Nevada Officials Push Back Against Proposed Federal Sports Betting Regulations

Article by : Charles Perrin Sep 27, 2024

• 
• 

A recent bipartisan effort to impose federal guidelines on the rapidly expanding legal sports gambling market has encountered significant resistance from Nevada officials. The Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet (SAFE Bet) Act, introduced by U.S. Rep. Paul Tonko, D-New York, and U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, seeks to establish federal regulations for advertising, individual betting activities, and the use of artificial intelligence in the sports gambling industry.

At a press conference on September 12, Tonko emphasized the urgent need for federal oversight, stating, “This relationship between the gambling industry and sports has reached intolerably dangerous levels. It’s well past time for Congress to step up and make a difference.” The SAFE Bet Act aims to address public health implications linked to the widespread legalization of sports betting, which has surged across the country in recent years.

However, the reaction from Nevada’s political leaders has been overwhelmingly negative. U.S. Rep. Dina Titus, who represents the Las Vegas Strip, quickly pushed back against the proposed legislation. In her statement, Titus argued that the SAFE Bet Act reinforces outdated prejudices against the gaming industry, which she asserts provides good-paying jobs and vital tax revenue for communities nationwide. “While the SAFE Bet Act may be well-intentioned, pre-empting state gaming regulators by outlawing most forms of advertising and restricting the methods by which customers can place bets is a misguided approach,” she stated.

Both of Nevada’s U.S. senators echoed Titus’s concerns. A spokesperson for U.S. Sen. Jacky Rosen pointed out that Nevada has effectively regulated its gaming industry for decades and has successfully overseen sports betting for the past six years. “This industry supports hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs, and Senator Rosen is concerned with any federal legislation that could hurt our workforce and local economy,” the spokesperson said.

Similarly, U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto’s office emphasized that Nevada already has strict regulations in place to protect consumers. A spokesperson noted that the SAFE Bet Act could negatively impact the state’s legal sportsbook industry, which provides thousands of jobs, without adequately addressing the illegal gambling market.

The context for this pushback lies in Nevada’s long history with sports gambling. Legal since 1949, the state has developed a robust framework for managing betting activities. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, paving the way for other states to legalize sports betting. Today, sports gambling is legal in 38 states and Washington, D.C., with 31 jurisdictions offering mobile and online betting. According to the American Gaming Association, Americans wagered over $121 billion on sports last year, generating more than $11 billion in revenue for sportsbooks.

Tonko and Blumenthal have made it clear that their intention is not to ban sports gambling, but to create a safer environment for it. “State regulation is faint-hearted and half-baked,” Blumenthal remarked at the SAFE Bet Act’s introductory press conference. He argued that a national standard is necessary to exert greater control over an industry that has become increasingly difficult to regulate.

The SAfE Bet Act proposes several specific regulations aimed at making legal sports gambling safer. Key provisions include prohibiting advertising between 8 and 10 a.m. local time and during live game broadcasts. The bill would also ban terms that might entice gambling, such as “bonus bets” or “no sweat.” Furthermore, it seeks to limit individual betting habits by prohibiting more than five mobile deposits in a 24-hour period and restricting the use of credit cards for funding accounts. The legislation would allow operators to conduct “affordability checks” on customers before accepting larger wagers.

This is not Tonko’s first attempt at federal oversight of sports betting; he previously introduced the Betting on Our Future Act in 2023, which included similar provisions aimed at safeguarding consumers and regulating advertising practices.

As discussions continue, Nevada officials remain firm in their stance against federal intervention. They argue that the state is well-equipped to manage its own gambling regulations effectively without the need for overarching federal guidelines. The state’s robust regulatory framework has proven successful in balancing consumer protection with a thriving gaming industry, making Nevada a model for other states considering similar legislation.

Michael Green, a professor of history at UNLV, adds that Nevada’s resistance to federal involvement is rooted in a long-standing tradition. “The federal government had a tradition of trying to stop or hamper gambling in Nevada, and eventually eased off, but has been involved as the industry has gone national and international. Nevadans long have been concerned that federal officials either don’t understand what’s happening or have an agenda. This has included trying to outlaw gambling on college sports; the reply from Nevadans has included the fact that several scandals have been brought to light BY Nevada’s sports books, where they saw strange doings that prompted them to act. So it’s normal and understandable for Nevadans to be concerned when the federal government decides to try to regulate a business like this one that is important to the state.”

In conclusion, while the SAFE Bet Act aims to address legitimate concerns about the rapidly expanding sports gambling market, Nevada officials are pushing back against what they see as unnecessary federal overreach. As the debate unfolds, the future of sports betting regulation in the U.S. remains uncertain, with states like Nevada advocating for the autonomy to manage their own gaming industries without external interference.