The history of sports wagering and betting in the United States is long and complicated. Sports betting has been around in some form or another since the early days of the country, with people wagering on everything from horse races to cockfights. However, it was not until the late 19th century that organized sports betting began to take root in the United States. Sports betting was first legalized in Nevada in 1931, and since then, it has slowly but surely spread to other states (Fielkow et al., 2017). The first organized sports betting in the United States took place in 1891 when a group of men from Chicago set up a betting pool for the Kentucky Derby. This pool quickly became popular, and other horse races were also being bet on. In time, betting on baseball games also became popular, and by the early 20th century, nearly every major sporting event in the country had some form of betting associated with it. The popularity of sports betting continued to grow throughout the early part of the 20th century. In 1931, the state of Nevada legalized gambling, and Las Vegas quickly became the center of the sports betting world. Bookmakers from all over the country flocked to Vegas, and the city became known as the “gambling capital of the world.” The growth of sports betting in Vegas and elsewhere was dealt a significant blow in 1992 when the federal government passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (Fielkow et al., 2017). This Act effectively made sports betting illegal in most of the United States, except Nevada. The Act was a major blow to the sports betting industry and caused it to go underground.
Since the PASPA was passed, there have been various efforts to repeal it or find ways around it. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the PASPA was unconstitutional, clearing the way for states to legalize sports betting (Fielkow et al., 2017). Since then, several states have passed laws legalizing sports betting, and many more are considering doing so. There is a problem that arises with this proposition 27. Proposition 27 should not be legalized because it would allow online and mobile sports wagering outside of tribal lands. This would be a huge step backwards in the fight against gambling addiction. Online and mobile gambling is extremely accessible and easy to hide, making it very dangerous for people prone to gambling addiction. If proposition 27 were to be legalized, it would only make it easier for people with gambling problems to gamble, and that is something that we should be trying to avoid (Proposition 27: Allows online and mobile sports wagering outside tribal lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and statute, 2022). Gambling addiction is a serious problem that can ruin lives. It is important to remember that when discussing the legalization of gambling activities. We should be doing everything we can to make sure that people with gambling problems are not put in a position where they can easily gamble. Proposition 27 would do the opposite of that, so it should not be legalized.
It has been realized that online gambling is connected with psychological and physical comorbidities. Studies have shown that online gamblers have a higher rate of alcohol consumption, smoking, substance abuse, and mood disorders (Kindt, 2002). These findings suggest that online gambling may be more harmful than physical gambling and that problem gambling may be more likely to occur among those who gamble online. One of the reasons that online gambling may be more harmful than physical gambling is because it is more easily accessible. Gamblers can access online gambling sites at any time of day or night from anywhere in the world. This means that people are more likely to gamble when they are tired, stressed, or intoxicated, which can lead to more harmful consequences. Another reason that online gambling may be more harmful is that it is more anonymous. Gamblers can remain anonymous when they gamble online, which means that they are less likely to seek help for their gambling problem (Nower et al., 2018). This anonymity can also make it more difficult for family and friends to intervene and provide support. Therefore, proposition 27 should not be legalized.
The idea that sports betting can lead to an increase in divorce rates is not a new one. In fact, it is an idea that has been around for quite some time. The reason that this idea has gained so much traction in recent years is because of the advent of online sports betting. Online sports betting has made it easier than ever for people to gamble on sports, leading to a rise in the number of divorces attributed to gambling. Gambling can put a strain on marriages and lead to financial problems (Perese et al., 2000). This is because gambling can be addictive and lead people to spend more money than they can afford to lose. This can lead to arguments and financial problems, ultimately leading to divorce. There are a number of reasons why gambling can lead to an increase in divorce rates. First, gambling can be addictive. This means that people can become addicted to gambling and spend more money than they can afford to lose. This can lead to arguments and financial problems, ultimately leading to divorce. Second, gambling can lead to people becoming emotionally invested in their bets. This can lead to people making impulsive decisions that can have negative consequences. Finally, gambling can lead to people becoming isolated from their loved ones. This is because gambling can be time-consuming and can take away from time that could be spent with family and friends. The idea that sports betting can lead to an increase in divorce rates is valid (Berry et al., n.d.). Gambling can be addictive and lead to people spending more money than they can afford to lose. This can lead to arguments and financial problems, ultimately leading to divorce. Therefore, proposition 27 should not be given a chance to be legalized.
Furthermore, sports wagering could lead to corruption within the sporting world. There are a number of reasons why this could be the case. The first reason why sports betting could lead to corruption within the sporting world is that if people have inside information about teams or players, they could use that information to place bets and make money (Anderson et al., n.d.). This could lead to corruption, as people with inside information would have an unfair advantage over those who did not have that information. For example, if a person knew that a certain player was going to be injured, they could bet against that player and make money. This would be unfair to the other players or the team, as they would be disadvantaged. The second reason sports betting could lead to corruption within the world is that if sports betting were to become more widespread, it could lead to more match-fixing and other forms of corruption. This is because people would be able to make a lot of money by betting on fixed matches. This could have a devastating impact on the integrity of sports. Match-fixing is a serious problem in sports, as it can destroy the sport’s credibility (Lastra et al., 2016). If people believe that the results of matches are fixed, they will lose interest in the sport. This could lead to a decline in popularity and participation, which would be bad for the sport. The third reason why sports betting could lead to corruption within the sporting world is that if sports betting were to become more regulated, it could lead to more corruption. This is because there would be more opportunities for people to bribe officials in order to get favourable treatment. For example, if a person wanted to bet on a particular team, they could bribe the officials to make sure that that team won. This would not be fair to the other teams or the fans, as the team that won would not have deserved to win. These factors could lead to corruption within the sporting world (Lastra et al., 2016). Sports betting could have a serious impact on the integrity of sports. It is essential that the sporting world is aware of this and takes steps to prevent it, and that is why proposition 27 should not be passed.
The impression that sports betting exposes children and vulnerable adults to gambling without adequate protections in place is a very controversial one. It is a critical issue that needs to be addressed. A few key points need to be considered when debating this issue for our community’s children and young adults. First, it is crucial to understand how sports betting works. Sports betting is a form of gambling that involves placing a bet on the outcome of a sporting event. If the person placing the bet wins, they will receive money from the person they placed it with. However, if they lose, they will lose the money they placed the bet with (Emond et al., 2020). Additionally, it is important to understand the age at which people are legally allowed to gamble. In most jurisdictions, the legal gambling age is 18. This means that children and vulnerable adults are not legally allowed to gamble. Also, it is important to understand the potential risks associated with gambling. Gambling can lead to financial problems, addiction, and other mental health issues. Taking all of these points into consideration, it is clear that there are both risks and benefits associated with sports betting. However, the risks seem to outweigh the benefits when it comes to children and vulnerable adults. This is because children and vulnerable adults are more likely to develop gambling problems than adults. Additionally, they may not have the financial resources to cover their losses if they develop gambling problems. In conclusion, the idea that sports betting exposes children and vulnerable adults to gambling without adequate protection is valid. Sports betting is a form of gambling that can lead to addiction and other mental health problems for children (Espadafor et al., 2021). Children and vulnerable adults are more likely to develop gambling problems than adults. Therefore, not legalizing proposition 27 will help to protect children and vulnerable adults from the risks associated with sports betting.
Proposition 27 will also have a negative impact on the economy. Gambling can be a very volatile industry, and while there may be a short-term boost to the economy from Proposition 27, this would not be sustainable in the long term. It could lead to more money leaving the state than coming in, as people gamble online or mobile with out-of-state operators (Kindt, 2020). While the state may see some tax revenue from these activities, it is likely to be dwarfed by the amount of money leaving the state. This could lead to a net loss of jobs and economic activity and a decline in tax revenue. There are a number of reasons why this could happen. First, out-of-state operators will likely offer better odds and payouts than California casinos. This could lead to a lot of money leaving the state in the form of winnings. Second, out-of-state operators are not subject to California’s taxes and regulations. This means that they can offer lower prices, which could lure customers away from California casinos. Finally, out-of-state operators are not required to use California-licensed software or to follow California’s responsible gaming guidelines. This could lead to more problem gambling, as people are able to gamble more freely without these safeguards in place. These factors could lead to a decline in revenue for California casinos and lead to a net loss of jobs and economic activity (Kindt, 2020). This would be a major blow to the state’s economy and could have a negative impact on the state’s budget. In addition, it could lead to an increase in problem gambling, as people are able to gamble more freely without the safeguards that are in place in California.
The idea that sports betting could have a negative impact on the reputation of the states where it is legal is a valid concern. If sports betting is seen as an activity associated with crime, corruption, and addiction, it could damage the state’s image and make it less attractive to businesses and tourists. There are a number of reasons why sports betting could be seen as a negative activity. First, if sports betting is illegal, it is often associated with crime (Prokopets & Rogachev, n.d.). This is because illegal sports betting is often conducted through underground networks involved in other illegal activities, such as money laundering and drug trafficking. Second, even if sports betting is legal, it can still be associated with corruption. This is because there is often a lot of money involved in sports betting, and there have been instances of people fixing games or betting on games that they know will be fixed. Finally, sports betting can be addictive, leading to financial ruin. All of these reasons are valid concerns, and they should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to legalize sports betting. American states should weigh the pros and cons of sports betting and decide whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks (Prokopets & Rogachev, n.d.). Therefore, considering the challenges, sports wagering should be banned, and thus, proposition 27 should not be passed.
The potential for negative impacts on participants in sporting events from sports wagering is genuine. If athletes know that people are betting on their performances, they may be tempted to throw games or engage in other unethical behavior in order to manipulate the betting odds. This could have a disastrous effect on the integrity of the sporting event itself. In addition, athletes who are not performing up to their potential may feel additional pressure to do so in order to win bets, which could lead to additional injuries (Forrest et al., 2008). Furthermore, the financial incentives that sports wagering provides could potentially corrupt athletes and lead them to engage in doping or other illegal activities in order to improve their performance and increase their earnings. This would not only be unfair to the other athletes competing, but it would also put the health and safety of the participants at risk. Overall, sports wagering has the potential to have a negative impact on the participants in sporting events. Athletes may be tempted to engage in unethical behavior in order to manipulate the betting odds, and the financial incentives that sports wagering provides could potentially corrupt athletes and lead them to engage in illegal activities (Forrest et al., 2008). This could have a disastrous effect on the integrity of the sporting event and the health and safety of the participants.
However, there are counterarguments for the negative position associated with legalizing proposition 27. There are many reasons why legalizing proposition 27 will have positive effects on the United States. With immense support from DraftKings and FanDuel, sports betting or wagering argues and proposes that the legalization of this proposition will benefit the country and its people more. First, it is about the creation of jobs. The legalization of sports betting will create jobs in various sectors, including the technology sector, which will be required to develop the infrastructure for online and mobile sports betting, the hospitality sector, which will be required to staff the sports betting outlets, and the security sector which will be required to provide security for the sports betting outlets (Furman, 2016). Secondly, it will generate tax revenue. The legalization of sports betting will generate tax revenue for the government, which can be used to fund public services such as education and healthcare. Furthermore, it will boost the economy. Legalizing sports betting will boost the economy as it will create new businesses and jobs. Moreover, by being regulated, it will have more enhanced benefits. The legalization of sports betting will provide for the regulation of the industry, which will protect consumers and ensure that only reputable operators are allowed to offer sports betting services. In addition, gambling can be done responsibly. It is not addictive or dangerous if people gamble within their means and set limits for themselves. Therefore, it means that legalizing proposition 27 will benefit the nation (Volberg et al., 2022). Finally, legalizing sports betting will take the illegal market for it away. This will make it safer for everyone involved, as well as generate more tax revenue.
However, the points made in favor of legalizing proposition 27 are flawed for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the idea that legalizing sports betting will create jobs is misguided. The reality is that most jobs created by the legalization of sports betting will be low-paying and unstable, as they will be in the service industry. Secondly, the claim that legalizing sports betting will generate tax revenue for the government is also false. The vast majority of sports betting takes place illegally, and thus the government does not collect any tax revenue from it. In fact, the only way that the government would see any increase in tax revenue from sports betting is if it were to legalize and tax it at a high rate, which would likely discourage people from participating. Third, the claim that legalizing sports betting will boost the economy is also false. Sports betting is a zero-sum game, meaning that there must be a loser for every winner. This means that the only way the economy can be boosted by sports betting is if more money is bet than is won, which is unlikely. Finally, the claim that legalizing sports betting will take the illegal market for it away is also false. The reality is that the illegal market for sports betting will likely continue to exist even if it is legalized, as there will always be people willing to take the risk of breaking the law to place a bet. Therefore, based on this refutation implies that sports betting under proposition 27 should not be legalized.
In conclusion, legalizing proposition 27 about sports betting in the United States would have negative impacts. The potential for negative impacts on participants in sporting events from sports wagering is genuine because athletes end up throwing games to manipulate the gambling odds. It destroys a nation’s reputation, and this can deny a country many tourists. Sports wagering destroys the economy since its benefits are short-term. Sports betting exposes children and vulnerable adults to gambling without adequate protection. Furthermore, sports wagering could lead to corruption within the sporting world. Sports wagering results in a higher divorce rate. Sports betting is connected to psychological and physical body health problems/conditions. There are counterarguments about the negatives of legalizing sports betting, including the potential for increased tax revenue and increased fan engagement with sports. However, these benefits are outweighed by the potential negative impacts of legalizing sports betting. All the arguments made by the supporters and proposers made in favor of legalizing proposition 27 are flawed and misguided. Therefore, legalizing proposition 27 under sports betting will lead to more problems for the country’s people than the expected benefits.
References
Anderson, P. M., Blackshaw, I. S., Siekmann, R. C., & Soek, J. Sports Betting: Law and Policy.
Berry, R. E., & Froehlich, C. Women’s Experience with Gambling: Motivations, Concerns and Recommendations. Women’s Experience with Gambling: Motivations, Concerns and Recommendations, 42.
Emond, A. M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2020). Gambling in children and adolescents. British Medical Bulletin, 136(1), 21-29.
Espadafor, M., & Martínez, S. (2021). The negative consequences of sports betting opportunities on human capital formation: Evidence from Spain. PloS one, 16(10), e0258857.
Fielkow, J., Werly, D., & Sensi, A. (2017). Tackling PASPA: The Past, Present, and Future of Sports Gambling in America. DePaul Law Review, 66(1), 4.
Forrest, D., McHale, I., & McAuley, K. (2008). ” Say it ain’t so”: Betting-related malpractice in sport. International Journal of Sport Finance, 3(3), 156.
Furman, T. (2016). Going All In: New Jersey and the Sports Betting Landscape.
Kindt, J. W. (2002). College and Amateur Sports Gambling: Gambling Away Our Youth. Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, 8(2), 221.
Kindt, J. W. (2020). Bans on Sports Gambling and Lotteries Would Pump-Prime the Us Economic System in the New Age of Covid.
Lastra, R., Bell, P., & Bond, C. (2016). Sports betting-motivated corruption in Australia: an under-studied phenomenon. International Journal of Social Science Research, 4(1), 61-82.
Nower, L., Caler, K. R., Pickering, D., & Blaszczynski, A. (2018). Daily Fantasy Sports Players: Gambling, Addiction, and Mental Health Problems.
Perese, L., & Faleafa, M. (2000). The impact of gambling on some Samoan people’s lives in Auckland. Auckland, New Zealand: The Compulsive Gambling Society of New Zealand.
Prokopets, M. A., & Rogachev, D. I. Lotteries, Bookmakers and Sweepstakes in Russia. Sports Betting: Law and Policy, 648.
Proposition 27: Allows online and mobile sports wagering outside tribal lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. (2022, November 08). Retrieved November 3, 2022, from https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=27&year=2022
Volberg, R. A., Evans, V., Zorn, M., & Williams, R. J. (2022). Legalized Sports Betting in the United States and Potential Impacts in Massachusetts. Amherst, MA: School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
write