In 2018, the Supreme Court repealed a 26-year federal ban on sports betting. This ruling unleashed the biggest gambling boom in America’s 249-year history. How did that happen?
Great write up but the conclusion comes across as wrong. Ultimately this was legalized not because of 4 clever guys who worked the system against all expectations but PRIMARILY because millions of Americans already loved to bet (fantasy leagues) and those 4 guys capitalized on the wave already moving in the population.
Totally fair. New Jersey specifically had a ton of illegal sports betting, which made Christie take up the case.
I think the demand for betting could be applied to a lot of areas outside of sports. For example, there’s good demand for casinos around the country. But they’re usually constrained by supply, i.e. the law and technology / access.
Not just today, but at the late stages of many empires (Rome, Dutch empire, British empire), the demand for gambling has been high. But the supply has been constrained by strict laws against gambling. I wrote a post on Ancient Rome, curious about your thoughts. Most adult men in Rome gambled, but it was illegal so heavily restricted access. https://shreyashariharan.substack.com/p/financial-speculation-in-ancient
1. The Supreme Court repealed PASPA (ban on sports betting) only because they claimed it violated the constitution. They didn’t care about public appetite for sports betting, even if it was real.
2. It wasn’t inevitable. New Jersey lost repeatedly from 2012-16, and the Supreme Court refused to hear NJ’s case. The turning point came with a clever maneuver: Christie passed a revised sports betting law in New Jersey, with the specific intention making the constitutional question easier for Ted Olson to argue in court. It was Christie and Olson’s maneuvers that made that challenge possible in 2017.
So, if New Jersey lost the case at the Supreme Court, the only way to repeal PASPA is via Congress, which would’ve been a monumental task since all the sports leagues and many lawmakers were against sports betting.
I see. These are all great points. I’m sure the political momentum to get it through Congress would had been tough but the conclusion didn’t give credit that without large numbers of Americans behavior demonstrating some appetite, it would’ve been much harder to:
- convince the male dominated states their constituents care about this
- to get the governor to care if his acquiescence hadn’t been caught
Like you had to have the power keg there first in order to light the fire, you know what I mean? This is acknowledged early in your essay but not given the same credence by the end.
I’m highly skeptical this whole thing would’ve turned out a success story if 97% of the US population hated fantasy football with a deep holy passion. The general consensus did play a non-trivial role it would seem. What do you think?
Great write up but the conclusion comes across as wrong. Ultimately this was legalized not because of 4 clever guys who worked the system against all expectations but PRIMARILY because millions of Americans already loved to bet (fantasy leagues) and those 4 guys capitalized on the wave already moving in the population.
Totally fair. New Jersey specifically had a ton of illegal sports betting, which made Christie take up the case.
I think the demand for betting could be applied to a lot of areas outside of sports. For example, there’s good demand for casinos around the country. But they’re usually constrained by supply, i.e. the law and technology / access.
Not just today, but at the late stages of many empires (Rome, Dutch empire, British empire), the demand for gambling has been high. But the supply has been constrained by strict laws against gambling. I wrote a post on Ancient Rome, curious about your thoughts. Most adult men in Rome gambled, but it was illegal so heavily restricted access. https://shreyashariharan.substack.com/p/financial-speculation-in-ancient
Thank you!
I disagree:
1. The Supreme Court repealed PASPA (ban on sports betting) only because they claimed it violated the constitution. They didn’t care about public appetite for sports betting, even if it was real.
2. It wasn’t inevitable. New Jersey lost repeatedly from 2012-16, and the Supreme Court refused to hear NJ’s case. The turning point came with a clever maneuver: Christie passed a revised sports betting law in New Jersey, with the specific intention making the constitutional question easier for Ted Olson to argue in court. It was Christie and Olson’s maneuvers that made that challenge possible in 2017.
So, if New Jersey lost the case at the Supreme Court, the only way to repeal PASPA is via Congress, which would’ve been a monumental task since all the sports leagues and many lawmakers were against sports betting.
I see. These are all great points. I’m sure the political momentum to get it through Congress would had been tough but the conclusion didn’t give credit that without large numbers of Americans behavior demonstrating some appetite, it would’ve been much harder to:
- convince the male dominated states their constituents care about this
- to get the governor to care if his acquiescence hadn’t been caught
Like you had to have the power keg there first in order to light the fire, you know what I mean? This is acknowledged early in your essay but not given the same credence by the end.
I’m highly skeptical this whole thing would’ve turned out a success story if 97% of the US population hated fantasy football with a deep holy passion. The general consensus did play a non-trivial role it would seem. What do you think?
🧐