Should betting on sports be legal pdf

Less than half believe online or app-based sports gambling should be legal in their state. Percent who favors allowing online or app-based. (A divide among ways bettors can place legal wagers, between online availability, in-person and online hybrid set-ups, and also in-person only. Gambling on sports should be legal for all sports — fantasy, real, professional and amateur. no. MAUREEN RIEHL. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STUDENT SPORTS. PROTECTION. We expect the primary effect of sports betting would be to shift existing sports betting should betting on sports be legal pdf from illegal to legal markets, and that very little.

Should Betting on Sports Be Legal?

In the world of sports, the debate over the legalization of betting has been a hotly contested topic for many years. Supporters argue that legalizing sports betting can bring significant revenue to both the sports industry and the government. On the other hand, opponents raise concerns about the potential negative impacts that widespread betting could have on the integrity of sports and the well-being of individuals.

The Case for Legalization

Proponents of legal sports betting argue that it can help regulate the industry, reduce illegal gambling activities, and generate substantial tax revenue. Legalization can also provide better protection for consumers by ensuring that betting activities are conducted in a fair and transparent manner. Moreover, with appropriate regulations in place, sports betting can enhance fan engagement and drive more interest in various sports events.

The Anti-Legalization Argument

However, opponents of legalizing sports betting express concerns about the potential risks associated with widespread gambling activities. They argue that an increase in betting could lead to match-fixing scandals, undermine the integrity of sports competitions, and possibly harm the mental health of individuals struggling with gambling addiction. Critics also highlight the importance of protecting the vulnerable segments of society from the potential harms of excessive betting.

Conclusion

As the debate over the legalization of sports betting continues, it is essential to consider both the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a move. Striking a balance between maximizing the economic opportunities associated with legal betting and safeguarding the integrity of sports and the well-being of individuals is crucial. Ultimately, any decision regarding the legalization of sports betting should carefully weigh these factors to ensure a fair and responsible approach towards this contentious issue.

Sports Betting: Surveying the Legality Issues and Current Developments

Should Gambling Be Legalized in India?

As reported earlier, the LCI has suggested that, because the law is flouted so prevalently, sports betting should instead become legalized albeit strictly regulated. The argument in all of these cases is that the law needs to work by public consent—if governments frame laws that are flouted by a significant number of the population, it demonstrates that there is no public consent to those laws.

Effectively policing the laws results in large numbers of people gaining criminal records, with all of the consequential social problems this can lead to the difficulties for those with criminal records to obtain employment or housing, the social and family stigma related to having a criminal record, etc. A second central argument relates to the amount of money involved.

Given an annual spend of the equivalent of tens of billions of US dollars, it naturally follows that, if taxed effectively, the government could make substantial economic gains from the scale of revenue generation. For example, the legal online gaming industry in India legal games such as online poker, online rummy, and fantasy sports has grown multifold with increased digitalization and high internet penetration.

A study suggested that the Indian online gaming industry will be worth USD one billion dollars by And if more areas of gambling or gaming such as sports betting were to become legalized, regulated, and taxed efficiently, this would raise even larger sums of money for both the state and the central governments. Often-cited examples are those of the legally operating casinos in Goa an Indian state attracting tourists and the Kerala another Indian state state lottery providing job opportunities and tax revenue.

It is to be noted here that all lotteries in India are run exclusively by the respective state governments. However, all casinos in India legal only in Goa and Sikkim are privately owned. Both these positions have been considered with respect to gambling. The moral argument is that, although many people want to gamble, it is morally wrong for the government to legalize it, even considering the potential advantages of such legalization, because gambling is potentially both problematic and wasteful for all levels of society from the individual through the family to the societal level.

The public health argument is that, in common with other potentially addictive or problematic behaviors such as drug use , there is a strong relationship between consumption and subsequent problems: the more the people who indulge in a behavior, the greater the likelihood that more of them will develop problems; and for each person who does indulge in that behavior, the more time the person spends for that behavior, the more likely that person is to develop problems.

Thus, the argument goes, if gambling were to be legalized, it follows that more people would gamble, and subsequently, more would become problem gamblers. It also follows that, if more people gamble problematically, this will result in greater gambling-related harm to the individuals, to their families, and to the society.

There is good evidence to corroborate these public health views. For example, studies have shown that increased availability of 20 and easy accessibility to 21 gambling increased the participation in gambling and also the prevalence of problematic gambling. Hence, it is only reasonable to assume that if gambling were to be legalized in India, coupled with high internet penetration and easy access to advanced technology, more people will gamble and more will have gambling problems.

Furthermore, people with problem gambling in both these studies from India demonstrated numerous negative correlates such as greater academic failures, higher substance use, higher psychological distress scores, and higher suicidality, similar to correlates reported from studies among young people in high-income countries.

Problem gambling can lead to severe financial difficulties such as large debts, poverty, and even bankruptcy. Problem gamblers also have significant disruption, conflict, breakdown, and estrangement in relationships. Some of the other negative consequences include the increased reliance on social and health services and disruption of social cohesion.

Furthermore, although one of the key arguments in favor of legalization is that this would remove illegal money and illegal laundering of such money from the country, there is in fact no guarantee that legalizing gambling would have this effect: and indeed, no evidence from any country that has legalized gambling has demonstrated this effect.

Hence, legalizing gambling to stop money laundering, or terrorism possibly funded through money made from illegal gambling, does not seem a logical or theoretically robust argument. It is clear that there is no unequivocal evidence to support either legalization or the status quo. Certainly, legalization could generate large sums of money in tax revenue; but there is a clear argument that, if legalization were to be considered, a lot more would need to be done before introducing such a significant change in policy.

We now briefly consider such measures, which, in our view, need to be thoroughly thought through, prior to India considering legalizing gambling. Should betting on sports be legal pdf First, because India is such large and diverse a country, it would make sense to pilot any such proposed changes in a single or a small number of state s before considering an India-wide policy shift.

Implementing any such gambling policy change in one state would help ensure that gambling and any related harms remain more contained, and hence more feasible for both pre- and post-policy change evaluation to be carried out and for relevant policy-impact research to be conducted. Second, given the major lack of local and relevant evidence-base within India, much more research needs to be done in this field so that any proposed policy shift can utilize Indian evidence as opposed to international research with questionable relevance and applicability to the Indian context.

Third, state-wide strategies on gambling in each state that might seek to implement such a policy change or might seek to become one of the pilot states would need to be formulated and maybe a national one would need to be developed too, in the future , with a body in each state or nationally responsible to formulate, implement, monitor, and regulate those strategies.

Fifth, if gambling were to be legalized in India, it is important to consider whether such gambling would be a monopoly of the government e. This is crucial in determining who takes the lead responsibility to ensure that gambling-related harm is minimized. Finally, legalize or not, India needs to adopt a public health prevention approach to gambling and gambling-related harm, encompassing primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of prevention.

In our view, there is no convincing argument as yet for legalizing gambling in India. Even if India were to contemplate such a policy change, several important and challenging measures need to be put in place first. We conclude that, at this stage, more thought needs to be given to the why question why should gambling be legalized rather than the how question how can it be legalized.

The answer to the why question should be informed by empirical evidence through well-designed ethnographic and epidemiological research across India. Declaration of Conflicting Interests: Professor Sanju George is an advisor to the All India Gaming Federation AIGF , a not-for-profit organization focusing on policy and research among various stakeholders working with the gaming industry.

He has not received any travel or speaker honoraria from AIGF, nor has he accepted any hospitality from AIGF or any representative of the gambling industry. As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Indian J Psychol Med. Published online Jul Find articles by Sanju George. Find articles by Richard Velleman. Find articles by Benedict Weobong.

E-mail: moc. Open in a separate window. The Ways Forward It is clear that there is no unequivocal evidence to support either legalization or the status quo. Conclusion In our view, there is no convincing argument as yet for legalizing gambling in India. References 1. Singh NS. Delhi: Nag Publishers, Mukhia H.

Medieval Indian history and the communal approach. Communalism and the writing of Indian history. New Delhi: Penguin Books, Chatterton E. London: SPCK, Last accessed February18, Hardgrove A. Community as public culture in modern India: The Marwaris in Calcutta, circa — New York: Columbia University Press, The Public Gambling Act , Benegal V.

Gambling experiences, problems and policy in India: A historical analysis. Darren Heitner. Mark D Griffiths. Victor Matheson. Raewyn Graham. Karthik Shiva. Natalie Ralph. Adam Epstein. Melissa Stoneham. Reetam Singh. Nerilee Hing. Linda Hancock. Richard Watson. Garry Smith. Alicia Jessop. Adamu Adamu. How to win at sports betting guaranteed Stephen Louw. Peter Vitartas , Nerilee Hing. Matthew Rockloff.

Marc Randazza. Log in with Facebook Log in with Google. Remember me on this computer. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Need an account. Click here to sign up. Download Free PDF. Ali Qtaishat. Related Papers. Roundtable The Status of Sports Wagering. The prohibition of online sports betting: A comparative analysis of Germany and the United States.

Betting on Elections: History, Law and Policy. Internet and wireless gambling—a current profile. Lopez-Gonzalez, H. Sports betting and problem gambling: What can the United States expect based on other legalized markets. Gaming Law Review, 27, Ali K. He may be reached at dr. He may be reached at ashish. Here, the larger question of legality of sports betting assumes critical significance.

How far the betting exercise is justified under the law. Should betting on sports be legal pdf Can it be eliminated. Should it be legalized. Can the same is subject to legal regulation. Such pressing questions are all dogging the lawmakers and judiciaries around the world. In the light of the above, the present paper will discuss and analyse the sports betting by surveying the legal developments in few prominent jurisdictions like US, UK, Australia and India, etc.

Based on its analysis, the paper will make an attempt to find out the rationalizing factors behind legalization of sports betting. Introduction In the world of sports and games, the results are more often unpredictable; unless and until there is a known big fish which invariably devours the small one.

This was a federal legislation that applied to the whole of the United States of America. One of the biggest proponents of this piece of legislation was Senator Bill Bradley He was concerned by the fact that gambling would injure the integrity of sport by causing fans to question whether a missed shot or a fumble was fixed Both of them felt that Paspa would be a substantial intrusion into the State rights.

It is quite ironic that though the Bill was passed in , it left out four major States, States of Nevada, Oregon, Montana and Delaware. While dismissing the suit, the Court held that, any violation of the Tenth Amendment is for the State to challenge, but since New Jersey was not a part of the law suit, there was no express observation insofar as the violation is concerned.

Therefore an express prohibition on betting in sport is akin to passing a law that puts an end to prohibition. In November , the State of New Jersey advocated for a path-breaking legislation that would allow sports gambling of all kinds excepting sporting events that take place in New Jersey The impact of this legislation on the sports and betting fraternity is immense; it potentially opens up betting on all kinds of sports, for instance one can place a bet at horse tracks throughout New Jersey and casinos in Atlantic city.

This legislation has not gone down too well with the national sporting bodies, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Football League and the National Basketball Association who have chosen to challenge in the Federal Court seeking to injunct New Jersey from implementing sport gambling.

By ruling on this issue, it would give an opportunity to the Federal Court to give its verdict on the constitutional validity of Paspa. The State however chose to test its resolve in the Supreme Court, which is likely to deliver its verdict by It may be pertinent to note that, Kansas, West Virginia, Georgia and Virginia filed amicus briefs in support of the legislation passed by the State of New Jersey The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America with regard to the constitutional validity of Paspa will be tested on three fundamental issues: a whether it is an infringement upon State liberties; b why is that four States alone in the United States of America have been exempted from Paspa, and c whether the legislative piece is in fact effective in curbing gambling in sport.

Here football fans across the United States of America place high stakes or wager on the Super Bowl annual events. Betting on the Super Bowl is an all American pastime. The question that has time and again been raised is whether Paspa has been able to curb the betting in sport.

With modern day technological advancement Paspa is an outdated law and much has changed since In fact in America every State has casino, where one can find betting to be common amongst the American public and well within the comfort zone of its citizens; courtesy the Internet.

UK It was the year of that the British Parliament enacted a piece of legislation that changed the betting landscape in the Great Britain. The Gambling Act of , came into force with the specific objective to prevent gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime, ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way and protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being exploited by gambling.

Therefore the objectives are clear, the mandate is to ensure gambling exist within restrictive boundaries. This is a path-breaking legislation that allows its citizens to place bets in sport, gamble in a legal manner, subject to safeguards that come with the act. The section further goes to quantify that one need not bet on an event that is happening, but you can wage a bet on events that have already occurred or has been completed and one party to the transaction already knows the outcome.

Though the legislation advocates for betting of all forms in sports with legal boundaries, it regulates the industry through what is known as the Gambling Commission Its role is to regulate commercial gambling within the territory of the Great Britain in partnership with the local authorities and the national sporting bodies.

The Gambling Commission continues to look for better and innovative ways to improve betting in sport. There have been calls from various sporting bodies asking the Gambling Commission to regulate the types of bets that can be made in a sporting event, because as things stand the Gambling Act, does not prescribe a specific type of bet that a punter36 can make in sport nor does it provide the punter with reasonable restrictions.

Sporting bodies have suggested to the Gambling Commission that allowing to place such bets increase the opportunity for corruption within the sport. The Commission has however chosen to remain silent and has called for strong evidence-based justification system to place such restrictions on trade practices The Commission has based its reasoning on robust foundational principles; sports shall have no control over the evolution of global gambling, increasing availability of gambling most notably online is not something that can be restricted even in the remotest possible manner and licensed gambling operators are financially sensitive, so if they feel that their position is being vulnerable on a particular bet they may withdraw that bet altogether.

The Act of , has laid strong and robust foundation to legalize an act that many mature economies and developing economies fight shy off. It will not be an exaggeration to say that English experiment with sports betting legislation has been by and large successful. Their legislation allows betting in sport only prior to the start of a sporting event through an overseas operator.

The Act however does not prohibit an overseas operator from providing an opportunity to an Australian citizen to engage in an online gaming activity other than sport. Sports betting through licensed operators is legal, provided that the betting occurs prior to the start of the event. It is very interesting to study the way the Australian Legislature and the framers of the Act have evolved since its inception.

Evolution is the hallmark of a great legal system. In the Interim Report Review of the impact of the Interactive Gambling Act of ,39 the Committee has recommended that the Act lift the ban existing on online gaming websites, the reason being that the ban on website has not simply served its purpose. In fact the estimated loss to Australian citizens by engaging in the activity of online gaming is at AUS 1 billion Dollar The Committee has recommended that online gaming sites that are currently prohibited as well as sites that are currently licensed that prevent Australians from accessing their online poker tournaments be licensed in Australia, on the condition that they restrict their service to low-risk games and adopt the harm minimization and consumer protection measures as part of the national standard.

This recommendation is a great departure from the existing law, primarily as it becomes impossible to curb gambling using a remote communication device. The primary objective of this limitation as envisaged by the framers of the Act was to reduce the risk of professional gamblers, particularly where this form has the characteristics of the highest risk form of gambling.

This aspect of betting is carried during the course of a game or a match. This essentially would mean that in sport there is what is called live in play betting, that would mean one could place bets every second and every minute. This potentially can change as the game evolves. So the Australian legislature thought it fit to allow this form of betting only through telephone and not via the internet forum.

This new suggestion would allow simple bet types such as which team will win the match but continuing to restrict live in-play betting on micro events or discrete contingencies within an event. What the Committee does however recommend is that there must be a complete ban insofar as micro betting is concerned which is again different from the system adopted by the Great Britain.

The Australian laws have shown the tenacity to change with times, proactively shown immense maturity in dealing with betting in the sporting industry. INDIA Having travelled across the globe and ruminating how the various legal systems work, it gives us the opportunity to explore whether India finds a place amongst the global sporting elite.

It is obvious that India does not have a legislation like Paspa or the Gambling Act of or even the Interactive Gambling Act of , on the contrary what India possesses is an archaic legislation called the Public Gambling Act of , Which constantly reminds us of the fact that the legal system is yet to breakaway from its colonial shackles.

In terms of legal jurisprudence the law that exists in India as on this day40 is straightforward. Betting in any form of sport is banned and is illegal with the sole exception of horse racing. To arrive at such a conclusion the Supreme ruminated on the decisions in R. Chamarbaugwalla v.

Union of India42 and State of A. Lakshmanan case44 were fourfold: 1 What is gambling. Echoing the sentiments of Lord Hewer, C. This sentiment is perhaps very important. All that a sporting competition needs to show is that; its participants possess and showcase a wee bit of skill for the sport and not to attract the wrath of the country's gambling law.

Against the backdrop of the two R. Chamarbaugwalla 47 and Satyanarayana 48 cases the Supreme Court in K. Lakshmanari v. State of TN. For the purposes of this definition, wagering or betting shall be deemed to comprise the collection or soliciting of bets, the receipt of distribution of winning prizes, in money or otherwise, in respect of any wager or any act intended to aid or facilitate wagering or betting or such collection or distribution.

Prior to the verdict of the Supreme Court in , it would be pertinent to know the Madras High Court held50 that horse racing is a game of chance and was gambling in nature. The reasoning advanced by the High Court of Madras is perhaps the best logical analysis on this issue. The High Court took the view that even though skill is involved in the process, it is not the skill of the horse but that of the punter and based on such skill, the punter cannot say with any certainty that his horse without fail will emerge victorious.

It showcases that there is an element of preponderant chance in the scenario based on which the High Court delivered its verdict. The High Court went on to hold, horse racing is a competition on speed which will depend on a variety of changing and uncertain factors, which with the best knowledge and skill of the better cannot be reduced to a certainty, though of course such knowledge and skill the probability of success of a particular horse may be approximated.

The High Court finally concluded that betting on horses does involve an element of gambling. As against the order passed by the High Court, the Madras Race Club preferred an SLP before the Supreme Court and in an attempt to lay down the law on this contentious issue, thought it fit to rely on precedents in R. Chamarbaugwalla and Satyanarayana51 cases to determine whether horse racing, would constitute a game of skill for the purposes of Section 49 of the Police Act and Section 11 of the Gaming Act.

In this case, they held Rummy53 , to be a game of skill much to the disappointment of its cousins—Poker