At a press conference on Capitol Hill Tuesday (11 March), representative Paul Tonko and senator Richard Blumenthal gathered responsible and problem gambling advocates and an addiction survivor to talk about the Supporting Affordability & Fairness with Every Bet Act (SAFE Bet Act).
Tonko said there was a change to the original proposal, though the new bill has not yet been filed. In addition to previous requirements in the proposal, which saw no action in the prior congressional session, states would now be required to “work with the federal government to shut down the illegal market”.
This is an issue that states so far have taken the lead on. From Arizona to Michigan, regulators have sent cease-and-desist letters to offshore sportsbooks warning them to shutter. And state legislatures, including those in Mississippi and Maryland, have been entertaining bills to ban unregulated sweepstakes platforms.
Every step of the way, the industry has asked for federal support in shutting down the illegal market.
Spotlight on gambling-related harm
Tonko and Blumenthal said they sought to reinvigorate the conversation about their proposal on “the eve of March Madness”, the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. That begins with Selection Sunday 16 March and culminates with the national championship 7 April.
“In exactly one week, Americans will be placing bets and likely losing those bets made on their favorite teams,” Tonko said. “We are not here because we want to stop the industry from breaking [revenue] records, nor are we here to prevent Americans from wagering on sports should they choose to.
“We’re here today because government, at every level, has failed to pay attention to or understand the impact of gambling-related harms.”
Tonko said the legal sports betting industry earned a record $14 billion (£10.9 billion/€12.9 billion) in 2024, a 25% increase over 2023. He went on to say that the industry “labels that record number as ‘revenue’, a number to be celebrated … but the reality is that $14 billion in revenue is $14 billion extracted from the pockets of everyday Americans. Most of that revenue is made off the suffering of a disproportionately small number of gamblers.”
Blumenthal called legal sports betting “the science of exploitation”. He noted the SAFE Bet Act would limit what kind of markets could be available to bettors. The crux of the SAFE Bet Act, he said, is to slow down the process when it comes to wagering. Ultimately, that would likely mean eliminating in-play betting and college proposition bets.
Sports are now ‘nonstop slot machines’
In-play betting is the fastest-growing sector of online sports betting. In layman’s terms, in-play betting allows wagers on what comes next without waiting for a game’s outcome. Examples would be predicting the next play in a football game or the speed of the next pitch in a baseball game. Digital platforms small and large continue to develop new ways to make the process faster and more seamless for bettors.
As the industry continues to refine its products, the politicians and their supporters Tuesday were lamenting an era past.
“Sports once belonged to the American people, to be shared by grandparents, parents and children,” said problem and responsible gambling advocate Harry Levant. “But those days are gone. The sports leagues have sold out to the gambling industry. Sports are now the equivalent of a nonstop slot machine where the action never ends.”
The SAFE Bet Act is billed as a responsible and problem gambling proposal. Among many facets, it sets advertising guidelines in terms of language and when gambling ads could be run on broadcast television. It also calls for a national self-exclusion list and affordability checks.
The fact sheet calls for a surgeon general’s report about “public health challenges associated with sports betting”. It would also allow the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to gather data “on the incidence and outcomes of sports betting nationwide”.
Bye, bye VIP programs?
In addition, the legislation would restrict the use of artificial intelligence for the purpose of targeting bettors. It would call for the elimination of VIP programs and limit how operators can draw in consumers. Levant likened promotions offered by companies to “a neighborhood drug dealer rewarding their best customers to make certain they never stop wanting or needing more action.”
The Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University School of Law studies how to “protect customers from products designed to generate large corporate profits largely by addicting their customers.” Executive director Mark Gottlieb said legal sports gambling products fit the bill.
“The key to making sports gambling safer is to slow it down,” Gottlieb said. “We make our roads safer with guardrails and with speed limits. Without these, constant injuries and deaths on our roads would not only be a grim feature of our society but could contribute to losses in productivity, higher health care costs and devastation to families and communities.”
‘National prohibition’ on wagering included
But the proposal goes well beyond problem and responsible gambling guardrails. It would also put legal sports betting back under the federal purview.
In 2018, the US Supreme Court overturned the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), giving states the authority to decide if they wanted to legalize the wagering. The SAFE Bet Act would effectively give that power back to federal government. States offering sports wagering, or wanting to begin doing so, would be required to submit an application to the US attorney general.
The proposal directly calls for a “national prohibition” on digital sports betting.
Since PASPA was overturned, 39 US states have legalised sports betting and 38 offer some sort of live wagering. Missouri, the only new state to legalise since 2023, is set to launch by 1 December.
When the SAFE Bet Act was formally introduced last September, it was met with criticism from many quarters. Operators, consultants and a number of problem and responsible gambling advocates all took issue with the scope of the proposal. Still others contend the act would be unconstitutional.
