May 24, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Sam Zell’s Nightmare Continues (11)
William S. Stevens: 1948-2008 (22)
Teixeira’s Options (18)
Cole Hamels Meets Talk Radio (23)
Appropos of nothing (4)
Shyster's Daily Circuit
Joe Posnanski Blog
Cot's Baseball Contracts
It IS About the Money
Baseball Think Factory
MLB Trade Rumors
Way Back and Gone
Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog
The Biz of Baseball
The Daily Fungo
The Common Man
Jorge Says No!
Baseball Over Here
Friday, July 24, 2009
Gambling is badKind of a lost day for me as the legal job sapped the afternoon away, but let's close on an amusing note, shall we?
For weeks now, Delaware's sports betting, under the umbrella of the state lottery, has received major criticism. The NFL has been at the reigns of the opposition, and now the verbal hostilities have come to the culmination of a law suit. The class action suit lists the NFL, the NHL, the NBA, the NCAA, and the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball as the plaintiffs. They seek to challenge the constitutionality of Delaware's "Sports betting scheme" as it pertains to not only the federal scale, but also Delaware's own constitution.
1. What do the NFL's television ratings look like if no one gambled on football?
2. How many baseball teams run ads from casinos?
We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator . . .
Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 4:44pm
Jack Marshall said...
Well, not exactly the same hypocrisy, right Craig? I think it’s fair to say that baseball, unlike football and basketball, wouldn’t miss legal gambling very much, or suffer from its demise. In fact, I’m pretty sure baseball would trade all of its benefits from gambling tenfold to erase what gambling has cost the sport: a fixed World Series, plus Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose left out of the Hall of Fame.
Posted 07/24 at 05:02 PM
But wasn’t the gambling that caused the fixed World Series, Jackson, & Rose, all illegal?
Posted 07/24 at 05:46 PM
Chris Simonds said...
We’re both part of the same hypocrisy, senator . . .
To which the suits reply “...[we} intend to squeeze you…. Let’s just say you’ll pay [us] because it’s in your interest to pay [us].” They’re looking for a piece of the action. They want the offer to come from the state, so they don’t look like scum. What’s bothering them is the sense that their product is being used without any royalty payments.
Posted 07/24 at 06:03 PM
I have to put on my English major hat for just a second… the NFL is not at the “reigns,” it’s at the “reins.” Unless the change in the structure of our government is far more extreme than I’d realized.
Posted 07/24 at 06:28 PM
Aaron Moreno said...
So all the major sports and the amateur racket are in on this. With all the big guns lined up, I can imagine Delaware will look hard at how much revenue they stand to gain before they risk a court fight.
Posted 07/24 at 06:44 PM
Aaron - What does Delaware really have to lose from a court battle? It’s actually the perfect state to take on such a challenge.
Name another state that is a) in close proximity to a number of major cities (Wilmington is 125 miles from NYC, 30 miles from Philly, 70 miles from Baltimore and 110 miles from DC), b) has no major league professional sports teams and c) has no college sports teams in a Division 1A (or Football Bowl Subdivision as they call it these days) conference.
No other state has as much to gain and as little to lose through retribution from these organizations as Delaware.
If Delaware gets this up and running by football season, I know I’ll be taking a few extra trips to the First State this fall!
Posted 07/25 at 11:39 AM