You see a lot of good policy ideas when you follow U.S. gambling legislation so closely on a daily basis. You also see some bad ideas, bills that you know that, at first sight, never have even the slightest chance of passing, and some that, dare I say it, are political grandstanding rather than genuine movements for change.
By now, you’ve probably heard about a small group of Ohio legislators’ suggestions for what the Buckeye State should do to its sports betting market. If you haven’t, you’re in for a treat. There’s no legislative text available at the time of writing, but here are the notes, as unveiled by the bill sponsors on Wednesday:
- Ban online sports betting entirely and allow only in-state betting at the state’s four casinos
- Ban all prop bets and in-game betting
- Ban parlays
- Limit individual bets to $100
- Limit bettors to eight wagers in a 24-hour period
- Ban all wagering on college sports
- Ban the use of credit cards for online sports betting
- Ban sportsbooks from offering incentives like free bets
- Limit how sportsbooks can advertise, including banning ads during game broadcasts or in sporting venues
There are more factors at play here than I have the time, or the word count, to go into. But, listen, this stuff is designed to get people talking, isn’t it? I mean, we’re talking about it right now.
There’s no doubt that there is plenty of second-thought regret going on in Ohio right now (just listen to Gov. Mike DeWine‘s recent rhetoric). But you don’t need to look too deeply to realize that the real aim here is to make a mass-media splash. It’s written all over the ‘Save Ohio Sports Act‘, from the nearly hour-long press conference that was set up to present it to the impressively haughty name.
Perhaps Ohio sports and betting (and those industries outside of state borders) do need a certain amount of saving. Are bets on the next pitch of a baseball game – the flash point in all of this for Ohio, given the Cleveland Guardians scandal – really necessary? Does sports betting advertising need to be as frequent and as prominent as it is? Is the relationship between sports and gambling above the need to be reevaluated, and are we really saying that precipitating some real changes isn’t needed? I would argue the answer to all of these questions is no.
My problem with proposals like these Ohio ideas, beyond the fact that it’s the kind of thinly-veiled politicking that leaves one weary, is that they bury the good with the preposterous. Ohio is not going to repeal online sports betting. It’s too popular, too profitable for the state, too sought-after by state residents, too intertwined with the state’s sports and culture and economics. Take that away now, and the people for whom betting has become a recreational habit won’t suddenly stop. Life finds a way, after all.
As for banning all props, all in-game wagering, and all parlays? I’d argue that in today’s sports betting culture, that’s a bit like trying to ban all sugars, fats, and proteins at once in your diet plan. It’s not what anyone wants to eat, and it’s going to leave people foraging elsewhere for sustenance.
This proposal does have ideas I can get behind. Banning credit cards? Sure. We’re halfway there already, with numerous states prohibiting them for online gambling; the likes of FanDuel, DraftKings, and BetMGM have already done it themselves nationwide anyway. A whistle-to-whistle ban on sports betting ads? Honestly, it wouldn’t exactly make my sports viewing experience worse. I’m also in the school of thought that there needs to be a serious reevaluation of whether betting on college sports (certainly on anything more granular than game results or scorelines) is worth the side effects.
But my overriding feeling is that lumping genuinely sensible policy, or thought-provoking ideas, in with pearl-clutching statements and hyperbolically heavy-handed moves risks more than just inciting scorn from industry onlookers (the Sports Betting Alliance offered me no on-the-record comment on these proposals when I asked, to say the least). It risks undermining the good work that state legislators and regulators do around the country to actually make an activity that is enjoyed safely by the majority of participants even safer.
I imagine that for every U.S. legislator looking at these Ohio ideas and thinking that an online sports betting ban ain’t such a bad idea, there are countless gambling-informed lawmakers and state regulators sighing wearily. “Thanks for making our jobs harder, guys.”
But then perhaps that’s part of the point for this Ohio rhetoric. Is this really what they want? Do they really think it has any chance of passing? Again, I’m a no on both counts. But ask for the outrageous and the unobtainable, and you might get a compromise: a ban on all player props, a prohibition on daylight and primetime sports betting advertising, serious restrictions on college betting. Perhaps by asking for what is plainly too much, you’ll get the thing(s) you’re really looking for.
