STATESIDE
The potential destructiveness of sports betting
Sharon Harris considers the personal risks associated with the innovative technology powering sports betting in the USA.
T
he 2024 winter/spring season has been a blockbuster year for American sports betting. Now available in some form in 38 states, sports betting’s appeal has generated billions of dollars in profits. Earlier this year, Super Bowl LVIII
(58), college and professional basketball championships have produced astronomical betting numbers. The American Gaming Association (AGA) estimated 26 per cent of American adults - 67.8 million - would bet an estimated $23.1 billion on February’s Super Bowl.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), representing 500,000 student-athletes from 1,100 schools in all 50 states, also enjoyed record viewership and wagering numbers for men’s and
12 MAY 2024
women’s basketball championships. These events were so popular that they attracted four times the Super Bowl wagers. This year, women’s basketball reached new levels and 29 percent more women bet on the competitions.
However, a dark cloud hangs over the jubilant celebrations nationwide. There has been a recent deluge of negative media stories about the destructiveness of sports betting, especially among younger men. We all understand that technology has made it easier for gamblers to bet, but most people responsibly set individual budget limits. However, this innovative technology has also highlighted how accessible and easy it is to bet from anywhere at any time.
Depending on their state’s rules, few players
must make the effort to travel to a casino property or a racetrack to gamble. Unlike in years past, a gambler may not even have to leave home to be part of the action. There- in lies the risk for personal disaster. For decades, the U.S. and international gaming industries have invested millions to prevent and combat addictive gambling. The National Council for Responsible Gambling (NCRG) constantly develops strategies and methods to minimize the lure of gambling beyond just an entertainment experience. Since its gaming legalisation in 1976, New Jersey was the only legal jurisdiction outside Nevada. Gaming was not mainstream, and the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) was almost draconian in the “bureaucratic hoops” they placed on advertising and marketing campaigns. Their
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
