Sports Wagering one step closer in NJ....

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Please explain.

How does anything drag down the NFL?
No sports organization on earth can match their clout.

Legal sports wagering wouldn't do them the slightest harm,
and eventually they would gain revenue from it.
They are doing business with fantasy league websites,
and everyone knows that is a wolf in sheep's clothing,
as far as gambling is concerned.

All it will do is bruise a few executives' egos
who want to maintain the status quo - and their paychecks.

All that does not matter. The NFL owns its product and it can do with as they darn well please. That is the suit is about, product rights. Can some casino in Nevada offer betting on MP without a contract with MP? Of course not. It is the same thing. It has nothing to with egos. Or anything else. If they think gambling on their product in NJ the way NJ wants to will hurt their product, that is their right.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

All that does not matter. The NFL owns its product and it can do with as they darn well please. That is the suit is about, product rights. Can some casino in Nevada offer betting on MP without a contract with MP? Of course not. It is the same thing. It has nothing to with egos. Or anything else. If they think gambling on their product in NJ the way NJ wants to will hurt their product, that is their right.

How is a bet made in Las Vegas not hurting their product or a fantasy football league? Why is NJ excluded from being able to take sports wagering if it is complying with the law, especially PASPA?

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

All that does not matter. The NFL owns its product and it can do with as they darn well please. That is the suit is about, product rights. Can some casino in Nevada offer betting on MP without a contract with MP? Of course not. It is the same thing. It has nothing to with egos. Or anything else. If they think gambling on their product in NJ the way NJ wants to will hurt their product, that is their right.

Of course it's their product - and they can do what they want.

But, the argument they put forward about opposition to
gambling doesn't hold up due to illegal gambling
and, now, fantasy sports.

The NFL should make some sort of effort to stamp out
the billions of dollars bet on their product illegally
that has gone on for decades.

They haven't, and won't.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Of course it's their product - and they can do what they want.

But, the argument they put forward about opposition to
gambling doesn't hold up due to illegal gambling
and, now, fantasy sports.

The NFL should make some sort of effort to stamp out
the billions of dollars bet on their product illegally
that has gone on for decades.

They haven't, and won't.

The NFL will claim that there is a difference between legal and illegal sports wagering, but that does not matter in this case. The only thing that matters is legal sports wagering in NJ and no one in NJ has their permission to legally bet on their product. NJ is trying to an end run around property rights. Just because some illegal bookmaker is ignoring those property rights, does not give MP and the NJ casinos the right to do it "legally" . The lawmakers in NJ tried to give away something that wasn't theirs to give. If you get the Federal law(s) repelled and NJ works out a deal with the sports leagues, then and only then, you will be able to make a legal bet in NJ.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

The NFL will claim that there is a difference between legal and illegal sports wagering, but that does not matter in this case. The only thing that matters is legal sports wagering in NJ and no one in NJ has their permission to legally bet on their product. NJ is trying to an end run around property rights. Just because some illegal bookmaker is ignoring those property rights, does not give MP and the NJ casinos the right to do it "legally" . The lawmakers in NJ tried to give away something that wasn't theirs to give. If you get the Federal law(s) repelled and NJ works out a deal with the sports leagues, then and only then, you will be able to make a legal bet in NJ.

The case was made by the horsemen in their briefs that the games the NFL have in london have harmed the NFL how?

Millions are legally wagered on the NFL games there and not a peep about sports wagering there.

So if i live in london, england and wager with lcenced bookies there, there is no harm to the nfl

But if i live in Dover, new jersey and wager at monmouth park, there is huge harm to the nfl.

How so?

Allan

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

The case was made by the horsemen in their briefs that the games the NFL have in london have harmed the NFL how?

Millions are legally wagered on the NFL games there and not a peep about sports wagering there.

So if i live in london, england and wager with lcenced bookies there, there is no harm to the nfl

But if i live in Dover, new jersey and wager at monmouth park, there is huge harm to the nfl.

How so?

Allan

People are going to believe what people are going to believe, nobody in the entire country is going to think the NFL is more on the "up and up" if one state out of 50 is denied legal wagering, everyone knows there's plenty of ways to get down bets illegally and of course, there's also Vegas.

If a person thinks the NFL is crooked or refs are on the take, NJ having sports betting or not is not even a factor at all.

In fact, the case could be made that the more legal wagering that's available the less illegal wagering would be made. Some people who bet illegally on the east coast probably bet with bookies and are uncomfortable about it and if legal wagers came to NJ, they would be more than happy to have their faces on surveillance cameras while walking their cash up to a betting window. Fixers and refs on the take aren't waltzing into a NJ casino or racetrack to bet on a fixed game and get their faces up on the surveillance when they could just bet illegally.

Legal betting is a good thing for perception, not bad.

[bks]

Robert Goren wrote:
The only thing that matters is legal sports wagering in NJ and no one in NJ has their permission to legally bet on their product. NJ is trying to an end run around property rights.

Robert, I suspect you are dead wrong about this. On the chance I'm the one who's wrong, would you mind actually defending this proposition instead of simply asserting and reasserting it?

The NJ Attorney General just filed documents for the upcoming hearing. Take a listen:

“The Third Circuit rejected the argument that PASPA was intended to “stop the spread of sports gambling” generally, finding instead that “PASPA’s text and legislative history reflect that its goal is more modest —to ban gambling pursuant to a state scheme — because Congress was concerned that state-sponsored gambling carried with it a label of legitimacy that would make the activity appealing.” http://blog.northjersey.com/meadowlandsmatters/10066/breaking-nj-files-sports-betting-stance-says-no-state-agency-can-license-sports-betting/#sthash.iPpUcp7Z.dpuf"

That's why the new NJ bill avoids any direct or indirect state sponsorship or regulation.

Further:

. . . Plaintiffs (meaning NFL, etc.) cannot demonstrate that the purported injury alleged in their complaint — harm flowing from the State’s supposedly placing its imprimatur on sports wagering — is caused by the 2014 Act. Causation is a vital element of Article III standing and the Third Circuit found it satisfied when Plaintiffs challenged the 2012 Sports Wagering
Law because that law “by definition constitutes state action to license conduct that would not otherwise occur.”

In other words, if the core issue is property rights, then IT WOULDN'T MATTER what the precise goal of PASPA was, or whether there was irreparable harm, since the leagues' property rights would trump everything. But they seem not to here, so I have no idea why you keep trumpeting them.

Help a brother out.

[bks]

Oh, and one other thing: even in NJ ultimately wins, acc. to Daniel Wallach there almost certainly won't be any betting on the NFL before next season:

Judge Shipp will not be the final word on this controversy. Just like its predecessor, this case is ultimately going to be decided by the Third Circuit. If (read: when) Judge Shipp issues a preliminary injunction following the November hearing, New Jersey will appeal that ruling. It is in this for the long haul. Although the filing of a notice of appeal ordinarily divests the district court of jurisdiction, in an appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction, the district court may nevertheless proceed to determine the action on the merits. Thus, while the appeal of the preliminary injunction is before the Third Circuit, Judge Shipp would retain jurisdiction over the lawsuit and entertain the leagues' expected motion for summary judgment (which he would likely grant). Look for the notice of appeal (on the preliminary injunction) to be filed in December (assuming that Judge Shipp enters his written order before the end of November). New Jersey will then ask the Third Circuit to expedite the appeal based on the harm that would be suffered by its casinos and racetracks through any delay. If the appeal is expedited (as I would expect), all briefing would likely be concluded in March, setting the stage for an oral argument before the Third Circuit in the Spring of 2015. Of course, by that point, Judge Shipp will likely have already granted the leagues' motion for summary judgment, and New Jersey will appeal that ruling as well and ask that it be consolidated with the appeal of the preliminary injunction. That may delay the ruling by the Third Circuit since there would be additional briefing on the appeal of the final summary judgment. At this rate, a decision by the Third Circuit would likely not be made until the late Spring or early Summer, but certainly before the start of the 2015 NFL season. Thus, as a practical matter, you should not expect to see any legal sports betting in New Jersey for at least six more months (maybe longer) and that would depend, of course, on New Jersey ultimately prevailing on its appeal before the Third Circuit.

http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2014/...ghts-into.html

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by bks

Oh, and one other thing: even in NJ ultimately wins, acc. to Daniel Wallach there almost certainly won't be any betting on the NFL before next season:



http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2014/...ghts-into.html

Wallach seems to have a lot of opinions on the sw case before Judge Shipp. I recently saw where Dennis Drazin mentioned that the longer this goes the sense of urgency diminishes greatly. Third Circuit will eventually get this back as I stated before when is the question!

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by bks

Robert, I suspect you are dead wrong about this. On the chance I'm the one who's wrong, would you mind actually defending this proposition instead of simply asserting and reasserting it?

The NJ Attorney General just filed documents for the upcoming hearing. Take a listen:



That's why the new NJ bill avoids any direct or indirect state sponsorship or regulation.

Further:


In other words, if the core issue is property rights, then IT WOULDN'T MATTER what the precise goal of PASPA was, or whether there was irreparable harm, since the leagues' property rights would trump everything. But they seem not to here, so I have no idea why you keep trumpeting them.

Help a brother out.

The purpose of the PASPA was to get the sports leagues off their backs in a time where it looked like sports wagering might "legalized" in several states. It was probably not needed. Also remember there was and still is a strong anti-gambling contingency in congress. While they are not a majority, they hold powerful positions of power. Even if the courts rule in NJ's favor, you can expect new laws outlawing sports wagering in the US. You can bet on that in London.
If it isn't property rights, then I can open an ADW and not give MP or any other race track one red cent for the action I take on their races. Bookmakers overseas don't! We can not control what other countries do or don't do. I am sure the NFL would like to end the betting on their games in England. They just can't. Just like MP can't stop them from taking bets on their races and not giving them a cut.
Remember you don't have to convince me. NJ has to convince the judge(s). I don't think they can. You are hoping hope against hope that they can.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

Bookmakers overseas don't!

That's an unfair, and irrelevant comparison.

UK books are highly taxed on their horse racing revenues.
The sport depends on the government to fund it,
which turns them into, basically, the middleman.

In addition to this, horse racing in the UK and Ireland
have no larger sponsors for purses than independent bookmakers.
Bookmakers have a vested interest in a thriving product.

The way in which the sport is funded is done in a different way.
It may not be perfect, but is the US model any better?

At least bettors in other countries have a choice
with either fixed odds or pari-mutuel betting.

We should be so lucky......

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

I am sure the NFL would like to end the betting on their games in England. They just can't.

Stop for a second and realize what you are stating here.
Why do they play in London in the first place?
Global exposure = $$$
They wouldn't be doing it if it didn't result in financial gain.

I am equally sure that the NFL doesn't care
in the least about UK bookmaking on it's games.

If they did, don't you think they might propose a halt
to wagering on their product?
The UK government could authorize that in a heartbeat.

Thing is, though, the NFL would be laughed at all the
way along the runway at Heathrow.
They're not that naive, are they?

[badcompany]

If Sports Wagering falls through, maybe New Jersey Horsemen can make the case that they deserve some of the profits from the Shale Oil boom in Texas and North Dakota.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

That's an unfair, and irrelevant comparison.

UK books are highly taxed on their horse racing revenues.
The sport depends on the government to fund it,
which turns them into, basically, the middleman.

In addition to this, horse racing in the UK and Ireland
have no larger sponsors for purses than independent bookmakers.
Bookmakers have a vested interest in a thriving product.

The way in which the sport is funded is done in a different way.
It may not be perfect, but is the US model any better?

At least bettors in other countries have a choice
with either fixed odds or pari-mutuel betting.

We should be so lucky......

Yes it is and if horse racing had not decide to kill the goose that was laying the golden eggs, by raising the takeout to levels where few bettors had a chance to show a profit for even one day. With a 12% across the board takeout(what it was in Nebraska when I started betting), racing would still be booming like it was before they started raising it. Legalized sports wagering will the final nail the coffin of horse racing. You can't take enough money from sport wagering to save horse racing because so many bettors will defect. The 18-20% takeout look really bad beside 5%. You can't go on for ever looking for something outside of the sport to bailing you out. Fixed odds with an 18% take a way from the bettors won't save the sport here either.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by badcompany

If Sports Wagering falls through, maybe New Jersey Horsemen can make the case that they deserve some of the profits from the Shale Oil boom in Texas and North Dakota.

Don't give them any ideas!