s Governor Chris Christie announced that his state government would move towards allowing patrons in casinos and race tracks to legally bet on the outcome of sporting events, including baseball, basketball, horse races, football, etc. You name the sport, and you will be able to bet on it in New Jersey starting this fall. Needless to say, casino operators have kicked their feet on top of their desk in the corner office with a bottle of Scotch to celebrate.
Gambling in sports always ruffles feathers. Plenty of folks might make bets with their buddies, but fans in general don’t bet heavily on sports because, by and large, such activity is illegal. In only four states; Montana, Nevada, Delaware, and Oregon, can you gamble on sports. New Jersey, like all other states, could have passed sports gambling tolerance laws in 1991 to meet a federally-stipulated deadline, but did not do so. And yet, estimates put the sports gambling business, legal or otherwise, close to half a million dollars every year. In the 1990s, a study found it to be around $380 million, so the “industry” certainly continues to grow.
But sporting leagues have never cast a sympathetic eye towards gambling in any sense. Not only did sports teams lobby against widespread legalization of sports gambling in the early 90s, but players who gamble receive the harshest possible penalties. In 1963, Paul Hornung a Hesiman winner and NFL MVP, gambled on football games. Amazingly, few people remember this, but the NFL immediately suspended him indefinitely before Hornung fully admitted to every accusation and missed only one season. For Pete Rose, however, the all-time hits leader of baseball, rejected accusations he gambled on baseball games while managing the Cincinnati Reds, but voluntarily accepted a lifetime ban from baseball (and consequently the Hall of Fame) to avoid further angst.
The speech announcing Rose’s ban best encapsulates the main argument against gambling; the purity of the game must be preserved. Then-commissioner Bartlett Giamatti said, “One of the game’s greatest players has engaged in a variety of acts which has stained the game.” Stained the game. What does that mean? Granted those who participate in sports should not be allowed to gamble (Black Sox scandal anyone?) mainly because that would affect their effort for a fairly insidious reason. But, the question remains: can fans “stain” the game and affect its purity?
Without a doubt, fans can stain any sport. The events last year at Dodger Stadium and the cowardly, brutal beating of Dodgers fan Bryan Stow by Giants fans (since caught and charged) which left him in a coma suggest that sports creates not just positive emotions, but malignant ones as well. The Pistons fan who created the Brawl at the Palace in 2004 sparked the most disgraceful episode in NBA history, all by tossing a beer. The reaction of the Pistons fans that night added to the embarrassment. Such incidents aren’t the norm, but they prove that fans can at points do more to dirty the game’s image than the players themselves.
Beatings and fights, however, do not equate to gambling. If sports teams want to claim the purity of the game is compromised when people bet outside money on their play, why aren’t the obscene prices of concessions at sporting events any less ridiculous? Obviously, I go to a game to watch my team play, but when I can’t bring in my own food and must pay $5 for a three inch hot dog, I feel I could sit at home and maybe make the $5 into $10 or $15. Be honest with yourself: of all privately-held enterprises, very few have the benefits of sports teams. Not only anti-trust protection, but other special protections: for the NFL as an example, the ability to draw fans to games or otherwise black them out on local channels. Throw in concessions and TV revenue, and I have to wonder if sports teams don't want gambling because they can’t stand someone besides themselves making money in sports.
That might be cynical, but every time you buy a $7 bag of peanuts ask yourself where the money goes…fans are gouged every time they attend a game. Gambling, at the very least, allows someone to say, “instead of spending $50 on a ticket, I’ll put that on the team to win and watch the game on TV.” Maybe the fan loses the $50, maybe they gain $25, but at the very least they lose the game atmosphere, with the sun, sweat, paunches, guts, and beer bellies that come with it. Strikes me as a decent trade (best seat in the house is usually your TV anyway) but there are some backdrops that would require regulating the size of individual bets.
A major one: gambling pervades most things it touches. If people start gambling a lot, kingpins arise and begin to influence the actual sports, promising pay-outs to individual players. If you’ve seen The Sting or even The Replacements, you know someone in the sporting world (be it the media, official scorer, or athletes) would eventually find themselves a way to a dishonorable payoff. And, if the idea supporting gambling is to provide a little more equity to the fan, the presence of kingpins and gambling czars defeats the point.
So, I’d suggest a few rules to enable gambling but also to decrease the chances of gambling czars. First, eliminate online sports gambling. Not only are those connections likely insecure but it’s much harder to enforce limits on bets through the Web. Many of these measures are enacted now, so that would not change the status quo. Second, require a driver’s license at a casino or track to make bets. And, lastly, bets cannot exceed $1000.
Those ideas sound really pathetic to some of you, but the only way to keep gambling from truly staining the game is to keep it away from the playing field. To do that, limits on bets must be small enough to not present a real incentive to millionaire players who might want to throw games for more money. Unlimited gambling would (and did in the 1910s) create a culture that would stain any sport, and should not be supported because it would directly change the level of play in some cases.
All that said, most teams have their followers now and I don’t think gambling would change the deep-rooted support for one team or another. Those folks will still come to games and watch on TV. But, uncontrolled gambling, the kind New Jersey wants to create, would in turn engender malicious consequences that directly contradict the romanticism and appeal of sports. In a generation or so, it’s not hard to imagine fans refusing to support one team or another and instead choosing to “play the market” and bet their way through the sports landscape. Add in the possibility for powerful controlling interests and the compulsive nature of gambling for many, and sports gambling could really change how folks view sports. Instead of identifying with your hometown team, you identify with those who make you money, potentially lots of it. I don’t think anyone wants that.
Bit #1: Rangers-Devils very different from 1994
Rangers fans are quick to tell everyone who will listen that they’ve been down 3-2 before on New Jersey’s ice and passed the test. With a trip to the Finals on the line, the Rangers defeated the Devils in 1994 on a Mark Messier natural hat trick (a hat trick that occurs on three consecutive goals in one period), one of the times a player has willed his team to victory and taken them there.
This series, however, looks very different from the 1994 days. Not only are the Rangers endowed with a better goaltender, but the Rangers have no personality like a Messier, full of talent and veteran savvy begging them to move on in the playoffs. Amazingly, Devils goalie Martin Brodeur played in that series 18 years ago as young ‘un and while he admits 1994 haunted him for a long time, the man has won three Cups since then. In what will likely be his final season, Brodeur played his best in the playoffs this year. The oldest Ranger, Martin Biron, was 17 when Messier won the game for the Rangers.
Admittedly, New York’s hockey scene has died since that day. No real excitement until now, with the Rangers clawing towards the Stanley Cup final but needing three 7-game series to do it. This team’s victory would revitalize a lagging fan base, but the same could be said of the Devils who now have New Jersey to themselves after the Nets leave this summer for the city. Lots on the line in this series and well worth your attention.
Bit #2: Soccer will take over the summer yet again
Last summer the U.S. women captured headlines by gaining the World Cup Final. This summer, soccer will again dominate a month of your lives with the European Championships. On June 8th, Greece and Poland begin the competition in Warsaw and for two weeks we will be regaled with the best players in the world doing their thing.
Some things to keep in mind ahead of time: Group B will be the most entertaining by far. Defending champs Germany, World Cup finalists the Netherlands, and perennially dangerous Portugal all play in Group B and only two of them can advance. I bet on Germany and Portugal, but these will be worthwhile matches to DVR.
Spain’s David Villa, their primary striker, will not play in this tournament so look for them to experience some issues as they navigate the competition. Their groupmates Italy, however, are currently part of a youth movement to replace old (not aging) players. While both teams will be powerful, I would not expect either to win at this point.
Bit #3: How much longer do the Celtics have?
In the former Soviet bloc, governments began three-year plans, in effect centrally planned economic efforts that, almost halfway through, were revised in favor of a new three year plan, since almost all of them failed.
Not to liken GM Danny Ainge to a Communist dictator, but the Celtics are in Year 5 of their initial 3-Year plan. Celtics fans should thank Rajon Rondo for emerging like he has, because without him I bet the Celtics wouldn’t have made the conference championships last year. Ray Allen has come close to being a bench player a few times this season not to mention almost being dealt at the trade deadline. Garnett has played well in this year’s playoffs, but is by no means a sure thing to come back next year. Both he and Allen are free agents and while Paul Pierce remains under contract next season his window for more titles is tightening very fast.
If the Celtics win Game 7 tomorrow, we will see the Big Three again. But if they lose, this trio which has done so much to reverse the fortunes in Boston will be broken up, whether by retirement, free agency, or trades. Enjoy it while it lasts, Boston.
No comments:
Post a Comment