U.S. sports gambling ban has been lifted: What happens next?

Regulation will be the nail in the coffin for 99% of all affiliates marketing to the USA players. The fees/regulations imposed on the operators to be whitelisted to promote their brands on billboards, websites, media, radio, TV, search engines will be so high that the rev share will be cut to peanuts and/or be done with all together. Plus, why would whitelisted brands need affiliates when they can pay upfront and get their brand exposure on much bigger platforms in the states such as at NFL stadiums, NBA stadiums, Super Bowl commercials, radio, TV, newspapers, huge websites like ESPN, Barstool Sports and so on. They won't need mom and pop affiliates any longer. This Supreme Court ruling was great for operators, gamblers, team owners, land based casinos and almost everyone but affiliates. When the govt gets their hands on something the little players almost always lose. Watch and learn.

In the short term, at least, this was certainly good news for U.K.-listed bookmakers:

Quote:

---

The value of London-listed gambling firms, including 888, Paddy Power Betfair and William Hill, surged by more than £1.5bn after the US supreme court struck down a nationwide ban on sports betting that has stood for 26 years.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/business...be-legal-in-us

Quote:

---

such as at NFL stadiums, NBA stadiums, Super Bowl commercials,

---

I wonder if they will allow this particular medium at all, since it does not automatically mean collusion, but does give the appearance of such.

Since the stadiums themselves are owned by the Team Owner, or partnered with team owners in some markets, I would guess that owners would lobby against such advertising being permitted if any team or stadium is blocked from betting company revenue.

I also wonder if this will affect the revenue sharing agreements among owners.

Rick
Universal4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by universal4

I wonder if they will allow this particular medium at all, since it does not automatically mean collusion, but does give the appearance of such.

Since the stadiums themselves are owned by the Team Owner, or partnered with team owners in some markets, I would guess that owners would lobby against such advertising being permitted if any team or stadium is blocked from betting company revenue.

I also wonder if this will affect the revenue sharing agreements among owners.

Rick
Universal4

---

Disagree. Why would Jerry Jones turn down a huge advertising contract with a betting site at AT&T Stadium just because the NFL as a league doesn't get any betting revenue? Jerry Jones owns his own stadium and wouldn't turn down millions in revenue just to prove a point. Same with Bob Kraft, Mark Cuban, Daniel Snyder and any other franchise owner looking to make more revenue. The betting revenue is only one avenue for these guys to make off like bandits with this news. Advertising revenue and sponsorships on jerseys/stadiums/television/radio are some others. These guys are going to make off like bandits. The only losers in this news are the mom and pop affiliates. Any time the govt gets involved and regulates stuff the only winners are the govt(ie tax revenue) and the big money players(owners, corporations, deep pockets).

Would Jerry himself turn it down? NO

But the NFL may not allow it, due to a "perceived" conflict of interest. I am not sure they will be able to stop the ads or not, but I wonder if there will be attempts to do so. I wonder if at the beginning they will attempt to limit the amount of individual team sponsorship revenue and instead focus more on league revenue and licensing deals with logo use etc....

I agree that with govt involvement things will get messed up.

Rick
Universal4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by universal4

Would Jerry himself turn it down? NO

But the NFL may not allow it, due to a "perceived" conflict of interest. I am not sure they will be able to stop the ads or not, but I wonder if there will be attempts to do so. I wonder if at the beginning they will attempt to limit the amount of individual team sponsorship revenue and instead focus more on league revenue and licensing deals with logo use etc....

I agree that with govt involvement things will get messed up.

Rick
Universal4

---

I hear ya. However, every team will have different advertising opportunities based on popularity and, more importantly, the state they reside in. Not every state will legalize in-state sports betting. Thus, Jerry Jones or any pro Texas team could get advertising offers that a pro team in a state that hasn't voted to approve sports betting will not get. It will vary from state to state and the teams in the biggest markets that reside in states that have approved in-state sports betting stand to make the most money. I doubt the NFL is going to ban ad revenue even if they don't get a cut of the betting revenue especially when some of their teams will be playing in states that don't even allow it.

All I know is the govt getting involved will eventually be the end of rev share for mom and pop sites. The only winners in this new law are the big money players. Look what regulation did to the European market. The mom and pop affiliates got slaughtered.

I could be wrong but i guess this will have no effect on casino gambling yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triple7

I guess many people are partying way too early.

I red in some media that sports betting is now legal in the US. That's not the case. Every state is free to make their own policy. That means dozens of laws, licenses, frameworks, etc.

It will be worse than Europe perhaps. I don't see Wyoming or something with 600.000 inhabitants being a better market than for example Belgium with 11 mio inhabitants. There's no market of 200m people. There are many smaller markets and some bigger markets.

It will be interesting for some big local players or international super affiliates. Not for others, neither for people that are working now fine with some offshore bookies and - when promoting legal brands - have to change that into WH, Betfair, 888, etc.

Leave alone the bunch of paperwork, US tax crap, etc.

---

Yea, but now that New Jersey has set precedents it is likely that it is only a matter of time; and this is something to think about......

Although for now its being called mobile betting its just ironic to me that so many were jumping up and down slamming conservative’s for being the ones to hinder legal sports betting and it seems that the conservatives were the ones to push this new ruling into effect. It was Trump who put Neil Gorsuch on the bench this year, and his vote helped push the ruling past some strong liberal’s on the bench. The details are not in but the news is better than worse.

I agree with the pessimism. Still there are some chances for mom and pops:

1. The "illegal betting" in the USA is well developed. The offshore operators have a great product and players are used to good lines. Will the new and taxed bookies be able to provide a service with decent lines and bonuses? US players seems to me as very conservative = they do not switch brands as much as the other ones.

2. It is known that any massive advertisement promoted not just the brand but also the whole niche.

So if the offshore bookies do not withdraw, there is a chance, that this whole disaster will not be a complete disaster. US is much more reluctant to block websites (I guess it has something to do with free speech). They seize(d) the domains in the past, but that is not possible anymore, since offshore sportsbooks moved out of .com's.

Blocking the money channels will not help (as it is happening even now), because the crypto as funding for betting in the USA is rising. The offshore operators already count the days until CCs will be unusable and they will go full crypto.

So yes, bitcoin is losing with CCs and Paypal, because is far less convenient and will be harder to convince newbies to bet through bitcoins. But how many times and how long? If the US market rises, the grey operators might still participate.

Affiliates occupy the SERPs in the USA (and in the ****** up Europe), we still have a hidden power to promote illegal operators if they pay decent money, because promoting joke like PaddyPower or 888 does not pay even hosting even without costs for paperwork. I doubt offshore guys will say "the 20 years was fun, now we will go to buy a McDonald franchise".

The legalization is a bad news for me, but not the end of the world yet.

I was never really for online gambling being legal as I have mixed opinions on the subject. I always felt that when it became legal it would hurt small affiliates like me, thats why I was never for it. If it passes in the US, and the Congress holds the power to set the Rules and Regulations I will still be opposed to it, however soon after I became a citizen here I was on the side that held the views of the Feds handling the military, the borders and the monetary system, with the States deciding most of the other issues. I believe States have the rights when is comes to drugs, gambling, public school curriculum, marriage laws; in other words the social issues. It appears to me that mobile sports betting will be a States rights issue and if so, then I'm for it, but if it gives congress more power to enforce laws and regulations, then no, I am against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buddy M

I was never really for online gambling being legal as I have mixed opinions on the subject. I always felt that when it became legal it would hurt small affiliates like me, thats why I was never for it. If it passes in the US, and the Congress holds the power to set the Rules and Regulations I will still be opposed to it, however soon after I became a citizen here I was on the side that held the views of the Feds handling the military, the borders and the monetary system, with the States deciding most of the other issues. I believe States have the rights when is comes to drugs, gambling, public school curriculum, marriage laws; in other words the social issues. It appears to me that mobile sports betting will be a States rights issue and if so, then I'm for it, but if it gives congress more power to enforce laws and regulations, then no, I am against it.

---

The less states that implement it the better as far as I'm concerned. If these states start making it a felony or a misdemeanor with a serious dollar value penalty(ie 4 figures and up) for citizens to place bets online with any sportsbook that is not legally licensed to accept bets within that state then it will be game over for the mom and pop affiliates promoting programs that aren't licensed. And even if they are licensed in a handful of states just think of how much smaller the revenue will be now that you can only promote to players within a small number of states instead of 45-50 like we do now. I'm telling ya, the govt imposes regulations like people give out halloween candy. It's going to be nothing but downhill from here. The only question is how quickly and how bad the damage will be for mom and pop affiliates.

I used to work in the corporate land casino offices before I went on my own as an affiliate. I also was an affiliate when New Jersey first started online gaming a few years ago. This isn't a good decision for affiliates. If it had forced nationwide sports betting then affiliates could have sold out to big publishers or scaled up. If the ban had continued then everything would have been the same. With this decision each state will make up its own rules. This also means each state will start to go after offshore casinos because it will be considered lost tax revenue for the state.

The land casinos in the US are very active politically and they will do everything they can to eliminate the offshore competition. Offshore affiliates wont be able to fly under the radar anymore. Bovada does not take customers from Nevada right now and I wonder if they will expand the list of states whose customers they will not accept as sports betting is legalized in each state.

My experience with New Jersey online gaming wasn't good. I tried to run some SEM campaigns and I was heavily outbid by some deep pocket casinos. They were bidding so high that they had to be losing tens of thousands for several months to grow their pool of players. As an affiliate I had to send them all ads I was going to run and all keywords and they had to be per-approved. I can't imagine what it will be like filling out the paper work for each state because approval for a casino in one state will not translate to approval in another.

The one really good thing about this decision. It will take a couple years to implement and during that time a lot of new customers will be eager for action.

bovada is selfbanned in DE, NY, NJ, NV, MD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nsawins

If these states start making it a felony or a misdemeanor with a serious dollar value penalty(ie 4 figures and up) for citizens to place bets online with any sportsbook that is not legally licensed to accept bets within that state then it will be game over for the mom and pop affiliates

---

I do not believe it is possible (at least now) to make such laws. If it were, there would be such laws already imposed in online piracy for example. It is hard to force people to check whether some site is licensed or not. Anyone can put any picture on his own site.

Also I believe US gambling will switch the cryptos fully. To prove that someone bet with his bitcoins is impossible without the casino cooperation. Even with blockchain tracking there is nothing 100% certain. It would be also extremely costly.

I mean, if the dystopia goes for 2 decades or more then anything is possible. But I do not see it now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sherlock

bovada is selfbanned in DE, NY, NJ, NV, MD

---

The legislation that is up for a vote in a week in New Jersey puts a one year hold to get a gaming license on any company that has taken a sports bet in New Jersey. Maybe Bovada will jump in and partner with a land casino.

If the states decide to go after people who still bet at unlicensed sportsbooks the way to do it is not with a fine or a jail threat. They will just place a 100% tax on unregulated winnings. If you lose you lose. If you win the state gets the money. I know it will be difficult to track down people who are gambling online but the threat will cause many to just move to a regulated provider.

Why do not they tax it now then? The online bookies are licensed, just elsewhere. With 100% tax it would imply that even people who return from abroad with money won offline will have that money seized? Somehow I do not think this is now possible in the USA. But I am not a citizen or resident.

I think they will just go even harder after money and CC transfers OUT of coutry.

I would go jumping for joy yet. This may provide opportunities for companies like draftkings but who knows what will come of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econfox

The legislation that is up for a vote in a week in New Jersey puts a one year hold to get a gaming license on any company that has taken a sports bet in New Jersey. Maybe Bovada will jump in and partner with a land casino.

If the states decide to go after people who still bet at unlicensed sportsbooks the way to do it is not with a fine or a jail threat. They will just place a 100% tax on unregulated winnings. If you lose you lose. If you win the state gets the money. I know it will be difficult to track down people who are gambling online but the threat will cause many to just move to a regulated provider.

---

In general, you see many people flowing to the legal brands. Even if it's over-taxed and over-regulated. Most people simply don't want problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edgarf76

I would go jumping for joy yet. This may provide opportunities for companies like draftkings but who knows what will come of this.

---

Draftkings imposed quotas already like one year ago. They did not do it retroactively (or at least they told me so), but they owe me usually for few months commissions. My 4 figure commissions went down to 3 figures.

If they do this still at the growing phase and in a bit clandestine mode I can tell you I definitely do not want to depend on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sherlock

Why do not they tax it now then? The online bookies are licensed, just elsewhere. With 100% tax it would imply that even people who return from abroad with money won offline will have that money seized? Somehow I do not think this is now possible in the USA. But I am not a citizen or resident.

I think they will just go even harder after money and CC transfers OUT of coutry.

---

Because right now it isn't considered lost tax revenue. But, once sports betting is legalized the government will spend the anticipated tax revenue several times over. When the revenue doesn't match the projections then they will blame offshore operators. It is the same thing with legal pot in my state. The tax projections were way off but the government already put the projected revenue in the budget.
The key is that once the tax revenue is in the budget the government will then go after anyone who is not paying taxes (license fees for casinos). To get to the offshore operators they will just lean on the countries that allow them to operate.