[Senate Hearing 118-693]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-693
AMERICA'S HIGH-STAKES BET
ON LEGALIZED SPORTS GAMBLING
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 17, 2024
__________
Serial No. J-118-88
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.judiciary.senate.gov
www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-196 WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina,
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota Ranking Member
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JOHN CORNYN, Texas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey TED CRUZ, Texas
ALEX PADILLA, California JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
JON OSSOFF, Georgia TOM COTTON, Arkansas
PETER WELCH, Vermont JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
LAPHONZA BUTLER, California THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Joseph Zogby, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Katherine Nikas, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Durbin, Hon. Richard J........................................... 1
WITNESSES
Johnson, Bademosi................................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Baker, Charlie................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Responses to written questions............................... 66
Levant, Harry.................................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Rebuck, David L.................................................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Whyte, Keith S................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 59
APPENDIX
.................................................................
Items submitted for the record................................... 69
AMERICA'S HIGH-STAKES BET
ON LEGALIZED SPORTS GAMBLING
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2024
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice at 10 a.m., in Room
226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Blumenthal, Hirono,
Padilla, Ossoff, Welch, Tillis, Hawley, Kennedy, and Blackburn.
Also Present: Senator Schiff.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Chair Durbin. This meeting of the Senate Judiciary
Committee will come to order. This is the last scheduled
meeting of the full Senate Judiciary Committee in this 118th
Congress. I want to thank all of the Members, and especially
Senator Graham, who unfortunately does not feel well this
morning. He won't be joining us. But I want to thank him and
all the Members on the Republican side, as well as the
Democratic side, and their staffs for the work we've done
together. I look forward to working with Senator Grassley in
the upcoming Congress.
In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the
Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, opening
floodgates for States to legalize sports betting. Once largely
illegal, sports betting is now legal in over three dozen States
and the District of Columbia. Professional sports leagues,
formerly the chief opponents of sports betting now partner with
sports books and have integrated gambling into their games and
broadcasts.
It is virtually impossible to watch a sporting event today
without being barraged by ads encouraging you to bet or hearing
from a celebrity endorser about the latest parlay you should
try, and from the industry perspective, it's a very profitable
development. Over $30 billion was bet on sports in the third
quarter of 2024 alone, a nearly 30 percent increase over the
previous year. But at what cost to the better, at what cost to
the sport, at what cost to the school or the athlete? Let's
turn to a video by way of introduction to this hearing.
[Video is shown.]
Chair Durbin. While gambling can be a form of entertainment
when done responsibly, in many cases it is not being done
responsibly. According to the National Council on Problem
Gambling, an estimated 2.5 million adults may have a severe
gambling problem. Another 5 to 8 million are estimated to have
mild problems.
With the advent of online sports betting, everyone's cell
phone is a sports book, providing betting access 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week. A person with a gambling problem can chase
the action at the click of a button and rack up ever increasing
losses, whether on an NFL game or professional table tennis.
I believe gambling operators must play a greater role in
preventing addiction on the front end by helping identify
problem gamblers and directing them to help. Last night I went
to a reception. A fellow I didn't know came up to me and said,
``Thanks for having this hearing.'' And I said, ``What's your
interest in it?'' He said, ``my son's at an Ivy League school.
He bets every day. And as fellow students do, too.'' It has
become so common they hardly even think it's a new phenomenon
that surely has been going on forever. Well, it was going on to
some extent, but now it's being institutionalized and
professionalized.
Problem gambling is not the only negative side of legalized
sports betting. As sports betting has spread, the actual games,
cheering for your team to become less important for many
individuals who are more focused on the points spread or player
props. When a bet doesn't hit, angry bettors often take it out
on the players.
In a victory over Michigan State at last year's NCAA men's
basketball tournament, North Carolina star, Armando Bacot had a
great game scoring 18 points, 7 rebounds. But he didn't have
enough rebounds to make a certain gambler's bets payoff. Bacot
reported receiving over 100 messages from gamblers after the
game berating him because they lost their bets.
Or consider Carson Barrett, a little used player on
Purdue's 2024 men's basketball team. In the first round NCAA
tournament game he played the final minutes of his team's
blowout win. He even hit a three-pointer in the game's final
seconds. While this may have been the culmination of a dream
for Carson, his reward for making the basket and the tournament
was bettors' messages urging him to kill himself why? His
basket pushed his team's victory over the 26.5 point spread.
Athletes, coaches, and officials also deal with temptation
to adjust their performances to make bets hit. You don't have
to look too far to find a recent sports betting scandal,
whether it's NBA player, Jontay Porter, taking himself out of
games to cash in prop bets or former Alabama baseball coach
Brad Bohannon giving inside information to bettors about his
team. These scandals will continue to pop up.
It is critical that Congress look into sports betting's
impact on America and determine how the industry should be
regulated going forward. I thank our witnesses for helping us
to explore these issues today. Before introducing the
witnesses, Senator Tillis has told me that he does not have an
opening statement. So, should I proceed at this point?
Senator Tillis. Yes, sir.
Chair Durbin. Thank you. Each Senator is going to have 5
minutes to ask questions after the witnesses testify for 5
minutes each. Our first witness is going to be Charlie Baker,
president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association,
NCAA. Prior to taking his position with the NCAA, Mr. Baker
served as Governor of Massachusetts for two terms. Welcome.
Mr. Baker. Thank you very much, Mr.----
Chair Durbin. We're going to--if you'll hold on just a
second, I'm going to introduce all the panel, and then swear
you in, and off we go. We are also joined by Johnson Bademosi.
Did I pronounce that correctly?
Mr. Bademosi. Bademosi.
Chair Durbin. Right. He's a former collegiate and NFL
football player. After his collegiate days at Stanford, he
played in the NFL for 9 years, and served as the NFL Players
Association rep. Thanks for coming.
We're next joined by Keith Whyte. Mr. Whyte serves as
executive director at the National Council on Problem Gambling,
a position he's held since 1998. The National Council serves as
an advocate to mitigate gambling-related harm.
Next witness is David Rebuck. Mr. Rebuck served as director
of New Jersey's Division of Gaming Enforcement for 13 years
before retiring in 2024. During his time as director, he
launched online gambling and sports betting, Mr. Rebuck now
serves as a consultant to the American Gaming Association.
Our final witness is Dr. Harry Levant. Dr. Levant is the
director of gambling policy with Public Health Advocacy
Institute at Northeastern University School of Law. Also works
as a therapist treating patients struggling with the addiction.
He's a recovering gambling addict himself and has been in
recovery for 10 years.
So, first I'm going to administer the oath and then we'll
take the testimony. So, if you-all please rise and raise your
right hand.
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Chair Durbin. Let the record indicate that all the
witnesses, thank God, have answered in the affirmative. And
Governor Baker, why don't you start?
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE BAKER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you
for this opportunity, and I want to thank the Members for the
Committee for being here as well.
As NCAA president, I see evidence every day of how much
more complex the issues student athletes face today compared to
what I experienced as a college basketball player some 45 years
ago. In response, the NCAA has delivered transformative, long-
overdue changes to address the modern student athletes' needs.
For example, the association now provides all student
athletes with access to post eligibility health insurance for
injuries and mental health concerns that occurred while they
were playing. Similarly, all Division 1 schools must provide
elevated health and wellness benefits, guaranteed scholarships,
and other academic support services.
One emerging issue that certainly wasn't present during my
playing days is the rapid expansion of legal sports betting.
This is another area where we're deeply engaged in protecting
and supporting student athletes. We've engaged experts to
monitor contests for integrity issues. We've surveyed college
students to find out how prevalent sports betting is. We've
ramped up efforts to educate student athletes about the rules
and the dangers of sports betting on campus virtually and
through social media.
We also monitor social media around our games. We refer the
abusive, threatening, coercive, or downright criminal activity
we uncover to the platforms, or in some cases, to law
enforcement. It's important to note that a significant portion
of this abusive content contains references to sports betting.
There's no doubt that the rise of sports betting has
impacted the NCAA and student athletes in a significant way,
but none of the consequences are as challenging as the
harassment and coercion student athletes are experiencing.
We've conducted four different surveys over the last several
months, and each one shows 10 to 15 percent of Division 1
student athletes have been harassed by bettors, more so in
basketball and football, but in other sports as well.
Student athletes publicly revealed they get demands for
money from unhappy bettors for trivial things that don't impact
the result on the field. But it doesn't stop there. Many have
received death threats from bettors and they also receive other
in-person threats and accusations directed at them while
they're leaving or coming onto the field of play.
And unlike professional athletes, college students attend
classes and live on campus. They're accessible to students and
fans, some of whom in fact are probably the gamblers yelling at
them when they're playing their game. Those differences
increase the opportunity for threatening, coercive behavior
across a massive number of participants and contests, and
create senseless risk.
In many States, gambling regulators lack the authority to
ban bettors for harassment. Instead, they rely primarily on the
industry to share information across State lines. While we
believe these disparities in State laws clearly warrant federal
action, the NCAA is not waiting. We're lobbying States one at a
time to make changes. West Virginia joined Ohio to pass
legislation codifying anti-harassment measures related to
sports betting.
The West Virginia delegate who proposed the legislation
represents areas bordering Pittsburgh. He noted the limited
impact involuntary exclusion lists have when bettors can easily
jump across State lines. In addition to West Virginia and Ohio,
legislators and regulators ranging from New Mexico to Wyoming
have advanced policy changes aimed at protecting student
athletes from harassment by bettors.
Despite the progress and the betting industry's persistent
pushback, too many States with legal betting lack adequate
protections for student athletes. That's why we're lobbying
States to eliminate prop bets on individual student athletes.
We understand sports betting's here to stay, and why it's
better to have it regulated than not.
While we work effectively with many in the gambling
industry to uncover integrity issues, we disagree with the
casinos on the issue of prop bets. On issue of prop bets, we
believe that when bettors can't gamble on college athletes'
individual performances, they're far less likely to attempt to
scrutinize, coerce, or harass student athletes. And several
States ban these types of bets for good reason.
Before we started our campaign, 23 of the soon-to-be 39
States with sports betting permitted those bets. Today, only 19
still do. Should this Committee develop legislation regulating
sports betting, we strongly encourage banning prop bets on
college sports. We also encourage federal authorities to do
more to crack down on black market betting sites. We believe
these sites are where many of the underage students who report
betting are placing their bets.
Lastly, federal legislation offers a significant
opportunity to strengthen sport leagues' ability to investigate
integrity issues. I want to thank you once again for having me
this morning, and I look forward to your questions and answers.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Governor. Mr. Bademosi.
STATEMENT OF JOHNSON BADEMOSI, FORMER NFL PLAYER, THE NATIONAL
FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION (NFLPA), WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Bademosi. Chairman Durbin, Members of the Committee
thank you for convening this hearing to address the critical
issue of legalized gambling in sports, and for considering a
possible legislative solution that would address issues of
player safety, game integrity, and addiction prevention.
I'm Johnson Bademosi, a native Washingtonian, Stanford
graduate, 9-year NFL veteran, and sports fanatic. I remember
two-a-day practices, and playing high school football games on
Buchanan Field, which is less than a mile from where I sit
today. I began playing team sports to make friends, and
striving to earn a football scholarship because as a nurse, my
single mother did not earn a salary that could pay the current
cost of college tuition.
President Teddy Roosevelt's quote regarding the man in the
arena has always arrested me as particularly poignant. ``We all
admire the athletes in the arena because of their intense
efforts, valiance, dedication, and the fortitude it requires to
compete at a high caliber, and achieve excellent feats despite
one or many obstacles.''
During my experience as a collegiate student athlete and
when I joined the NFL as a professional 12 years ago, legalized
gambling in sports, or sports betting as it has come to be, did
not exist. But the intense scrutiny and external pressures that
athletes often receive from fans and critics did.
The sophistication of mobile devices and the rapid growth
of media platforms has allowed for both fans and critics an
opportunity to interact directly with the athletes that are
subjects of their games as a result of legalized sports
gambling.
As a result, the rise of legalized sports gambling has
increased levels of fan engagement, but has introduced more
stress, new mental health challenges, and has increased the
number of threats and incidents of harassment to both amateur
and professional athletes.
I have to acknowledge that incidents of harassment
sometimes extend much further than internet exchanges, and
acknowledge the families who have suffered from emotional
distress or even the loss of a loved one. Words cannot begin to
express the profound sorrow I feel that the sports we have
played to bring our families and communities together have been
perverted to a point where fans are attacking athletes.
I know that many of you have been working many terms to
protect amateur and professional athletes to remain integrity
and fair play in sports, and we are grateful for your long-term
dedication to this cause and your willingness to work together
to help keep our communities safe. I also want to recognize the
many athletes who have worked to raise awareness on these and
other issues, push for change, and have collaborated with
lawmakers on important legislation like the College Athletes
Protection and Compensation Act, and others, to safeguard
athletes' health and wellness and to save lives.
My testimony today will focus on four key areas of
legalized internet gambling in sports; the effect on players in
the arena, the influence of fan engagement, the broader
societal implications, and final congressional recommendations.
Players have had pressure to perform well for professional
achievements and to win games, but sports betting has added a
new and complex layer to this issue. Social media has enabled
athletes to take control of their brands and market themselves
in ways not possible for previous generations. However, it has
also opened an extremely accessible avenue for threats and
harassment directed toward athletes and their families alike.
Now, players are targeted by gamblers who seek insider
information or pressure them to perform, not for the benefit of
the team, but because the gambler is financially invested in a
specific performance element of individual athletes. This has
an overall negative effect on a player's physical security and
mental state of mind. Examples of this behavior include
harassment and even death threats like those received by tennis
pro Renata Zarazua following her U.S. Open loss, or those
received by one Buffalo Bills kicker for missing a field goal
this season.
These episodes have a clear negative impact on a player's
mental health and overall well-being, and has the likelihood to
distract a player during the time where focus is needed on the
field to avoid injury and to perform at the highest levels.
When the lights are off, the game is over, and the job is
done, players return home to their families like all other
citizens. Athletes are constituents and contributing members of
your communities who patronize the same grocery stores and
whose children attend the same schools as yours. For most
athletes, there is no gated community or private security
force, and yet, they are too often exposed to the threats
associated with problematic gambling. Player safety on and off
the field is a priority and safeguards must be put in place.
While legalized sports gambling has deepened fan engagement
in sports, it has simultaneously transformed the fan experience
from enjoying a game to celebrating or lamenting amongst other
fans, to some bad actors expressing resentment and misguided
ammunition toward any players perceived to cost a fan money.
This behavior dehumanizes a player, treating them more akin to
an analytical statistic. Fans who exhibit this kind of behavior
should be nowhere near athletes, coaches, or others who are
there to enjoy the game and cheer on their teams.
The rapid expansion of legalized gambling has raised
significant societal concerns, as I'm sure my colleagues
testifying here today will share. While legalized sports
gambling generates substantial tax revenue and economic
opportunities for leagues in partnership with sports betting
entities, it risks commodifying hope, and devaluing sports as a
pursuit of skill and integrity.
The question is whether the commercialization of gambling
undermines the essence of athletic competition. I believe that
sports betting can be operated in a way where the integrity of
the game is not compromised, but that will take significant
efforts both on and off the field to ensure that gamblers and
athletes are acting in good faith, and athletes are not put in
harm's way.
Congress has a role to play in passing policies that
reinforce the integrity of the game, while also protecting
athletes to address these challenges. Players unions
collectively have endeavored to have player protections
included in States' legislation such as advocating for
prohibitions on negative bets, a prohibition on use or purchase
of player biometric data for purposes of gambling, and ensuring
full due process rights in sports betting conduct
investigations by notifying the player and their respective
labor union of a potential violation.
Each of these recommendations is critically important. Our
prohibition on negative bets would ensure that fans are not
gambling on negative outcomes and therefore do not have an
incentive to heckle players or encourage negative outcomes at a
game.
Prohibiting the use of purchase of player biometric data
would protect athletes from fundamental invasions of privacy,
and would ensure that players are in full control of their
personal health information.
And finally, ensuring due process rights and conduct
investigations adheres to the bedrock legal principle of our
judicial system that should be maintained in sports betting
investigations.
In conclusion, while legalized internet gambling in sports
appears here to stay and can enhance fan engagement, it also
possesses significant risks, and has an insidious effect on the
mental health outcomes of players, fan culture, and the
integrity of sports. A balanced approach that prioritizes
ethical considerations, player safety and well-being is
essential.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'm
happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bademosi appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank, sir. Mr. Whyte.
STATEMENT OF KEITH S. WHYTE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
COUNCIL ON PROBLEM GAMBLING, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Whyte. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member
Graham, and Members of the Committee, for holding this
important hearing regarding the impact of the expansion of
sports gambling in the United States. I'm Keith Whyte,
executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling,
the sole national advocate for those suffering from problem
gambling and their loved ones.
NCPG speaks for the 9 million who suffer from a gambling
addiction and the millions more in recovery. We bear witness to
the devastating impacts of gambling addiction on individuals
and their families, and to the effectiveness of services that
provide hope and help. We can never eliminate the disease of
addiction, but we can and must make better efforts to prevent
and treat it.
Our mission is to lead awareness and advocacy, efforts to
reduce gambling harm. Since NCPG was founded in 1972, we've
remained non-partisan and neutral, neither for nor against
legalized gambling. NCPG members include 35 State affiliate
chapters, as well as a wide variety of individuals and
organizations. From counselors, and researchers, to people in
recovery from gambling, and as well as treatment clinics,
regulatory authorities, gambling operators, sports leagues, and
State human services agencies.
Since 2018, 38 States and the District of Columbia have
legalized sports betting. In fact, now over half of the
Senators on this Committee have legal sports betting in their
State, whereas none did in 2018. Ads for sports betting are now
run frequently across all media, even in States where sports
betting is legal. Betting is now ingrained in college and
professional sports, as you've heard.
As I said in my testimony before the House Judiciary
Committee in September, 2018, we were concerned about the
collision of three trends; vast increases in gambling
advertising, especially exhortations to gamble during the game,
advances in technology including mobile, online sports betting,
and a virtually unlimited menu of betting opportunities on the
games nowadays, including some of the things Johnson
mentioned--bets on players individual performance.
Mobile's online sports gambling technology provides
opportunities to enhance responsible gambling features
including setting personalized limits and self-exclusion
programs, but it also further increases risk factors for
gambling addiction. And it's clear gambling problems have grown
over the past 6 years, especially among young, male online
sports bettors.
While this increase from 2018 is unprecedented, our 2024
data shows that the increase in risky gambling behavior appears
to have leveled off. Though there are still 9 million people,
as Chairman Durbin said, with gambling problems, and it's far
too early to assume the rates are stable.
Many factors affect these rates, including risk factors
like increased advertising, as well as protective factors such
as expanded prevention, programming and greater public
awareness of the harm that can result from a decision to
gamble.
While sports betting has garnered enormous public attention
recently, most Americans did not place a sports bet in the past
year, and it remains important to recognize that problematic
gambling behavior extends well beyond sports and demands a
broader, national public health risk approach. Public health
involves partnerships with communities, health providers,
social services, and the gambling industry.
We have to look intently, but critically, to policies in
other countries to ensure that our solutions are embedded in
the Nation's cultural, political, and economic systems. We have
to recognize that State and Tribal Governments have
historically overseen gambling in accordance with
constitutional precedent. Unfortunately, however, many of these
same governments have never invested in their problem gambling
programs or created strong responsible gambling regulations.
While 2023 saw a historic high of $134 million in public
funding invested in State problem gambling programs, that still
represents only 50 cents per capita, which is 338 times less
public funding than is devoted to substance abuse. It's clear
that State governments have not provided nearly enough support,
and it's also true that public health is a shared
responsibility between the States and the Federal Government.
NCPG therefore strongly supports the Gambling Addiction,
Recovery, Investment, and Treatment Act introduced by Senator
Blumenthal this year. The GRIT Act provides critical funding to
prevent, treat and research gambling addiction without
increasing taxes or government bureaucracy. Put simply the GRIT
Act returns nearly half of the sports betting exercise tax
revenue to State health agencies.
Increasing access to problem gambling treatment is the most
important aspect of GRIT, and NCPG estimates that every dollar
spent to prevent and treat gambling addiction saves government
at least $2 in criminal justice and healthcare-related social
costs.
The evidence is overwhelming that expanded sports betting
has led to increased harm on a national scale. It is therefore
essential for Congress to pass Senator Blumenthal's GRIT Act.
We believe this practical and lifesaving legislation is the
single most important action Congress can take to address the
negative impacts of expanded sports betting and gambling in
general.
Thank you very much for the time. Happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whyte appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Whyte. Mr. Rebuck.
STATEMENT OF DAVID L. REBUCK, FORMER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF GAMING ENFORCEMENT,
MOORESTOWN, NEW JERSEY
Mr. Rebuck. Good morning, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member
Graham, and distinguished Members of the Senate Judiciary
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you
today about the regulation of legalized sports betting in New
Jersey. My name's Dave Rebuck and I served as director of the
Division of Gaming Enforcement in New Jersey from 2011 to 2024,
and have recently retired from public service.
As background on the division, it is a law enforcement
agency that is responsible for the regulation of New Jersey's
retail and online casino industry, and its retail and online
sports wagering operations performed by State casinos and its
racetracks. During my tenure as director, I led a strategic
overhaul of the State's gaming laws, which included
spearheading new initiatives to ensure compliance with the
existing laws and the gaming's industry's compliance with new
and soon to be regulated forms of gaming.
In 2013, New Jersey became the second State to launch
online casino gambling, and in 2018, after protracted legal
battle in which the State ultimately prevailed, DGE under my
direction oversaw the development and implementation in New
Jersey's framework for legalized sports wagering.
My testimony has been submitted. I do not intend to read it
to you today, but I am here today as a proud advocate for
State-led regulation of legal gaming, including sports wagering
and to explain why the States and Tribal jurisdictions that
oversee sports wagering and not the Federal Government are best
equipped to address the issues presented.
However, let me highlight to you some important points to
provide you with the confidence that the past successes in
effectively and efficiently regulating a multitude of gambling
activities by States and Tribal jurisdictions will continue
with sports wagering. First, I want to emphasize that
legalizing and regulating sports wagering is fundamentally
about protecting consumers, the vulnerable, the underaged,
preventing fraud and ensuring the suitability of all entities
to engage in gambling and their integrity of operations.
Second, many States like New Jersey, have enacted
constitutional bans on gambling. However, our citizens through
constitutional referendums have steadily acted to remove those
bans. For example, in New Jersey, a multitude of well-regulated
legal gambling options exist for decades before sports
wagering, including betting on horse racing, creation of State
lottery, gambling on bingo, raffle sales wagering on boardwalk,
and arcade games, and establishing casinos.
Third, not unlike virtually every commercial function in
our country, the confluence of the internet access and
historical retail gambling games has substantially expanded the
landscape of how citizens desire to engage in gambling. The
total capacity for gambling today is as large as ever because
its citizens desire the freedom to choose to engage in
activities that were in the past prohibited.
Wagering on sports is clearly defined by this new freedom.
Before legalization, millions of people wagered billions of
dollars annually through illegal operations and often committed
fraud, evaded taxes, and in many instances are tied to
organized crime. These illegal operators offer no protections
leaving Americans vulnerable to identity theft and worse.
Today, every State in this Nation has illegal gambling,
including sports wagering available readily to its citizens.
The ease of access to these websites can be viewed by anyone
while in the State and violating State and federal laws, and
they are flaunted with impunity.
And finally, I do not underestimate the challenges that
come with regulating sports wagering such as responsible
gambling and ensuring compliance with regulatory standards.
However, States are already addressing these challenges head on
with many adopting best practices like mandatory self-
exclusion, partnership with addiction treatment providers,
partnerships with universities such as our partnership with
Rutger University to engage in evidence-based research in order
to best assign practices reducing gambling harms.
Finally, I want us to indicate the industry is also well
engaged in this research. They recognize the critical
importance also to sustain their operations, but deploying best
practices for responsible gaming and reduced problem gaming
harm. They recently established a responsible online gaming
association. The investment of $20 million is a profound
commitment to engage in research that will identify, implement,
and propose best practices for responsible online gaming that
is performed by them.
In closing, I urge the Committee to respect the successes
the States have achieved in regulating in the past and federal
oversight is clearly not needed. Federal core operation on
certain issues have already begun, and we look forward to
continue with collaborating with agencies like FinCEN,
Department of Justice to do good work.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering
any questions continuing in the future.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rebuck appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Rebuck. Dr. Levant.
STATEMENT OF HARRY LEVANT, LP.D, MA PCC, ICGC-I, JD, DIRECTOR
OF GAMBLING POLICY AND CERTIFIED GAMBLING COUNSELOR, PUBLIC
HEALTH ADVOCACY INSTITUTE AT NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF
LAW, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Dr. Levant. Good morning. You will hear often this morning
the words responsible gaming. This is code for gambling
industry, self-regulation, and State control. I am here this
morning to offer Congress a different approach to regulating
the industry from a prevention of harm perspective as an issue
of public health.
I'm grateful to Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and
the distinguished Members of this Committee for the opportunity
to offer testimony regarding the public health crisis created
by the unprecedented expansion of online sports gambling. It is
my hope this is the start of public dialog and debate, which
will result in Congress enacting much needed legislation to
bring comprehensive public health reform and regulation to the
sports gambling industry.
I serve dual roles as director of gambling policy with the
Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University
School of Law, and as an internationally certified gambling
addiction counselor. This permits me to clinically treat
patients and families suffering with gambling addiction while
simultaneously serving as a researcher and policy advocate
working for public health reform.
I'm also a gambling addict in recovery. I made my last bet
on April 27, 2014, and on that same night, nearly took my own
life with gambling addiction. The risk of suicide is
omnipresent. Research shows that one in every two people
suffering will contemplate suicide and one in five will
attempt. In the grips of my addiction, I devastatingly hurt
many people who had loved and trusted me. This included
clients, friends, my kids, and the people closest to me.
Personal carnage related to gambling addiction destroys the
most trusted and intimate relationships often beyond repair.
Gambling addiction took my mind, my soul, body, and conscience
that left me broken, battered, and homeless. I was
unrecognizable to myself. The only thing I had remaining was my
name.
On February 15, 2015, I stood in the courtroom in
Philadelphia, a court where I had practiced law for more than
two decades and where my father had practiced for more than
half a century. In the presence of the court, the clients I had
betrayed, my children and more, I pled guilty to the financial
crimes committed in throes of my gambling addiction. On that
day, I pledged under oath to the court that if I could get well
and find recovery, I would give back by doing everything in my
power to prevent others from suffering.
I come before this distinguished body filled with a deep
sense of gratitude, respect, and purpose. The mission has never
been more important. We are presently witnessing the early
years of a fast-building public health crisis and a time is now
for Congress to act. We have known for more than 12 years that
gambling is an addictive product, a gambling disorder and
addiction similar to heroin, opioids, tobacco, alcohol, and
cocaine.
With every other addictive product, government regulates
the advertising, promotion, distribution, and consumption.
Sadly, with gambling the exact opposite is occurring. The
gambling industry business model is designed to deliver
constant and nonstop action on every phone, tablet, and
computer. With the use of technology and AI, the industry and
its sports and media partners have turned every micro moment in
each game or event into more and more gambling action from the
speed of the next pitch, football snap, basketball shot, as the
Chairman mentioned, even ping pong from Eastern Europe.
The gambling industry and its sports partners have taken
sports away from the children, families, and American people.
Sports have become the equivalent of a nonstop slot machine.
Understand, I am not opposed to sports gambling. In fact, I
support its properly regulated legalization, however, I am
vehemently opposed to what has happened in just 6 years. What
has been launched on the American people is a newly created AI-
generated online gambling business model, which delivers a
fundamentally different, defectively designed and inherently
dangerous product to every phone, tablet, computer, and TV.
The gambling industry has expanded to include once
unthinkable partnerships, which include sports leagues, teams,
owners, players, the world's largest media and tech companies,
social media, AI, and State governments themselves all are
acting in concert to deliver online gambling at light speed and
ensure the action never stops. The new AI-fueled business model
will inexorably result in increased gambling addiction and
gambling related harm. I see this every day in my practice as a
clinician.
So, how did we get here and why is it essential that
Congress act now? There are two quick answers to this question.
First, online sports gambling is a fundamentally different and
more dangerous product than ever could have been imagined. In
fact, DraftKings recently purchased an AI company called
Simplebet. So, the DraftKings now owns the technology to
deliver targeted AI-generated gambling to each individual user.
The second follows the money. Sports leagues teams, owners
and players now sell their data to the gambling industry. Every
single sport. The industry then turns this data into instant
micro betting opportunities where the action never stops. The
industry having spent billions, with a B, to acquire this data
has only one way to recoup their money and turn a profit.
They're selling the widgets in the marketplace. They are
converting this data into more and faster, instant gambling
action. And that is a matter of public health.
I don't come here only to warn, I come armed with public
health policy solutions, and I hope we'll address many of these
during the Q&A. I'm presently privileged to work with Senator
Blumenthal and Congressman Tonko. I look forward to working
with many more of you, and I invite your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Levant appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thanks Dr. Levant. Appreciate it. Each of us
is going to have 5 minutes to ask questions on the panel, and
that's not nearly enough time. When I took a look at this
issue, there are so many aspects to it and so many people
affected by it. I hope we can at least open the discussion
today. We certainly won't exhaust the subject by many means.
Governor Baker, I'm going to start with you, but I'm going
to ask the panel to listen to the question. Perhaps they'll
want to give their own opinion. So, we live at a time where a
prospect basketball, football prospect in high school could be
lured with tens of thousands of dollars to a college to play a
sport.
Perfectly legal. And that young man in this example that
I'm using here, may come from a family that has had no
experience with any money at all in their lives. Very modest
family, just happened to have a star athlete in their
household. He goes to the school, starts off on the basketball
team, and at some point, becomes quite a player of repute,
reaches out to many others to encourage them to follow him in
sports.
Comes a day when his college roommate says, I need to talk
to you before the next game. Between you and me, I'm going to
ask you to do one thing, just one. I promise I'll never ask
again. Miss the first two half shots and I'll never bother you
again. And then he says, that's it. Just miss the first two.
You may do that already, but I need you to do that for me. He
goes out in the game and is tempted by the possibility of doing
that thinking it's a rather harmless request, not knowing
what's behind it all.
And we can all guess what might be behind it all, at risk
is not only that athlete and his future, if that's ever
discovered, but the integrity of sports itself. Going back to
105 years ago in the Black Sox scandal, gambling and sports
have been a lethal combination. Pete Rose is further evidence
of that.
So, we're in a situation where college sports are now
reaching a level of massive investments for NIL and other
incentives to bring students to school or to put them in
portals, move them to another school, and betting is on top of
it. As a head of the NCAA representing schools all across
America. How do you view this phenomenon?
Mr. Baker. Well, I certainly share your concern about what
in essence is an example that involves a prop bet. And one of
the reasons why we've been working hard to get all States to
prohibit prop bets on college sports is, for example, for
exactly the reason you just raised.
I've actually talked to student athletes who have told me a
hundred versions of exactly the same story you just told me,
which is the pressure that they feel, social pressure and other
pressure from classmates, schoolmates, people they know,
friends, people around the sports community to do certain
things that aren't going to affect the outcome of the game, but
will absolutely help ``somebody make their number''.
And that's part of the reason why for us, this prop betting
issue in particular is so fundamental. I mean the example that
you used about Armando Bacot having what he thought was a
pretty good game in the tournament in which UNC actually won
and getting more than a hundred messages directed on him
because he didn't get ``enough rebounds.''
Those stories are everywhere. And I think one of the most
fundamental opportunities that we have to take at least some of
the pressure off a lot of these young people is to get props
bets out of the system. It's an enormous problem for them, and
it creates an incredible amount of harassment, social pressure,
and abuse. Period.
Chair Durbin. So, let me congratulate Senator Tillis for
landing at his State university, Bill Belichick, one of the one
of the legends.
[Laughter.]
Chair Durbin. One of the legends.
Mr. Baker. I was going to bring that up. We're quite
familiar with him in Massachusetts.
Chair Durbin. So, this last week they published his
contract in more detail than I think usually is disclosed how
much he's being paid and so forth, and the people he's going to
hire to be part of his operation from the NFL. Interesting
investment in talent for the university. And then at the last
item was $20 or $23 million that is going to be used for
incentives to bring athletes to the university. This is a big
money operation. I'm not so naive to believe University of
North Carolina is unique in this situation, but with all this
money coming in and gambling superimposed on top of it, how do
we preserve anything that looks like a credible sporting event,
let alone amateur-type athletics?
Mr. Baker. It's too bad that Senator Welch just left
because I was planning to congratulate him on the fact that
University of Vermont won the D1 National Soccer Championship
last night. About as amateur a team as you're going to find
competing in Division 1. I think the part of our objective on
dealing with the money is this settlement that we've negotiated
with a number of plaintiffs on a series of cases that typically
involve NIL and other stuff that date back 10 years.
And the point behind settling these cases was on our side
to create structure around enhancing the benefits and the
opportunities and the rev share for student athletes who play
in programs and at schools that have really significant success
in athletics. And I think that is ultimately, if we can succeed
in getting this thing done. We got preliminary approval from
the judge earlier this year, and she is going to have her final
hearing on this in April.
I do believe this will make it possible for us to create
structure around this. And on some level, honestly, I think the
fact that we could be in a position to put literally hundreds
of millions of dollars directly into the hands of young people
through their athletic performance and their schools will in
some respects help on some of these larger issues associated
with sports betting.
But the abuse and the harassment and the beat down, not to
mention the social pressure that you talked about that they
deal with right now in this space because of the prop bet
element that's attached to this is not going to go away unless
we manage to figure out some way to get prop bets out of
college sports. And that's why we've been spending so much time
going State to State to make that happen.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Governor. Before I turn to Senator
Tillis, Mr. Bademosi, a lot of people in Chicago are paying a
lot of attention to Gonzaga graduates now. We thank you for
being here today. Senator Tillis.
Senator Tillis. Thank you all for being here today.
Governor, I have hated the New England Patriots----
[Laughter.]
Senator Tillis [continuing]. Since the infamous snowplow
game against my Miami Dolphins.
Mr. Baker. I remember.
Senator Tillis [continuing]. When I lived in Boston. But
now I've found a way to actually have a warm place in my heart
for at least one person associated with the Patriots.
Mr. Baker. Appreciate that.
Senator Tillis. I guess at full disclosure, I don't bet.
The only bets I make are with my brothers, and the payoff
involves acts of public humiliation. So, I'm so sorry for Mr.
Levant what you're going through, but I do, I'm glad that, that
we're having the hearing today to talk about getting this
right, because I think too many States are getting it wrong. I
think of the 38 States have legalized sports betting, 34 have
prop betting, for example----
Mr. Baker. Smaller number than that. We've managed to--it's
about 19 that still have it.
Senator Tillis. So, 19. Good. So, that's a good trend. But
I'm going to get and time allowed to one suggestion I think we
should have on a path forward, but I never miss an opportunity
to bring up--well, first off, there's a lot of money involved
here.
Mr. Baker. Yes.
Senator Tillis. And there's a lot of headwinds against
this. And I'd like to give you an example of one of those
players who I think supports and is making money off of prop
betting and generally sports betting.
[Poster is shown.]
That's the Eastern Band of the Cherokee. Now, how does that
come up into this hearing? Well, I just happened to be spending
a lot of quality time with the Eastern Band of the Cherokee
debating why they're spending all this money that they're
making off of gambling, trying to prevent a Tribe that has been
denied recognition for 130 years from getting recognition in
the State of North Carolina.
I'm not going to get into the details of this except for
one William Pipestem who's making millions of dollars in
targeted lobbying in this case to try and defeat my efforts to
get a Tribe recognized after 130 years of patent bias, racism,
and a number of other factors using money that they're deriving
from sports gambling to do that.
And believe me, they're going to have an army of people
raising millions of dollars to prevent us from trying to scope
this down to a level to where we take, we allow this legal
market to exist because to Mr. Rebuck's point, it's going to
exist. So, government has to exist to make it as safe and as
minimize the impacts as possible.
I don't believe that you're going to find the Eastern Band
of the Cherokee, who I believe are just this week announcing a
new casino, that they're going to be managing in Danville,
Virginia, all excited about more prop betting, more revenue for
them. You can take that down.
I'm kind of curious about the--in some respects, I think at
abstract the sports betting issue and the marijuana
legalization issue--at first off, there seems to be a pretty
substantial correlation between States who have legalized
marijuana and States who are legalizing sports betting.
The challenge that we have is we have a patchwork of laws
now around the marijuana trade, and we have a patchwork of laws
around the sports betting trade. And so, it really raises the
question of how can we get to a place where, when a market
exists and it has persistent for thousands and thousands of
years, the gambling market, how do we make it safe? How do we
address the negative consequences which will invariably occur?
And how do we resource the various agencies to make sure that
we can do that?
And I, for one, think that in the same way that hopefully
next year we'll have this discussion about marijuana, Mr.
Rebuck, I disagree with you on the lack of need for federal
guidelines. I do not want, as a matter of federal law, I would
never vote as a matter of federal legislation to legalize
gambling at the federal level in the same way that I wouldn't
for marijuana.
But I would be very open to an independent commission that
would be tasked by this body to spend a year putting together
guardrails and a framework that makes sense so that States who
choose to have an affirmative vote and a law that is either
signed by a Governor, overridden by a Governor, that they have
to conform to certain rules of the road if we do that, if
Federal Government's going to have to play a role.
And what concerns me is if we don't, the American people
don't know the difference between with AI and with the
sophistication of technology today, if we don't figure out some
way to authenticate the sports book operations that are
legitimate to avoid international influences, all the other
things that we have to look at, you only do that through
federal supervision. At some point, you have to have the
resources available to do it.
So, I think we should start thinking ahead in the next
Congress. I know you've been an effective Chair, but I don't
think you're going to get this solved before you pass the gavel
over.
[Laughter.]
And if I'm willing to bet on that incidentally.
[Laughter.]
But I think what we need to do is recognize that the
federal--this is interstate commerce. If you're in a State
that's not legalized it, you're naive.
If you don't think they're gambling in the same way, if
you're in a State that doesn't have pot legal, then you're
going to the Eastern Band of the Cherokee and buying pot that
for some reason you can buy in Western North Carolina, there's
not a legal place. You can transport it out of the Eastern Band
of the Cherokee's boundary, for example.
So, maybe we need to start thinking about rules of the
road. I'm kind of going on the pot angle, but on the gambling
angle to get this right or it's going to get worse and the bad
actors are going to exploit more, we are going to destroy a
game that I'm fanatic over. We're going to destroy this game
because of all the other pressures that are coming in and
influencing the product. Thank you all for being here today.
Dr. Levant. Senator, may I briefly address your comment?
Senator Tillis. Yes, please,
Dr. Levant. Senator, I would agree with you that there
absolutely needs to be a level of federal oversight, and I
would respectfully suggest that's what Senator of Blumenthal's
bill the SAFE Bet Act does. It sets minimum federal standards.
States can regulate more if they like, but it sets minimum
federal standards, and in so doing, would create the
opportunity to solve Governor Baker's problem, which I agree,
with prop bets where we are literally taking young athletes who
in May, were at their senior prom and are on an athletic field
in September and people are betting on everything they do.
Congress could and the SAFE Bet Act does it. SAFE Bet Act
illuminates college prop bets. It would be a minimum standard.
Governor Baker is going to exhaust himself going State to State
to State. However, he's right. And Congress could make that as
it is in the SAFE Bet Act, one of the minimum federal
standards. States could do more. They would retain control, but
Congress would be able to speak. Thank you, sir.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Padilla.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Rebuck, in your
testimony, you advocate for State-led regulation of legal
gambling, including sports betting. In my home State of
California, as you know not just the most populous State in the
Nation, but for purposes of today's discussion, the largest
market of any State in the Nation, you cannot talk about gaming
in any context without respecting the role of our 109 federally
recognized Tribes.
The voters of California granted Tribes exclusivity in
gaming operations nearly a quarter century ago. And this
commitment must be maintained in any attempts to legalize and
expand sports betting. Now, in order to maintain a model that
respects Tribal sovereignty and their exclusive rights to the
State's gambling industry, California would require a uniquely
tailored approach to any legislation that integrates sports
betting.
Can you discuss how you handled any similar stakeholder
dynamics in New Jersey when you oversaw the legalization and
implementation of sports betting there?
Mr. Rebuck. Your question has to deal with the
jurisdictional sovereignty of Indian Tribes that are clearly
recognized under federal law, and I would say are regulated
today by the Federal Government. The Indian Tribes do not exist
in Tribal lands in New Jersey. So, to answer specifically your
question, I did not interact with the Indian Tribes in that
regard, but I have a high degree of confidence in the
regulatory ability of Indian Tribes.
I've met with many of them. We've shared information. A
number of Indian Tribes today are clearly engaged in sports
wagering, as was just mentioned in North Carolina. Their
standards, their regulations flow through the government, the
Federal Government that has almost a testbed, if you wanted to,
to work with Indian Tribes to do things that otherwise you
think they're not doing well today in their efforts.
The issues in California with the rejection of sports
wagering was delivered by the disappointment of Indian Tribes
being not consulted, not involved, and as a stakeholder in what
direction the State of California would move forward if they
were to authorize sports wagering.
Mr. Rebuck. I work closely in New Jersey with three Indian
Tribes who are licensees and operate in New Jersey, Seminole
Tribe in Florida, the Mohegan Tribe from Connecticut, the
Mohawk and Kahnaw Tribe from, actually, Canada. They are very
talented, very dedicated to ensuring integrity of operations
exist, suitability exists. They are no different in their
regulatory authorities than what exists in States today. So, I
share your concern, and I would suggest you're on the right
line of absolutely including them in any dialog that has to
deal with an expansion of sports wagering to their Tribal lands
or to the States that they're located in.
Senator Padilla. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rebuck. And I want to
thank you and all the witnesses for testifying on today's
subject. I would ask not just Chairman Durbin, but the incoming
leadership of this Committee in the next session, that to the
extent that we're going to continue to have this conversation
to continue to explore this area, that we must include the
perspectives, the voices, the participation of Tribal leaders
on panels like we're seeing in today's hearing.
I also want to, and with not a question for Mr. Baker, but
an invitation for an ongoing conversation, not to go off too
much on a tangent, but even without the amount of money that
wagering on collegiate sports is generating there has been an
issue of the flow of money in collegiate sports and the
treatment of student athletes.
How much money in collegiate sports. I mean, Coach
Belichick's contract is just one of many, many, many examples,
let alone the amounts of money that we know is going into
facilities, arenas, stadiums, et cetera. And I raise this
because it seems that for a long time we've lost sight of the
term ``student athletes'' which is an NCAA invention, I
understand. And it's really an athlete student. What comes
first, the treatment of students, young people, women, and men
as students first that happen to play a sport or athletes first
and get an education, if you can.
I'd like to pursue conversations about some of the reforms
that we've made in the State of California that pays attention
to, for example, academic support for student athletes when
graduation rates by university, by specific program,
basketball, football, et cetera are or are not at certain
thresholds.
You know, what happens to a student athlete's scholarship.
Should they suffer an injury are they just left out to dry, or
do we give them ongoing support to complete their education?
Because if they're student first and athlete second, that's our
obligation to them. Or when a coach comes in and wants their
own preferred recruited running back, or point guard, or
something else.
So, I know it's been an area of concentration for you since
you've taken over the leadership at the NCAA, but it seems to
have gotten lost in the conversation about wagering NILs and so
much more. So, look forward to continuing with you.
Mr. Baker. Can I stop for a quick?
Senator Padilla. Sure.
Mr. Baker. I just want you to know, I think you'll be
pleased to know that starting in August, all Division 1
athletes keep their scholarship whether they play or not, and
that's their decision. Ten years. They keep their scholarship,
however long it takes for them to graduate. The post
eligibility insurance program that will cover any injury that
they receive while they're playing, if they're still in
treatment, when they leave school, is going to carry for 2
years. And there's a whole series of supports for mental
health, and health, and well-being services and academic
services as well.
We just released, I think, about 2 months ago, and we'll
send it to your office, Senator, the data on graduation rates
and student athletes across all three divisions graduated at a
higher rate than any of their peers. No matter how you do the
math by class, by ethnicity, by race, by gender, it doesn't
matter.
They, student athletes, actually have made a lot of
progress in this area, and I give them, and the schools, they
attend enormous credit. But I will make sure we send all this
information to your office. We'll send it to the Committee as
well.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Blackburn.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all
for being here. I appreciate it. Mr. Rebuck, I want to come to
you. We know that the U.S. is going to be the epicenter, if you
will, for sports. We've got the World Cup in 26, we've got the
Olympics in 28, and as we were working on some of this for the
hearing, I was really surprised to see that 10 percent of
organized crime revenue is made from sports betting. And that,
to me, is something that's a little bit concerning, and match
fixing has become a concern looking at these high-profile
events that are coming our way.
And Senator Cortez Masto and I recently sent a letter over
to the DOJ on this very issue, and I would like for you to just
comment. You've set up some of these gambling operations, so
comment a little bit on what more needs to be done to address
match fixing and these harms.
Mr. Rebuck. Thank you for that question. I can relate to
you what New Jersey did when we won the case in PASPA. I
approached in the Governor's office, at that time Governor Phil
Murphy, with the question of, we need to work out, reach out to
the plaintiffs, the leagues, and the NCAA, because they will
have to be our partners to ensure the integrity of their
matches, the training and education of their athletes. The
structure that they have for overseeing compliance issues in
gambling are at the highest level, and we will work with them.
But first, we----
Senator Blackburn. So, you're looking for a partnership?
Mr. Rebuck. We have a partnership because what we did, I
can tell you today, 6 years later, and Governor Baker can
comment on this, there have been massive investments of money
by the professional leagues, not only for structure----
Senator Blackburn. So, you're confident enough is being
done.
Mr. Rebuck. I am confident we are on a good path.
Senator Blackburn. Okay.
Mr. Rebuck. In this industry, you should never be confident
with the status quo.
Senator Blackburn. Okay.
Mr. Rebuck. You should always look to new ways and new
technologies that allow for information to be shared and risk
assessments to be implemented.
Senator Blackburn. Okay great. Let me move on. Mr. Levant,
I want to come to you. Thank you for your op-ed on KOSA. I know
Senator Blumenthal and I appreciate that support. And he and I
have worked tirelessly to make certain that kids are protected
in the virtual space. And one of the things that is so
troubling is that there are not protections against gambling
for kids in the virtual space. It seems to be pretty easy,
unfortunately, and we know that it is harmful, it is addictive,
and what more can be done to keep children from participating.
Dr. Levant. Senator, thank you for the question, and thank
you for your leadership on this issue. There are two initial
thoughts that come to mind. The first deals with the overall
normalization of the relationship between gambling and sports.
If you are a 12-year-old child, you don't know sports without
it being attached to gambling.
I urge the Members of the Committee to watch a primetime
basketball game on network television. And you will see that
during the pre-game show at three o'clock in the afternoon. The
pre-game show is sponsored by a gambling company. They're
talking about betting, they are making suggestions for betting.
Gambling has taken over sports, and for children, the
normalization of gambling, which is a known addictive product,
and making it part of sports is one of the most long-term
problematic aspects of this.
Senator Blackburn. Okay.
Dr. Levant. The second thing, Senator, is I'm not going to
do it right now. I have my phone in my pocket. I don't have an
account. I'm a person in recovery from gambling addiction, but
with two clicks of my thumb, I could get into an online sports
book, just like a 9-year-old could. That's not to make a bet,
but it's to see all of the gambling activity. It is ridiculous
to me that each State permits this. There are age barriers to
making bets, but not for looking.
Senator Blackburn. Okay. My time is inspiring, and I do
want to move on, and I want to have further conversations with
you on that.
Dr. Levant. Certainly. Thank you.
Senator Blackburn. Before I turn it back, Governor Baker, I
want to highlight with you my concerns over some of the
harassment that happens to our athletes online, especially our
female athletes. I will visit with you separately. I am still
disappointed that there is not an NCAA policy to protect women
in competition. You all have had time to do this. Our female
athletes deserve it. And if you're going to partner up on
gambling and other things, and we applaud that, you have got to
make certain that you are protecting women's sports for women.
We hear about this every single week from female collegiate
athletes and their concerns. You-all have the ability to do
better. It is important that you do better, and it is
important, it is imperative that you protect opportunity for
women in sports. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator. Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I am very
appreciative to you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
And to the witnesses who are here today, not only for
appearing, but for your good work and your help to me in
drafting the SAFE Bet Act and the GRIT Act, Mr. Whyte, Mr.
Levant, Mr. Baker, particularly.
You know, we are in the midst of a sports betting boom,
that is one of the most severe public health problems today. It
is the cause of addiction for millions of Americans with severe
gambling problems. It's tearing apart families, literally
divorces, abandonment. It's a criminal justice problem when
people get into trouble and they have to pay back the debts
that they owe. When I was U.S. Attorney, I prosecuted extortion
and enforcement by the gangs. And of course, it is an
unemployment problem. And a mental health, behavioral health
problem.
You know the nomenclature, and the techniques, and the
sophistication of the trading practices here make Wall Street
look like child's play. The risk-free bet, the throttling, the
targeting of losers customizing bets to those who are losing
and throttling back the winners. I mean, the plethora of
techniques is staggering here, all to the benefit of the
corporations that are profiting here.
And Mr. Baker, as you may know, colleges initially were
partners in some of these efforts. I wrote to 66 of them, and
they stopped the partnership that promoted gambling on their
campuses. And so there really is a kind of shamelessness here.
I want to ask for your support for the SAFE Bet Act, which
would establish minimum national standards. Right now, we have
a patchwork of half-hearted regulation. The SAFE Bet Act would,
in effect, also provide more public health benefits to try to
provide some relief to people who are now addicted. And those
minimum standards would be set by the Department of Justice.
States would still have responsibility, but they'd have to meet
those minimum standards that would eliminate the kinds of
promotions, ads, pitches, and deceptive techniques that right
now are so rampant.
So, let me just ask you, in the interest of time, would all
of you support the SAFE Bet Act? Let me go down with Mr. Baker
first.
Mr. Baker. I'm familiar with certain elements of it. I'm
not familiar with all of it. I can tell you the elements I am
familiar with we do support. And the one thing I would add to
some of the stuff you've talked about is when you have 39
States that have legalized sports betting, in every single
State the data they collect is different. Who they can share it
with is different. And how they can and who they can share it
with is different.
And so you have a situation where it is really hard to get
kind of a national sense about what's going on. New Jersey
probably has one of the best data collection programs in the
country, but I think the, I think the data thing in particular
should not be underestimated as an opportunity. And I love the
fact that your legislation basically prohibits props on college
sports. It would save me a lot of running around.
Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Bademosi.
Mr. Bademosi. I'm not familiar with every detail of the
SAFE Bet Act. But in the interest of protecting the health and
wellness of the athletes, and protecting the athletes against
universities and these entities that are in partnership with
betting companies, they're literally like--I support it.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Mr. Whyte.
Mr. Whyte. As with NCAA, there's a lot of details in there
that we really like, but because it starts by prohibiting
sports betting, at least temporarily, the National Council must
remain neutral because we're neutral on legalized gambling.
Mr. Rebuck. Senator, I really don't represent here, anybody
but myself and my comments in my written testimony and my oral
indicate that this is not a good bill to move forward. Because
I believe after 6\1/2\ years of litigation to the States to
earn the rights, constitutional rights to have sports wagering,
that we are entitled to do the best we can to regulate and deal
with the issues that are highlighted here, which I agree many
of them need to be continued to be dealt with in ways that we
can improve upon.
That being said, aspects of your bill that talks about the
need for safeguards, the need for guardrails, the need to work
on responsible gaming aspects of reducing the risk of people
falling in the harm, those are all shared by every jurisdiction
today that engages in gambling. And as you well know, we have
10 States right now, 7 of which are represented by Members here
that have no legal sports wagering.
Senator Blumenthal. No legal sports betting.
Mr. Rebuck. No legal sports wagering.
Senator Blumenthal. No legal sports betting. A lot of
sports betting. Illegally. And I appreciate your support. I've
run out of time. Mr. Levant.
Dr. Levant. Having helped office and Congressman Tonko
write the bill, my answer is yes, and I'm prepared to answer
any questions about why the bill sets appropriate public health
standards by the Federal Government. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. About 90 percent
of my personal philosophy is don't hurt someone unless they're
trying to hurt you. Don't take other people's stuff and leave
me alone. So, I'm pretty libertarian when it comes to gambling.
Within reason, if someone wants to gamble, they can. But I do
want to ask you this, Mr. Rebuck, can you name me one form of
legalized gambling where the house doesn't have a decided
advantage?
Mr. Rebuck. The gambling industry always has the advantage,
as you are correctly indicating.
Senator Kennedy. Okay.
Mr. Rebuck. The point is that the consumers----
Senator Kennedy. I'm sorry to cut you off. I just don't
have much time. Governor Baker the NCAA exists, in part, to
promote fair competition in collegiate sports. Does it not?
Mr. Baker. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Could you speak in the mic for me?
Mr. Baker. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. A transgender woman is a biological male.
Is that correct?
Mr. Baker. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. And a biological male is always going to
have a physical and physiological advantage competing in a
collegiate sport against a biological female. Isn't that true?
Mr. Baker. There's not a lot of research on it, but it's
certainly debatable.
Senator Kennedy. You think it's debatable?
Mr. Baker. I think it's debatable.
Senator Kennedy. Wait, you don't think that a biological
male has an advantage every time competing against a biological
female? Is that your testimony?
Mr. Baker. No, I think defined the way you defined it, yes,
I would agree with you. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. So, you agree with me? Okay.
Mr. Baker. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. So, why does the NCAA, why do you--your
job is to promote fairness in collegiate sports. Why do you
support allowing transgender women who are biological males to
compete against non-transgender biological females?
Mr. Baker. Over the course of the past 2 years, five
Federal court cases involving this question--let me finish,
five Federal judges have all sided with participation as the
standard. This is a very----
Senator Kennedy. So, you're saying you don't have a choice?
Mr. Baker. I'm saying that under the current dynamic, there
is not clarity on this issue, legally.
Senator Kennedy. Well, why don't you exhibit leadership and
demonstrate leadership and provide clarity? If you agree with
me.
Mr. Baker. Well, first of all----
Senator Kennedy. The purpose of the NCAA is to promote fair
competition, and if you agree with me that in every single
instance a biological male is going to have an unfair advantage
over a biological female, then why don't you just say, ``Look,
in America, you can be whomever you want to be, but in terms of
fair competition in a collegiate sport, transgender women who
are biological males are not going to be allowed to compete
against non-transgender women who are biological female.''
Boom. Done. Why don't you take that position, Charlie?
Mr. Baker. Because Federal courts have already taken the
position that they do have the right to compete. Five times in
the past 2\1/2\ years.
Senator Kennedy. You can disagree and be sued. Why don't
you demonstrate some leadership?
Mr. Baker. I would love to work with you folks on creating
clarity around this question.
Senator Kennedy. I'm sorry, but look, I'm sure the NCAA is
a good organization. I just can't figure out what you folks are
good for. I know you take in bucket loads of money and you
share some of it. You make that money off the backs of these
kids. Your predecessor, who was a good man, took home $2.8
million a year in salary. I'm not going to ask you what you
make, but I bet you didn't take a pay cut.
You take in bucket loads of money. We got problems in
collegiate sports with the transfer portal, and the NIL, and
now gambling, and biological males, you allowing biological
males to compete against biological females. And you folks at
the NCAA don't do anything except sit there, watch, cash your
checks, and suck on your teeth.
Mr. Baker. I would argue that we've made a lot of progress
on a bunch of those issues.
Senator Kennedy. Well, why don't you take a position on
transgender, biological males competing against females? You
just told me it wasn't fair.
Mr. Baker. There's a federal standard on this is one that
we would work with you on, if you wish to work on it.
Senator Kennedy. Why don't you do it on your own?
Mr. Baker. Because we're a national governing body and we
follow federal law.
Senator Kennedy. That's what you're there for. Why don't
you stand up and say in front of God and country federal law is
wrong, and the NCAA believes in fair competition. We also
believe inequality. If you want to in America, you can be
whatever you want to be. You can be whomever you want to be,
but our job is to promote fairness in sports.
Mr. Baker. Our job----
Senator Kennedy. Biological males are not going to be
allowed to compete against biological females. Why don't you go
to Amazon and buy a spine online and take a stand?
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Next is Senator
from Vermont--Senator Schiff, I'm sorry, from California.
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
holding this hearing, which has been fascinating. Learned a lot
about sports betting. Just asking my collegiate age son about
it, and learned just how extraordinarily popular it is, how it
really has become a cultural phenomenon on college campuses.
Governor Baker, just want to say, I'm originally from
Framingham. Have a lot of Schiff family and Glovsky family
still in the State. All who speak very highly of you, and you
manage to leave after two terms as popular as when you went in,
which is a remarkable feat for any Governor these days in these
challenging times. So, congratulations.
I wanted to ask a couple questions, and Governor, I'd like
to ask you just very generally. Sports have always been a
dominant feature on campus, and they contribute so much to the
life of a campus, and not just the student athletes, but all
the students and alumni and drive a lot of the resources to the
campuses.
Now, this seems to be so accentuated by sports betting,
driving more attention, more money, more resources to this one
part of campus life. Is there a risk that everything else
becomes overwhelmed by all the money going into sports and
sports betting on campuses? And how do campuses preserve some
balance in the light of that, in the contract that the Chairman
was talking about Bill Belichick, and how much is devoted to
this one feature?
And the second question for anyone is how does this
throttling work where people who are successful or throttle
down and can't compete as much can't bet as much, and people
who are losing their shirt are targeted. Have States tried to
regulate that as they have with prop betting, and I think prop
betting should be banned. It sounds like it does nothing but
create enormous problems for athletes. But how does this other
phenomenon, a throttling work, and is there any justification
for it?
Mr. Baker. I can speak to the first question, not so much
to the second one. I would just say that the first of all,
there are, you know, there's 500,000 student athletes. There
are 1,100 schools, and for the vast majority of them, the
experience on campus is not driven in many respects by a really
significant growth in revenue. I mean, most of them look a lot
like they looked when they were playing these games 5, 10, 15,
20 years ago. But they teach all the same lessons that all
sports teach in terms of your ability. And by the way, Senator,
congratulations, University of Vermont, a classic example of
one of those kinds of schools that won the D1 soccer
championship yesterday.
Senator Schiff. You can continue.
Mr. Baker. I can continue. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Schiff. Let's not forget the Broncos Division 2
leaders in California,
Mr. Baker. Of course, the Broncos. Yes, that's right. Cal
Poly.
Senator Schiff. I'm feeling competitive with Vermont right
now.
Mr. Baker. But those are great examples of exactly what
we're talking about. I think the big issue for us coming in has
been enhance the benefits that we make available to student
athletes. Come up with a model, working with the plaintiffs in
several particular cases to create a model to provide
additional benefits to the kids who play at the schools that
make the most money, and then do what we can, especially in
this space to provide as much protection to them as we can and
to give them a lot of guidance and advice.
We run the largest sports betting integrity program on a
per game basis in the world. We also run the largest in-person
education program for student athletes, athletes of any kind
anywhere in the world around sports betting, and we've put a
tremendous amount of effort into driving this conversation
around prop betting and have had a fair amount of success to
the point where we have 19 States left, we need to move.
But and we also track all the abuse and harassment that
comes at student athletes who participate in our major
championships and created a fair amount of public conversation
about that when we released that data earlier this year.
I think the challenges, especially at the highest end are
profound. And I think we should be doing everything we can to
help kids there. And in particular, the prop. That one is a
great opportunity to do something in the right direction.
Mr. Whyte. Senator, if I may, to your point about the
prevalence of wager on campus, Charlie's group did a survey
that showed the majority of young male college students have
placed a sports bet in the past year. The other striking
finding from our study is that one of the biggest predictive
factors of sports betting is educational status. Unlike other
forms of gambling where it's negatively correlated, the higher
your education, the less likely you are to bet in America
today. The more education you have, the more likely you are to
bet on sports. So, there's this cohesion now of sports and
athletics. I mean, I'm sorry, athletics in education, which
we've always had, but now that gambling is so tied in with
sports. Now education is one of the biggest predictive factors.
We don't see that with sports betting anywhere else in the
world, and we don't see that with any other form of gambling in
America. So, there's a real concern about how we reach these
young, educated men who have this huge propensity to bet on
sports and unfortunately are at highest risk for gambling
addiction.
Dr. Levant. Senator, may I take the second part of your
question very quickly. I run a patient treatment group. And my
patients know I'm here today, and I asked them if there was one
message I could deliver, and 14 of the 15 all told me the same
thing. And that is let elected officials know how they are
targeted to keep them gambling.
I'll make an offer to you that I've done with Senator
Blumenthal, Congressman Tonko, done with the New York Times,
and CNN, and CBS. I would gladly sit down with your staff
members, any staff member, and show you while we watch a game
together, how the rapid fire and the VIP programs keep people
in action. I think Members of this Committee need to be
educated on that so it can be addressed.
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Schiff. Senator Hawley.
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Baker, if I
could just start with you. I confess I didn't understand your
answer to Senator Kennedy's question about the safety of women
in the sports of the NCAA overseas. Did you say the federal law
requires the NCAA to permit biological men to play in women's
sports?
Mr. Baker. No. I said there have been five cases in Federal
court in the past 18 months, and in all five of them, Federal
judges sided with participation.
Senator Hawley. Okay. I thought you told him the reason the
NCAA couldn't take a position on this--in fact, you have taken
a position on it. You're affirmatively permitting biological
men in women's sports. But you to him it's because of federal
law. There's no federal law that requires it. Right. The
relevant federal law is the Title IX. Is it not? You're
familiar with Title IX.
Mr. Baker. If guidance on this issue from Title IX or
guidance with respect to discrimination law would be----
Senator Hawley. Title IX is already the law. Title IX
says----
Mr. Baker. Federal judges have ruled on----
Senator Hawley. It's 20 U.S.C Section 1681A. By the way,
let's just dispense with that canard. No Federal court has
ordered the NCAA to include biological men in women's sports.
Right. Actually, there's not a single case that is ordered the
NCAA to do so. Correct.
Mr. Baker. That's pretty much what they decided in----
Senator Hawley. No, don't say pretty much. We're talking
about the law here. Yes, I know. And you, and you actively
disassembled to Senator Kennedy just a second ago. It's not
true that the NCAA has been ordered by any court. Number one,
it's not true that federal law requires you to include
biological males. In fact, Title IX explicitly says, ``No
person in the United States shall on the basis of sex, be
denied the benefits of any educational program or activity
receiving federal financial assistance.'' You are in court at
this moment arguing that Title IX doesn't apply to the NCAA,
which is astounding to me, given the amount of money, federal
money the NCAA gets.
But let me just ask you this. A total of five teams, five
women's volleyball teams, Wyoming, Southern Utah, Utah State,
Nevada, and Boise State, all forfeited, had to forfeit seven
games in their conference play, NCAA conference play this past
year, women's teams, because a biological male under your rules
was playing on a rival's team. How is that not denying them the
benefits of the sport? Why is this fair to women?
Mr. Baker. And when that issue went to Federal court, the
judge sided with participation.
Senator Hawley. No, the NCAA did not go to court. No, that
is not true.
Mr. Baker. The Federal judge made the decision with respect
to the issue you just raised.
Senator Hawley. Your rules have not been tried in Federal
court and your rules explicitly permit biological males in
women's sports. And I am asking you why is that fair to the
women? All of these women on these teams had to forfeit games
and therefore a chance to compete in the championship because
of your rules. And I want to know why is that protective of
women? That's my question.
Mr. Baker. So far, the Federal Government, on the court
side, has issued decisions several times----
Senator Hawley. No, I'm not asking about the courts. I know
what the courts have done. Not one of them has----
Mr. Baker. That's their interpretation of federal law.
Senator Hawley. This is your policy, which you will not
defend because frankly, it's indefensible. Why are you, Mr.
Baker, why are you allowing biological men to play in women's
sports?
Mr. Baker. Because we believe that's consistent with
federal policy.
Senator Hawley. Your testimony is you believe you're
compelled to do it by federal law. You would change it
otherwise.
Mr. Baker. I said in my opening comments to Senator
Kennedy, the clarity on this issue at the federal level would
be very helpful.
Senator Hawley. Oh, that is such a cop out. In other words,
somebody else, please do it for us. Keep sending us the money.
We'll go to court and argue that Title IX doesn't even apply to
us.
Mr. Baker. We do not take a dime in federal money. Not a
dime.
Senator Hawley. Is that why you're arguing Title IX doesn't
apply to you?
Mr. Baker. Yes. Part of it, yes.
Senator Hawley. You honestly think you shouldn't be subject
to Title IX.
Mr. Baker. We don't believe we currently are in Federal
court----
Senator Hawley. It's amazing. Absolutely amazing. You're
have a pending lawsuit right now from female athletes who are
suing you because you allow biological men, not only in their
sports, but also in their locker rooms. Why do you do that, by
the way? Why do your guidelines allow biological men into
women's locker rooms without the women's consent, without the
women's foreknowledge? Why do you do that?
Mr. Baker. That's not what our guidelines say.
Senator Hawley. They do say that. I've got them right here.
Your guidelines say that transgender student athletes should be
able to use the locker room, shower, and toilet facilities in
accordance with their gender identity. Here they are right
here.
Mr. Baker. And then everybody else should have an
opportunity to use other facilities if they wish to do so.
Senator Hawley. Okay. So, the burden's on the women. So, if
the women then want to move to a different facility, in other
words, if they want to abandon their own locker room, you're
saying that that they should have to do that. So, in other
words, it's their problem.
Mr. Baker. No, we put a fair--we put a significant amount
of emphasis on what the local's plans are. And we make sure
that everybody----
Senator Hawley. What does that mean? The local's plans?
Mr. Baker. Whoever it is that's hosting the event.
Senator Hawley. You have guidelines that instruct them what
the best practices are. And your guidelines say that biological
men can go in and use the women's locker rooms if they want to.
What the women want has nothing to do with it. They're not
mentioned in here at all. Correct? It's right here. You just
reaffirmed them in May of this year. I've got them. I'm reading
them. I got them off your website.
Mr. Baker. I believe our guidelines give people optionality
with respect to how they choose to use their facilities.
Senator Hawley. Optionality? What it says is, transgender
student athletes will be able to use the locker room, shower,
and toilet in accordance with their gender identity. That means
men will be able to use the women's locker rooms. And as Riley
Gaines and others have testified before this Committee, that
means if a man, biological man, wants to use their locker room,
they just have to accept it or else the women have to go
somewhere else. They've got to go find an alternative. Why is
that fair?
[Points at witness.]
Mr. Baker. We told the local folks who've hosted our
tournaments, they need to create accommodations for the people
who are playing.
Senator Hawley. You know, so it's the feds. On the one
hand, it's the locals on the other hand, the only person who
doesn't seem to bear any responsibility in this is you and the
NCAA who are the governing body. And your testimony here today
is you're not even subject to Title IX.
Mr. Baker, I can't tell you how disappointed this makes me.
But not just disappointed, frankly, infuriated for the student
athletes who are suffering because of your policies, and you
won't even defend them. You won't even take responsibility.
It's outrageous. It's totally outrageous.
Chair Durbin. Senator, your time has expired. Senator
Welch.
Senator Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank the
witnesses. Thanks for the shout out. Going back to gambling,
could you talk a little bit more about what the emotional
pressure is on the student athletes. Mr. Baker, Governor Baker?
Mr. Baker. Well, my first suggestion to all of you would be
to talk to some of the kids who are on your campuses about this
issue and ask them to show you some of the stuff that shows up
in their phones, which we've seen or sit behind the bench at
one of their contests and listen to the noise that's directed
at them from people in the stands.
Part of the reason we released the results of the data we
collected from our previous engagements with championship data
collection was to point out to people how aggressive, and in
some cases, brutal, the incoming a lot of these young people
get.
Senator Welch. That's all pressure from bettors.
Mr. Baker. Yes.
Senator Welch [continuing]. Who want an outcome, in fact,
holding them accountable----
Mr. Baker. In one of our championships, we literally put
24/7 police protection around one of the teams because of the
legitimacy of the threat that they received from a bettor when
we showed it to local law enforcement.
Senator Welch. And how much pressure is there on kids to
participate in this sports betting, the athletes themselves?
Mr. Baker. They get a lot of pressure from their--I mean,
this is something I would--I mean, this may have all been
before your time, thank God.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Baker [continuing]. But a big part of the abuse that's
coming from the stands also involves classmates, schoolmates,
friends who literally talk to them in a way where they
basically say, ``Look, you're my friend. I'm not looking for
you to lose a game. I just need you to miss the first two free
throws.''
Senator Welch. And that's the prop bet?
Mr. Baker. And that's the prop bet.
Senator Welch. Bademosi, you want to speak to that?
Mr. Bademosi. Yes. I could comment on it. I think I think
the pressure comes--or one is an athlete succumbs to pressure
when they're in need, and if they don't have the money to buy a
meal or pay for gas, then they might succumb to that pressure.
Senator Welch. They've got opportunity. They got the need
that you mentioned.
Mr. Bademosi. Yes. Now, some universities take better care
of their athletes than others.
Senator Welch. All right. I want to ask another question
about marketing and the use of AI that you've all described.
One of the questions I have that hasn't been a topic of this
hearing is the concentration of the betting industry in three
or four companies.
And Senator Lee and I have sent a letter to the FDC really
inquiring about whether there are antitrust issues here. And,
obviously, in any market, not just this one competition's
important. And one question I have is whether the more we allow
for competition, some companies may have better practices than
others. I don't know if that would be helpful or not. But I'd
be interested, sir, in your comments on that.
Dr. Levant. Senator, I believe it goes to the need for
minimum federal standards because some of these companies have
become so large. And I specifically mentioned in my opening
testimony, DraftKings, who has recently purchased an artificial
intelligence----
Senator Welch. Company. Right, I heard that.
Dr. Levant. So, what they have is the capacity not only to
control markets, but to use the technology to target vulnerable
customers with the most addictive forms of what's called micro-
betting.
Senator Welch. So, you get that capacity, that's an
incredibly powerful marketing device because people are
susceptible to that addiction, that micro-targeting on the
betting.
Dr. Levant. And that's why what the SAFE Bet Act does is it
specifically addresses as a federal standard the standards for
in-game micro-betting. So, that while the Justice Department
deals with issues such as competition, what from a public
health perspective Congress can deal with is which forms of
these bets should actually be permitted and which are simply
too dangerous from a public health perspective. And that's what
the SAFE Bet Act would do, sir.
Mr. Whyte. Senator, if I may, in some sense arguing about
what types of bets to limit, and prohibit, or allow, ignores
the fundamental nature of addiction, which is that it
flourishes regardless of legalization or regulation. And which
is why we support the GRIT Act that would provide for the first
ever federal support for States like Vermont to establish the
kinds of prevention, treatment, and research we need to address
this.
Senator Welch. Thank you. I understood you wanted the
States to be able to make the decisions, but it seems to me
that it helps the State. I used to be a State legislator. If
there are standards you're not then arguing about
exceptionalism where there's some self-interest at stake in
terms in the form of revenue. So, why would that be a problem,
from your perspective?
Mr. Rebuck. Well, let me comment first on the harassment of
student athletes. I share that concern. Everybody shares that
concern, as Governor Baker understands. New Jersey
affirmatively reached out to every Division 1 college in its
State and made it very clear to them.
If at any time a student comes to you, an athlete, or any
student, you have an affirmative duty to refer that matter to
law enforcement. And this assistant attorney general has State
troopers who are prepared to engage in investigations and use
all the tools at our disposal if they are a gambler to go
after----
Senator Welch. I don't mean to interrupt, but I'll
interrupt.
Mr. Rebuck. Go ahead.
Senator Welch. Well, what Governor Baker said was that a
lot of the harassment is around the prop betting.
Mr. Rebuck. That's gambling.
Senator Welch. Right. But why wouldn't that help you rather
than have all this after-the-fact investigation and protection
of assets?
Mr. Rebuck. Because here's the end results----
Senator Welch. Just prohibit prop betting. So, the students
here don't get hammered on that.
Mr. Rebuck. We have 10 States that have no gambling at all.
We have 15 States that have bans against betting on in-State
college events in their State, including their student
athletes. The letter I reached out to and referred to, many of
these cases I wish they had been referred to us to investigate,
and handle, and treat as criminals. The response to that in New
Jersey is very low and, in many times, many ways non-existent.
I'm not saying harassment doesn't exist. I'm just saying the
tools are there to make a fortune.
Senator Welch. My time is up. Thank you very much.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Welch. Although this is a
hearing that is nominally dedicated to the issue of gambling,
and sports, and like, other issues have arisen. I want to give
Governor Baker an opportunity to complete a few answers that he
may not have had a chance, but I'd like you to ask you a
question or two. How many athletes are there in the United
States in NCAA schools?
Mr. Baker. 510,000.
Chair Durbin. How many transgender athletes are you aware
of?
Mr. Baker. Less than 10.
Chair Durbin. Less than 10 out of 510,000.
Mr. Baker. Yes.
Chair Durbin. Are you governed when it comes to the policy
of the NCAA by State law?
Mr. Baker. Of course.
Chair Durbin. So, if 25 of the 50 States currently say that
transgender children can play in sports according to their
gender identity, you're bound by that standard.
Mr. Baker. Yes.
Chair Durbin. Is there anything else you'd like to say on
this subject?
Mr. Baker. I think part of our challenge is dealing with a
very murky set of court decisions at the State and federal
level around this issue, which creates a certain lack of
clarity around our policy because our policy ultimately needs
to comply with federal policy. Which is why guidance either on
the regulatory side or on the statutory side would be very
helpful.
Chair Durbin. 510,000 athletes. Ten, Ten transgender
athletes nationwide?
Mr. Baker. Or less.
Chair Durbin. I assume the NCAA is also concerned with
other issues in women's sports?
Mr. Baker. The harassment that I speak of is far more
prevalent in major women's championships than it is in men's
championships. And in fact, the data that we put forward from
our major championships last year showed that the worst
examples of online threats, abuse, and harassment were being
directed at women basketball players playing in our women's
basketball tournament.
That in many respects, I think, is not as well-known as it
should be. We try to do a pretty good job to promote it, and
make clear to people that that was in fact the championship
that had the most brutal and the most troubling, and the
nastiest collection. And all we know of is what shows up on
their public handle. We don't know what's on the stuff they're
getting in their direct messages.
We talked to a lot of the folks who played in those
tournaments and they said the stuff that comes in on their DMs
is a lot worse than the stuff that we see on their public
handle.
Chair Durbin. I wish my colleagues who share my concern in
yours for the future of women's sports could have heard your
testimony. I think it's very important. I want to thank all of
you for joining us today. This is not the end of this
discussion, but only the beginning. And as we see, there are
many aspects to this whole issue in terms of the future of
sports, treatment of athletes, colleges, and basically, gaming
industry nationwide, which is a very viable and important part
of the economy and whether or not it will establish standards
that are sensitive to the individuals who are being affected by
the current standards.
As I said at the outset, this is the last meeting of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, last scheduled meeting. It's been
my honor to serve as Chairman. I wish everyone the very best.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will stand in recess and
adjournment.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A P P E N D I X
The following submissions are available at:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-118shrg61196/pdf/CHRG-
118shrg
61196-add1.pdf
Submitted by Chair Durbin:
Advocacy & Legal Affairs Committee of Stop Predatory Gambling,
statement..................................................... 2
Amar, Vikram David, statement.................................... 4
Bernal, Les, statement........................................... 6
Campaign for Fairer Gambling, statement.......................... 10
Campaign for Fairer Gambling Report One, statement............... 19
Campaign for Fairer Gambling Super Bowl 2024, statement.......... 42
Fagan, Michael K., statement..................................... 46
Fiore, Teresa (EPIC), statement.................................. 48
Frank, Eric, statement........................................... 49
Kindt, John, statement........................................... 51
Miller, Bill, (AGA), statement................................... 54
Moms Against Gambling, statement................................. 75
Moms Against Gambling Exhibit A, statement....................... 78
Moms Against Gambling Exhibit B, statement....................... 97
NERA Economic Consulting--prepared for the Campaign for Fairer
Gambling-New Jersey, statement................................ 105
Nower, Lia, statement............................................ 105
Texans Against Gambling, statement............................... 172
[all]