The Proof Is In The Pudding

The SAFE Bet Act is causing a rift within the responsible-problem gambling community, and I fear the cooler heads will not prevail.

I’ve been writing quite a bit about tensions within the gambling industry. That tension isn’t confined to competitors fighting over market share. It’s rapidly spreading outward and includes rifts between pro-online and anti-online entities, the legality of sweepstakes games, opening up California for mobile betting, and is even engulfing the responsible gambling-problem gambling community.

---

SPONSOR’S MESSAGE - Sporttrade was borne out of the belief that the golden age of sports betting has yet to come. Combining proprietary technology, thoughtful design, and capital markets expertise, our platform endeavors to modernize sports betting for a more equitable, responsible, and accessible future.

“Sporttrade is now live in Arizona on Android and iOS!”

---

The RP-PG community has never been in lock-step, but significant overlap has always existed on key policy points. That seems to be vanishing. There is a fracturing within the RG-PG community, with fire-and-brimstone true believers on one side and what I would call more moderate, industry-adjacent advocates on the other.

The following statement is not a slight, as I think it’s necessary to accomplish RG/PG goals, but many of the more measured organizations rely on industry funding. They better understand the reality of what is doable and what is a pipedream, but it’s also an easy criticism, which will be the focus of the second half of this column.

The perfect example of the split can be seen in the rhetoric surrounding the SAFE Bet Act, which has divided RG-PG advocates and is pulling some organizations in two different directions as it accomplishes some of its goals but also has highly problematic components.

In 2023, National Council on Problem Gambling executive director Keith Whyte spoke to me about the need for a common consumer protection framework. While it wasn’t Whyte’s first or second choice, Whyte said federal action is the most likely outcome:

“We've spent 50 years encouraging the industry to get together and do this themselves. They're the folks with a lot of power who reap enormous profits. But to date, there has not been much progress on the national level.  

“I think they're changing a little bit because they realize achieving compliance across the hundreds of jurisdictions in the US is almost impossible. But I think the time for the industry to take the lead has probably passed.

“It might well take national level, federal level action. That’s not our first choice. That's not our second choice. But we may have to try something else different.”

I support the idea of a federal framework (as outlined here), but I’ve been around long enough to know that federal action is a long shot and that a good federal bill is the pipedream mentioned above.

---

No Position Is Not a Position

So, even though it checks off many of the NCPG’s boxes, the SAFE Bet Act isn’t the group’s third, fourth, or fifth choice, given its current position of neither supporting nor opposing the Act—the NFL and NBA are also trying to stay somewhat neutral on the Act, but seem to be leaning negative.

The Act’s overreach has the group conflicted.

Per a press release from the NCPG:

“The National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) maintains its neutral position on legalized gambling and, accordingly, neither supports nor opposes the Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet (SAFE Bet) Act as the legislation accomplishes its objectives by first instituting a nationwide prohibition on sports betting.” 

Yes, the SAFE Bet Act technically prohibits sports betting, but only because it requires states to meet the federal guidelines included in the Act.

Mini-Rant: This argument is a red herring, and I’d add that it’s “as currently written.” It’s not as if this point has been debated and left in the bill. The sponsors have introduced legislation, but everyone seems to be looking at the legislation as an endpoint rather than a jumping-off point for discussion. Perhaps because it’s easier to dismiss out of hand rather than engage with.

I’d also note that its neutral position doesn’t square with a subsequent press release that calls for a clear framework to help states identify gaps in their current laws and regulations:

“Today, the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) released a report, U.S. States’ Online Sports Betting Regulations: An Evaluation Against National Council on Problem Gambling Standards. The analysis found that, on average, states met only 32 out of 82 player protection standards outlined by NCPG’s Internet Responsible Gambling Standards (IRGS). The goal of the report is to help states identify gaps in their current laws and regulations, providing a clear framework for making improvements to better protect consumers and promote responsible gambling.”

Again, the SAFE Bet Act puts many organizations and RG-PG people in a tricky spot.

It’s the action they want and have called for, but not the outcome they desire. And that’s the part I want to dive into.

Optics Matter