When asked about legalization, Bud Selig, the former commissioner of Major League Baseball, posed a weak rebuttal by citing Arnold Rothstein as a reason against legalization. Selig’s ideology is flawed in several ways. First of all, sports gambling has always been illegal in America, for all intents and purposes. Therefore, when Selig mentioned Rothstein it was a poor example because sports betting wasn’t legal when he fixed the World Series. Furthermore, it was easier to pull off such a caper in the shadows of the black market!
There seemingly is a “see no evil hear no evil” mentality from the sports leagues because the transparency from legalized sports gambling would certainly uncover more incidences of game fixing. That would actually increase the integrity of the game; although, the perception of the integrity of the game could be damaged as many Americans have a naïveté about their heroic athletes who are often placed on mythical pedestals. In other words, the sports leagues would prefer to bury …show more content…
It’s in their self-interest to not take bets from people who have inside information. After all, their business model is dependent upon an informational advantage. If a sportsbook suspects that a game may be fixed then they either stop taking bets on the game or drastically reduce the amount that can be bet on that game. It’s what is known as a “circled game.” In a particularly notable case, that’s what happened in 1994 when an unusually high amount of money was bet against Arizona State over a series of games by the same set of people. The point spread shifted as much as 12 points before being taken off of the board. Thus, the Nevada Gaming Commission investigated the matter and informed the proper authorities. In short, it turned out that two players were shaving points and served time in
There seemingly is a “see no evil hear no evil” mentality from the sports leagues because the transparency from legalized sports gambling would certainly uncover more incidences of game fixing. That would actually increase the integrity of the game; although, the perception of the integrity of the game could be damaged as many Americans have a naïveté about their heroic athletes who are often placed on mythical pedestals. In other words, the sports leagues would prefer to bury …show more content…
It’s in their self-interest to not take bets from people who have inside information. After all, their business model is dependent upon an informational advantage. If a sportsbook suspects that a game may be fixed then they either stop taking bets on the game or drastically reduce the amount that can be bet on that game. It’s what is known as a “circled game.” In a particularly notable case, that’s what happened in 1994 when an unusually high amount of money was bet against Arizona State over a series of games by the same set of people. The point spread shifted as much as 12 points before being taken off of the board. Thus, the Nevada Gaming Commission investigated the matter and informed the proper authorities. In short, it turned out that two players were shaving points and served time in