[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 141 (Thursday, August 23, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5907-S5908]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             SPORTS BETTING

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to begin on the topic of sports 
betting.
  In May, the Supreme Court cleared the way for any State to legalize 
sports betting, which had been prohibited in all but a handful of 
States since 1992.
  I would like to say upfront, I am not a fan of sports betting. I have 
grave concerns about gambling in general and sports betting in 
particular. There is no question that sports betting, like other types 
of gambling and addictive behavior, has ruined far too many lives. Add 
to those deleterious social effects the threat sports betting poses to 
the integrity of the game, and we can see why the prohibition on sports 
wagering in the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act passed 
the Senate 88 to 5. I authored this legislation--and fought tooth and 
nail to get it passed--because I knew that without it, sports gambling 
would corrupt the integrity of the game.
  Despite these views, I am also a realist. With the nearly $5 billion 
annually in legal sports wagers in Nevada, plus an estimated $150 
billion a year in illegal sports wagers in the United States, we can't 
put the genie back in the bottle. Prohibition is not a possibility or a 
prudent path forward.
  Instead, now that States are free to legalize sports betting, our 
goal should be to bring that illegal wagering activity into well-
regulated, legal markets that can better protect consumers and the 
integrity of sports. As I wrote in Sports Illustrated earlier this 
year, ``Sports Betting is Inevitable--Let's Make Sure It's Done 
Right.''
  To do it right, we need to ensure that State regulatory frameworks 
are not a race to the bottom. I firmly believe we need a set of 
fundamental Federal standards that will protect the integrity of the 
game, that will protect consumers and the sports wagering market.
  Since the Supreme Court decision in May, sports betting has been 
conspicuously absent from the public dialogue on Capitol Hill. A 
hearing on the issue was scheduled by the House Judiciary Committee but 
then postponed, and I hope it will be rescheduled so Congress can 
explore what a post-PASPA world would look like.
  Sports betting implicates a whole host of complex issues, and I have 
been diving into those issues as I work toward draft legislation that 
will establish some much needed guardrails to protect the integrity of 
the game. I am grateful for all the guidance and insight many 
stakeholders have provided, and I invite others who are interested to 
do the same.
  Let me pause for a moment to discuss integrity--a word frequently 
used in the sports betting debate but often left undefined. In the 
context of sports, integrity is used to describe events that are 
recognized as honest and genuine competition. There is a reason 
predetermined outcomes in professional wrestling attract a small 
fraction of the following enjoyed by baseball, football, basketball, 
and other sports. The integrity of sport--the sense that the game is a 
real competition free from outside influence--is what attracts fans and 
keeps them coming back.
  Integrity can be compromised in various ways. Take, for example, the 
doping scandals in cycling that took down Lance Armstrong and led fans 
to question whether races were won by the best athlete or the rider on 
the best drug regimen, but there is no greater threat to sports 
integrity than match fixing. There is no question a big payoff in the 
sports betting market is the leading reason criminals and cheaters get 
involved with match fixing.
  This relationship between sports integrity and sports betting, 
including match fixing, cannot be ignored. In the world of gambling, 
sports betting is a unique product with unique risks. When a casino 
patron pulls the handle on a slot machine or rolls the dice at a crap 
table, money may change hands, but there is little connection to the 
outside world. When a patron places a sports bet, however, there is the 
potential--and in far too many cases it has been the reality--that the 
sports wagering market is being used to profit off match fixing. There 
is a connection, and not always a positive one, between the bets placed 
in a casino and the outcome on the field.
  The integrity concerns related to sports wagering are nothing new. 
For years, billions of dollars in bets have been placed on sports each 
year, presenting these very concerns, but the offshore books where the 
vast majority of these wagers have been placed are under no obligation 
to take steps to mitigate the threats to integrity. As States move to 
legalize sports betting and bring that offshore activity into the 
regulated market, they should be taking reasonable steps to protect the 
integrity of sports and the marketplace. We can, and should, expect 
more from the legal operators than those in the illicit market, and 
those legal operators are quickly getting in the game. It would be a 
mistake to think that seeming disinterest in the issue at the Federal 
level has carried over to the States. States, understandably so, seek 
legalized sports betting as a way to bring in much needed tax revenue. 
It is amazing how quickly things get done when money is a motivator.
  At the beginning of May, full-scale sports betting was available only 
in Nevada. Today you can also place sports wagers in Delaware, New 
Jersey, and Mississippi. Sports betting in West Virginia will 
officially launch on September 1. Pennsylvania and Rhode Island may 
have sports betting by the end of the year, and more than a dozen other 
States have taken steps to move toward legalization. All of this is 
progress in just the past 3 months.
  Watching this flurry of activity in the States has only underscored 
for me the need for some consistent, minimum standards to protect the 
integrity of sports and the sports wagering market.
  Let's look at a specific example. Who should be allowed to place a 
sports wager? Imagine if players or referees were able to place wagers 
on games in which they were participating. They certainly have the 
ability to influence the outcome, and if players or referees were 
betting on the game, there could be reason to question their actions on 
the field. How could fans have faith that the outcome is the result of 
honest competition and not an intentional effort to get the biggest 
payout?
  I suspect there is a fairly broad consensus that certain categories 
of folks should not be able to place bets on certain events. For 
instance, players should not be allowed to place bets, and certainly 
not referees. But the

[[Page S5908]]

West Virginia sports-betting regulations approved in June don't say 
that. In fact, they leave it to each sports book to decide whose 
participation in sports betting might undermine the integrity of a 
sports event.
  It is odd that this decision would be left to the sports books, such 
that an individual may be prohibited from placing the bet at one sports 
book in the State but would be permitted to do so at another. The 
decision to leave this integrity decision to the sports books is even 
more concerning when you consider the potential conflict in the duties 
and motivation of the sports books.
  Operators certainly want to protect integrity so that they are not 
accepting wagers on fixed games, but the West Virginia sports-betting 
law also requires sports book operators to ``assist the commission in 
maximizing sports wagering revenues.'' How many folks will they really 
be turning away to protect the integrity of the game if they are also 
under a statutory mandate to maximize the amount of money coming in the 
door?
  Other States have been more specific on this point but still leave 
open questions. Mississippi prohibits only coaches or participants from 
betting on a particular event. What is a participant? Does it include 
referees? Maybe they are a participant because they are on the field. 
But what about an athletic trainer or league executives? While 
Mississippi law does not answer that question, New Jersey put in place 
robust laws that specifically prohibit athletic trainers and members of 
a sport's governing body from placing wagers.
  There is nothing wrong with there being differences among the States. 
That is the beauty of our Federal system. But it does seem that when it 
comes to protecting the integrity of the game and sports-betting 
market, there should be some consensus--at least some minimum 
standards--about who can place a wager. If States are allowed to fall 
behind, those looking to illegally profit off sports betting will 
simply migrate to where there are the fewest restrictions.
  Protecting the integrity of sports from the dark side of sports 
betting is not a theoretical exercise. We are all familiar with the 
fixing of the 1919 World Series, Pete Rose's expulsion from baseball, 
and points shaving at Boston college. More recently, NBA referee Tim 
Donaghy both bet on games that he officiated and passed along tips to 
bookies. The qualifying match for this year's World Cup had to be 
replayed after the referee was found to have fixed the match. Just last 
month, there were signs of possible match fixing in a men's doubles 
match at Wimbledon.
  As States move to legalize sports wagering, we must seize the 
opportunity to put in place world-class measures to protect the 
integrity of our sporting events and the sports-betting market. To that 
end, an important part of the legislation I will be proposing is 
improvements to monitoring and enforcement that will benefit all of the 
stakeholders--sports books, regulators, governing bodies, and 
consumers.
  These are complex issues, but I am happy to announce that much 
progress is being made. I look forward to continuing engagement with 
stakeholders and in the coming weeks releasing a legislative proposal 
to kick-start the much needed sports-betting discussion on Capitol 
Hill.

                          ____________________