The NFL has caused a lot of turmoil by trying to balance the calls to stop gambling when it comes to gambling and the “yes, you should do it” when it comes to profiting from gambling. The confusion also extends to ownership.
Consider this statement from Falcons owner Arthur Blank to FrontOfficeSports.com's Daniel Kaplan during Super Bowl week: “Gambling is here after the Supreme Court ruled. The league's position on that is 'defend the game at all costs,' which is obviously absolutely critical. And all the implications it has for club officials, players, gambling, and I've never even stepped foot in a casino. [in Las Vegas this week]. I don't want to be seen there. In theory, if you want to go to the slots, you can, but I don't know. . . . But it is what it is. The league will be a participant and will participate in any economy generated by the league. We all know that some of these things can be addictive, so I hope the league will be more careful and promote responsible betting. ”
Did you hear the line in the middle? If I wanted to go to the slots, I could go, but I don't even know that.
If team owners aren't clear about what they can and cannot do, how can players and other employees expect to chart a path through an unforgiving minefield that puts their livelihoods at risk? Is not it?
Then again, the NFL didn't have to jump into sports betting. You might say, “Yes, it's legal now, but we'll continue to ban it.” If the NFL had chosen to remain strongly opposed to sports betting, it would have been much easier to create and enforce rules that applied to everyone.
You may not gamble in any capacity while working for the NFL or any of its teams.
Instead, the league has opted to profit from gambling, allowing owners of sports betting companies to own up to 5 percent, while at the same time creating a “do-it-yourself” policy designed to protect the integrity of the game. We have chosen to have a complex list of do's and don'ts.
It's not just the actual integrity of the game, but also the perceived integrity. For example, the Personal Conduct Policy states:[e]All members of the league must refrain from conduct that undermines the integrity of the NFL and public trust. ”
Public trust in the NFL.
How can the public have faith in the NFL when team owners can own up to 5 percent of a sportsbook company that sometimes experiences lopsided wagers on certain games? For example, if sportsbooks were flooded with bets on the Chiefs in the Super Bowl, and the 49ers won thanks to a controversial officiating decision, the public's trust in the NFL would be influenced by the fact that the owners own this game. Did you receive it? Did the majority of sportsbooks get an outcome they preferred based on financial benefit to one or more sportsbook companies?
Part of the problem is that the NFL doesn't disclose the equity interests held by team owners at sportsbooks, so it's impossible to know whether owners will lose money or how much money they will make if a bad call decides the outcome of a game. It has become impossible.
There are many problems with the NFL's inconsistent approach to gambling. One of the obvious problems, as shown in Mr. Blank's comments, is that owners don't even know what they can and cannot do.
Maybe things will change at some point. Perhaps someone (like Congress) will impose rules to force the change. Until then, the league will stuff as much cash into its coffers as possible and bring swift and ruthless justice to players and non-players who wrongly violate the league's “walk the talk, not the walk” mandate. Dew. .
