An ESPN producer who quit because of sports gambling
cjr.org
cjr.org
Reasonable overview here and it's only gotten worse since 2024. https://thezvi.substack.com/p/the-online-sports-gambling-exp...
Right, because that’s a recent occurrence.
The number of ads on any sportsball program is actually sickening unless you are used to it. I don’t care about the commercials, it’s the ones you don’t notice. You might notice The Verizon Center’s instant recap cam brought to you by GoPro, “Go Be A Pro!”… no, it’s everything that appears on the screen at any single moment is branded and paid for you to see it subconsciously. Every helmet, mouthguard, clipboard, every everything everywhere all the time, no letting up.
I’m pretty sure that the level of advertising in sports is super unhealthy. I really don’t care that betting the game is an option or not.
That's a tough sell; the US makes a lot of errors. Assuming "public policy" means "domestic"; their industrial policy promoting deindustrialisation seems like a bigger error. After a few moments of thought I'd probably argue the Bush-Obama era establishment of a massive internal surveillance apparatus (including a secret court) is a strong contender for biggest unforced error in living memory. There might be bigger ones but the US citizens lost a remarkable amount there. It is no longer possible to know what the laws of the US are, because some of them are secret. And the use of spying and federal harassment of political opponents seems to have been steadily normalising.
Even just background over-regulation on starting and running new businesses is probably going to cause more damage to poor people than legalising sports gambling.
The surveillance apparatus was created to prevent another 9/11 which quite possibly would have destabilized the state itself.
These may or may not have been mistakes, may or may not have been worth it, may or may not have been illegal, etc. etc., but they both had a pretty coherent rationale for them.
What's the rationale for legalized sports betting? It's such an obscenely indefensible change that any politician advocating for it should be investigated relentlessly (at least journalistically) until the day they die.
> It is no longer possible to know what the laws of the US are, because some of them are secret.
That's not true.
> Even just background over-regulation on starting and running new businesses is probably going to cause more damage to poor people than legalising sports gambling.
Absurd statement.
Some people want to bet on sports. It seems obvious enough. It's like asking what the rationale is for letting people do anything. They don't have to clear it with you to make sure you agree that it is a worthwhile activity (or anyone else for that matter). Even if it is clear folly on a whim.
I'll just add that every mistake the US makes is going to have a rationale. Everything the US does has a coherent rationale with the possible exception of the recent Iran war. But sometimes the rationale is stupid.
> That's not true.
It is true. They had a big thing about clamping down on whistleblowers under the Obama administration because people kept trying to leak information on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
> Absurd statement.
The world is an absurd place. My mind usually goes to https://www.grumpy-economist.com/p/the-cost-of-regulation when I bring that point up.
Secret law: The Wikipedia section heading being "secret law" does not actually make it a "secret law" in the sense that most Americans would read it. What it's referring to is a set of secret court rulings. Which are, yes, very problematic and not something I'll defend. But the phrase "secret law" would cause most Americans to think of secret legislation, which does not exist.
2) Bear in mind how the "they're obviously going to be scanning internet traffic" conversations went back in the 90s and 00s (where it went from absurd tinfoil hat talk to common sense assumption basically overnight). If they do turn out to have secret legislation that feeds into the FISA court then I reserve the option of being smug in retrospect. It seems quite reasonable that they would need secret legislation to operate the secret court that produces secret laws likely enforced by secret police. There is pressure to recreate the whole legal system with the word "secret" in front of it to make any individual secret part work.
It's a secret court; I doubt any of us know what is going on in there. This is one of the major problems with secret courts, it is not possible to opine on how they are working without speculation.
Your second paragraph is actually exemplifying the exact type of misunderstanding of the situation that I was alluding to. You really don’t need secret legislation, or even secret statutes, or even secret rules to produce the “secret law” referred to in the article. All you need is secret decisions.
Im always amused by this line of thought, should we make alcohol illegal then and ban advertising it on tv? What about soda with too much sugar? Should we, perhaps, ban everything which is addictive and causes any harm?
But note I didn’t present the “people want to do it” argument. My view is things should be balanced between their antisocial risks and their prosocial value.
IMO yes there should be extremely high taxes on high-sugar concentration foods and beverages, and probably additional impediments to their advertising. We have alternative sweeteners that do not destroy the financial viability of our healthcare system, and we should tilt the tables in their favor. High antisocial risks, low prosocial benefits compared to readily available alternatives.
Alcohol is dicier as there is a real prosocial value to it that’s non-trivial to replace, but it too should probably be taxed more aggressively as we know that small tax increases disproportionately affect the most problematic consumers of alcohol.
Note how this argument isn’t “people want to do it therefore it should be allowed?” Or “people can be harmed by it therefore it should be disallowed?”
Prohibition has costs of its own: black markets, organised crime, unsafe products, enforcement expenses and incarceration.
You acknowledge that alcohol has social benefits, but apparently heroin doesnt. Why? Because alcohol facilitates socialisation? Because its culturally accepted? Who gets to determine the "prosocial value" of an activity? Almost any unhealthy behavior can be framed as a societal cost.
Theres an enormous amount of subjectivity here. Some people genuinely enjoy recreational drug use. Others enjoy gambling, despite knowing they will probably lose money.
You are arguing that the state should determine which activities are permissible based on their net social utility. Im arguing that danger alone should not give the state a right to prohibit consenting adults from engaging in any activity. Individual autonomy has value in itself, including the freedom to make decisions that are objectively bad for oneself.
We don't legalize things in America, we illegalize things.
The constitution doesn't give us rights, it actually takes them away so our government can operate.
We give freedom lip service in this country but if you truly believe in it this is what we must drill into people in civics class and in discourse.
This is in fact what happened with sports betting. They wrote a law making it illegal. That law got struck down, so we are back to the default which is it is legal.
We can make it illegal again to address the court ruling, but it's an uphill battle.
Sports betting was effectively illegal, and a number of people lobbied aggressively and pursued lawsuits to overturn the status quo (de facto federal ban) then a huge number of efforts to permit it at the state level in a bunch of states.
All of these efforts are completely adequately described as “legalization” efforts.
Yes, we can change the new status quo again. And we should.
People are acting like sports betting is new. The Romans bet on the gladiators. I'm not a history buff, but I'd imagine older civilizations bet on some form of sport as well.
What's the rationale? To make money of course. To be confused on this seems like a bit of deliberate obtuseness. The fact it hasn't been legal for so long was because the puritanical start to the country. It would be nice to have specific leagues that were pure sport for sport's sake, but once one league allows betting and the money starts to flow, all of the other leagues will follow or wither
“What’s the rationale for legalized sports betting [that mirrors the rationales for these other two decisions that you are placing in the same category]?”
“Just make money” or “the Romans did it” are unlikely to fit the bill.
Sounds more like you're wanting to ask a more generic question on why addict gambles, but if you want to understand the rational of an addict, then get in line. The only thing to understand is trying chase the high in whatever form it takes. Ask an addict and they will tell you there's no explaining it.
To me, the "HN fasion" is not accepting that there are things that exist that are not rational and no matter how much you want to logic your way to an answer, it will never happen.
This is about policy errors and the degree to which those errors are unforced.
The question is whether sports gambling was just as “forced” as the surveillance state or as deindustrialization.
Yeah, that one's huge. Another huge one was when the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 provided retroactive immunity to the telephone companies who all willingly, blatantly, and -undoubtedly- knowingly violated Federal law controlling domestic surveillance.
This is tangentially related, but I suspect that the major LLM Manufacturers are hoping that they can frighten Congress into doing something like that again. Getting all active lawsuits about your illegal behavior erased all at once is a huge gift to scumbag businesses.
But for others their "fill" is so high their addictions will wreck them entirely regardless of means.
But perhaps to your point, if I'm give it charity, people with less means are more likely to get entirely wrecked by certain addictions.
As with many other psychological phenomenona, finances and education only protect to a certain degree or not at all, depending on what one is talking about in detail.
This is not a comment about correlation or causation of wealth with mental health, but rather a warning to keep in the back of ones head; success and a sharp mind don't make one immune against mental health issues in general and gambling addiction in particular.
Beyond that however I agree that turning this loose on the American public is an incredibly short-sighted act, but it's part of a pattern rather than an outlier.
So rationality? You're assuming there's good options available for these people. But if they don't own a home ... they won't lose much, and their careers provide them with little to gain month to month.
Isn't it rational under those circumstances to try to get quick large reward ... or fail entirely? When you have no real other options and even arguably little to lose?
The time when being a non-educated worker in a big city would get you a house, a family, and pretty good comfort, enabling ordering 5 beers most evenings in a pub, have a hobby, ... has long ended, at least in Australia.
The fact that you can go into any neighborhood dive bar and see a bunch of nearly indigent drunks doesn't mean that people aren't drinking themselves to death in mansions, private clubs, or $1000 a meal restaurants.
As for rational risk, most people consider the line between having enough for daily expenses, making debt payments, and having a place to rent is a massive upgrade over a shelter or the streets. Or working a second job, or a third.
The stereotypical problem gambler in Australia is a lonely retiree blowing their pension at the pokies (slots), and clubs and casinos go all out to cater to this demographic with free taxi services etc.
Sports gambling isn't a good thing, but 2025-2026 has shown us many far worse errors in public policy every single day.
I'm eating just ramen here ...
Here's an unforced error.
* Person 1: "$THING is a problem for a significant chunk of people. My audience here probably doesn't experience it subjectively, but it's still objectively true."
* Person 2: "But what if we are feeling it!? Ah-hah! I found an error! You goofed!"
* (Me): "That's really not their point, stop nitpicking the disclaimer."
“Gambling is a problem for poor people, but not the smart, educated folks on this here forum” smacks exactly of that. So while that detail might be orthogonal to the original point, I’d agree that it’s not just a nitpick but a very real problem as a statement that is worthy of being called out.
They're truly just caught up in a pissing match with their peers.
I'm going with the rollout of LED headlights on that one, but reasonable people can disagree.
No reference - no comparison.
Betting of any type is bad for humanity
Shameful.
You should allow people to bet sums on whether you're gonna get shot tomorrow, so you can have the best possible information!
Of course there's no incentives for acting badly against you, and if there are it's again, just price discovery.
[0] https://www.statista.com/chart/29332/gross-gaming-revenue-fr...
AI is doing this with remarkable success by directing itself at the 'business management' weakness of hatred of employees.
Ashley Madison. On that note? You're spot on.
I'm honestly curious if it's better to have some outlet for people who love gambling, and just have some cap, vs trying to ban it altogether.
In general, it’s been a disaster: it’s just moved betting to (illegal), offshore bookmakers. It’s pretty easy to get on via WhatsApp if you need to, these days.
I’d suggest most territories should be OK with sports bets on singles, not parlays, and block online casinos and slots. That latter category is very problematic for addicts. I get why it’s problematic for fans watching the game, which is why UK leagues have started to push it out a bit (no shirt front sponsors in EPL for example). I’d definitely push more down that route.
I’d also legally force platforms to move away from RFQs and parlays because they create an unfair asymmetry that harms the backer and creates huge profits to the layers (bookmakers, or market makers on prediction markets).
Disclosure: I write software that trades on exchanges in the UK. I have skin in the game, the above is based on what I track over here.
My view is that there should be limits imposed on how much people can lose across all forms of gambling annually, with a high-friction process if you want to raise your limit above say, $5,000 per year.
Offline-only, no advertising allowed.
Entertainment or "a thrill" is a form of value, and whatever gives one a thrill is highly subjective.
I played the game for a grand total of like fifteen minutes, and even in that short time I ended up chatting with the fellow gamblers and ended up feeling a bit depressed. One guy there said he was down $700 because of the current long streak of red, and we were “due” for a black any time now.
He seemed like a nice enough guy and I tried to explain that each throw is basically an isolated event, so you’re never “due” for anything and the red streak can keep going for a very long time, well after you run out of money. I then realized he was not interested in a lecture from me about statistics and let it go.
My strategy worked, I won back the initial bet of $10, cashed out my chips, and left. I was happy to be $10 richer but it makes me sad how this guy might genuinely leave this vacation in severe debt because he doesn’t understand basic stats.
This only works of course if the game is actually fair, and you have infinite money reserves.
I almost never gamble, the last time being ~2012. I figured it might be fun to set aside like $100 and try the strategy regardless, content with walking away if I won the minimum bet. I actually won on my first bet and cashed out immediately.
I know he's an adult and he's allowed to make his own decisions and he's allowed to throw his money away if he wants. I'm not his dad and I can't make decisions for him, but it seems really gross that there's an institution that exists seemingly purely to extract money from people who don't understand math.
Worse yet, there are a number of these institutions!
gambling - where the statistical odds are that you lose
investing - where the odds are you win
Casinos and bookies only stay in business because most gamblers lose. So even gamblers who win do so ultimately at the expense of gamblers who lose.
Successful investments are positive sum. They create new value.
A small portion of this complex issue to think about.
morality is completely out the window
I also really enjoyed Michael Lewis' podcast on sports betting. Fascinating people in that world. He did this series to try to teach his 16 year old son not to gamble and it didn't work out perfectly. Terrific storytelling.
(And yes, I am using the word "ban" as shorthand for "extremely tight/onerous regulations in red and blue states, respectively".)
With handguns, it's similar: the people most intent on obtaining a handgun are often people who have an intention to use it as an attack weapon: violent criminals, or people planning a violent revenge. They care least about breaking (some more) law, and, if handguns are banned, obtain handguns with a much higher probability than an average law-abiding citizen (police officers are below 1% among general population). So the most vulnerable groups have the least chance to protect themselves with a firearm. (Though, truth be told, a pump-action shotgun is a much better defense tool if you defend your house.)
> its much better to regulate vices then prohibition
And applied to gambling, this seems like an conjured argument, so oft repeated it has morphed into a platitude. I'm not aware of research that indicate that having the state safeguard gambling improves society in a quantifiable way - the lowest possible bar of "much better".
The gross proliferation of gambling ads certainly feels far removed from any notion of watching out for society's well being.
The whole article's complaint isn't about the legality of sports gambling. It's about the prevalence of advertising. Of course the author doesn't like it, period, but once the billions started rolling in the politicians got out of the way.
I'm sure this will be inflammatory, but's not meant to be. It's like having separate smoking areas in bars/restaurants vs everybody smokes anywhere they want.
But i do not see, what the meta-narrative wrapped around the problem adds to the conversation. What do all these moralin negators add to the conversation? Just step back, be a example and remain virtuous while the rest of the world follows "First comes the feast, then the morals?"
This is such a discourse decay, we used to have analysis, a whole pyramid of needs- and a culture with a dedication to keeping the machine that gives us the luxus of morals at any costs. Now instead of guarding civilizations and the machine that keeps it going, we get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellant, for whom their virtuous self-important abstinence from the decay, makes them blue blooded, nobles even.
One way to regulate a vice is to completely ban advertising it.
Another is to make it inconvenient to access - offline only, away from schools, places of worship, commercial areas, or other places people congregate.
You see it in SEO, too. Online casinos’ budgets for link building are effectively bottomless.
As things are currently going, it’s only a matter of time before a major-league sport sees another Shoeless Joe Jackson or Pete Rose.
Do people who have actually had to earn and deserve what they have gamble?
There are some people who are prone to addictions and there are others (like myself) who aren't, it's genetic - why should we let people prey on addicts?