Sports betting has become commonplace around the world with many countries not criminalizing, but instead, regulating it. In the United States, betting schemes are illegal except in the states of Montana, Nevada, Delaware and Oregon. Over the recent years, various states have begun agitating for the legalization of sports betting. States like New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and New York have introduced legislations that attempt to legalize sports betting in contravention to the federal government's, Professional and Amateur Sports Prevention Act (PASPA) which prohibits which has provisions which prohibit wagering in single game sports in all states in America except Nevada (Gouker, 2017).
Michigan has recently re- introduced a Bill that was once introduced in the state but did not gain a lot of traction. The Sports Betting Bill – HB 4060 – was introduced by Michigan Rep. Robert Kosowski which seeks to amend Michigan's state codes in order to allow for sports betting. The Bill is to be taken through and approved by two referenda: one in the cities and townships where the betting would take place and a statewide vote. Section 9E. (1) and (2) of the proposed Bill would allow casino license holders to accept wagers on sporting events and the board would have the mandate to enact rules for the regulation of sports betting under the Act (Wallach, 2017).
The push for the legalization of sports betting was, for some time, largely borne by the state of New Jersey which is currently appealing its case to the US Supreme Court to have sports betting legal within its borders. If the case is ruled in New Jersey's favor, then other states could use it as legal precedent to legalize sports betting within their borders. PASPA, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and other major professional sports leagues have put up a spirited campaign to block New Jersey's attempts at legalizing sports betting. The progress with New Jersey's appeal had been bleak until this year when the Supreme Court asked for the submission of a brief on the White House's legal view on the matter.
The Michigan Sports Betting Bill, if put through a referendum and is approved by the electorate, it would in effect challenge the federal legislation, Professional, and Amateur Sports Prevention Act (PASPA). If the various American sports organizations unsuccessfully challenge the passing of the Sports Betting Bill, then other states could follow suit and legalize sports betting through a referendum. Also, the issue of sports betting if successful would greatly expand the gaming and wagering industries which would help casinos stay in business but would lead to the 'gamblization' of sports (Purdum and Rodenberg, 2016).
The controversy around the whole issue could have been avoided if the Supreme Court would have intervened much earlier and provide a solution to the contentious issue before state considered referendums and appeals. The PASPA law makes it illegal to gamble, but various states have outlined the benefits of the industry which greatly outweigh any negative effects. The Supreme Court is an interpreter of laws and not a policy making body. However, its practice over the years has led to many policy- making functions, especially on contentious issues. Hence, the Supreme Court can be able to decide on this controversial issue and decide whether to legalize gambling or enforce the PASPA law (Dahl, 1957).
Since the various events and legal steps surrounding the Sports Betting Bill have already been set in motion, the solution would be to allow them to play out and wait for either the Supreme Courts decision on the New Jersey Appeal or the legislatures resolve and results of the referenda in Michigan. The legal options and channels that could have been followed have been duly followed and only the results are left. If both are unsuccessful, the Gaming Association could continue with its efforts to lobby Congress into legalizing sports betting.
Laws are quite progressive and the circumstances under which they were enacted change often. In future, Congress should be urged to keep up with the times and legislate laws that are progressive and that keep up with the technological advances. State legislative bodies can also be lobbied to enact progressive laws.
References
Dahl, R.A. (1957). Decision- Making in a Democracy. The Supreme Court as a National Policymaker, 6 J. Pub. L. 279.
Gouker, D. (2017). Michigan lawmaker eyes another push for legal sports betting with Bill. Legal Sports Report. Retreived on January 27, 2017, from http://www.legalsportsreport.com/12725/michigan-sports-betting-bill/
Purdum, D., and Rodenberg, R. (2016). Future of sports betting: The pitfalls. ESPN. Retrieved on January 27, 2017, from http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/17910253/the-future-sports- betting-go-wrong-sports-betting-was-legal-united-states
Wallach, D. (2017). Michigan Introduces Sports Betting Bill; Third State This Year. Sports Law Blog. Retrieved on January 27, 2017 from http://sports- law.blogspot.co.ke/2017/01/michigan-introduces-sports-betting-bill.html
