Latest / The Favorites Sports Betting Podcast / The Buffet with Chad and Scooch, Episode 31 - Breaking News With Ryan Rodenberg

Transcript

The Buffet with Chad and Scooch, Episode 31 - Breaking News With Ryan Rodenberg · The Favorites Sports Betting Podcast

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: Coming to you from fabulous Las Vegas. The right side
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: is the winning side. The late move is the correct move.
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Sports betting capital of the world. We all know when
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: a sharp like me weighs in the lines move, it's
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: a party for your ears. This is the Buffet with
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: Chad and Scooch. I want to buy that guy at buffet.
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: Hello when welcome to a very special emergency news breaking
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: that the edition of the Buffet with Chad, Scooch and
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: a little bit. Ryan Rodenberg, who is a legal expert,
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: a sports law professor at for the State University, who
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: has been covering the efforts for the state of New
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: Jersey to legalized sports betting through its entire case history
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: going back I think six years now. Um, because today
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court ruled in favor of New Jersey and
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: that it can allow sports betting in the state. And
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: not only can the State of New Jersey allow it,
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: but all states that would like to enact laws can
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: allow it. And it has thrown the industry into a
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: bit of upheaval today even though many people expected this
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: to be the outcome. First is going to be from
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: Las Vegas representing board gaming and your Leans bookmaker extraordinary,
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: Bob Scucci. That's what's going on. Man. This is an
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: exciting day. This is a massive day. So like just
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: to to completely make it clear to for people, Like
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: many years ago, New Jersey lawsuit claiming that past but
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: the Professional Amateur Sports Protection Act was a violation of
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: states rights, meaning that it was illegal and it did
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: not allow New Jersey to your size its interests in
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: order to raise money and do what it was allowed
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: to do as a state that it saw its citizens
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: best interests. Uh. New Jersey lost this case at multiple
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: levels of the judicial process. UH, in the appellate court,
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: in federal court, and it went all the way up
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court. At the Supreme Court decided last
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: summer it was to hear the case. Heard the case
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: in December, and UH many of us have been at
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: pins needles the past several months waiting for the court
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: to rule. They ruled today in the seven to two decision,
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: they ruled in favor of New Jersey, which can now
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: allow sports betting. Scoot, You're from New Jersey, you live
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: in Las Vegas. You and I have talked about this
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: many many times. UM, give me your first reacts. It's
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: it's nine out there in Vegas. It's been legal hours
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: and fifteen minutes. Have you guys been talking about it?
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: What is your thought on this right now? Well, the
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: first feeling is just a feeling of excitement and uh
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: noing that we've been looking at this possibility for decades now,
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: just wondering what what the possibilities are. The upside of
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: it is kind of the unknown right now, and that's
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: what makes it so exciting, is uh, you know, this
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: was the first step. So so there's that kind of
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: uh feeling that uh, you know, there's all kinds of
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: possibilities now. And uh, I would imagine New Jersey. Uh
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: maybe the first one because they've already been in place Delaware,
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: But now I think that all the states can just
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: kind of follow the same path that New Jersey did,
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: and it maybe it may be like dominoes where each state, uh,
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: one by one starts to put in some form of
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: legal sports betting. So again, just uh, it's so new
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: and fresh right now that the only feeling I have
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: is just the excitement of it. But I think the
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: the upside and the potential uh could be pretty big.
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: Does anything like this look you have a very specific
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: point of view on this. Uh, You've been in Vegas forever,
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: You're a bookmaker, a huge public corporation, You've got a
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: lot of responsibilities. Does it worry you? No, I don't
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: think it worries me at all because I look at
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: it the same way that I've looked at gambling in general.
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: Like like you said, I've been in Vegas for many years,
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: and I remember when other states started passing legislation to
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: allow some form of gambling in their state, and the
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: question would always be, you know, this is going to
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: take business away from Las Vegas, and it never did,
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: If anything, we just saw the numbers keep rising. So
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: I think what it what it does is it just
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: creates a whole new cross segment of betters. I think
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: once you start seeing legislation in other states that allows
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: for sports betting, it will create new sports betters and
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: then eventually they'll come out to Vegas and they'll make
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: sports bets now where they didn't make sports bets before.
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: So I don't think it worries me. I I think
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: it just creates uh more more betters in general, and
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: I think we're going to see a rise in in
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: sports betting. You know, it's interesting. I believe many many
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: years ago, I was out in Vegas working on a
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: story for East sixty back when I was at ESPN
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: about Delaware trying to legalize sports betting, and you had
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: one of the greatest lines about what this would mean
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: for Vegas if sports betting became legal on a state
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: by state basis or nationwide. Do you remember what you
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: said to me? I do, Yeah, it was in some form.
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: It was like opening up a carnival at a local
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: uh city, like with Ferris wheels and lots of rides.
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: And I compared it to Disneyland. Is it going to
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: take business away from Disneyland? And I said that all
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: all you're doing by opening up these smaller amusement parks
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: is exposing to people to these rides to where they're
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: gonna say, hey, I really enjoy this, and now I
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: want to go to Disneyland. Yeah, at a cent and
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: the It's a great analogy or metaphor. It's one of
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: those things. And UM, I also thought that was really interesting.
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: You compared it to poker. Uh. Explain a little bit
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: about Poker's rise and some of the comparisons or potential
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: sort of parallels we can see between what happened with
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: poker and what could happen with sports betting. Well, I mean,
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: obviously poker had that big boom, uh when a lot
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: of a lot of casinos were kind of downsizing poker rooms,
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: and then poker saw that that giant boom, and I
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: think you started seeing all the states kind of fall
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: in line where everyone wanted to participate in the big
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: poker boom. And then of course technology allowed for that
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: as well, with between online and mobile in different ways
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: to uh to participate. So I think we're seeing the
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: same thing with with sports as well as you know,
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: can it be a lot more than just a sports book, uh,
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: you know, a bricks and mortar establishment, Can it be online?
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: Can it mobile? I think these are all things that
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: are going to be addressed as each state tries to
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: adopt their legislation, uh to to kind of get in
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: on the game on this. How does this change your
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: job today? And how does this change your job in
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: six months? And how does this change your job in
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: a year? Those are real good questions and I'm not
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: sure myself. Um, obviously, with so many years of Nevada
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: being the only legal jurisdiction that has sports betting. I
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: think that a lot of states are gonna kind of
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: rely on the experts in Nevada, whether it be for legislation,
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: or whether it be for operations, or for for counsel
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: or for just even just as a consultant. So I
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: think there's going to be a big demand for a
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: lot of the people out here in Nevada. So from
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: that perspective, I mean, uh, you know, there may be
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: a lot of people scrambling right now. You know, that's
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: gonna be a big challenge if if other states do
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: suddenly adopt some form of sports betting similar to Las Vegas.
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: Is that you're not going to have a pool of um,
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: experienced individuals that already you know, uh, that can kind
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: of just jump in. There's gonna have to be a
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: big training session across the country because there's just not
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: that big of a pool of experienced people. So so
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: that may be a challenge. Well, you know, we uh,
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: we've talked about this often, and um, we actually have
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: to bounce off because I've got Ryan Rodenberg, who's been
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: covering this forever for us UM calling it a couple
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: of minutes. But we have talked about how this is
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: a chance to widen the talent pool. And you've been
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: looking for fresh ways to examine industry in Nevada for
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: a long time, and this is probably the way to
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: do it. Yeah, I mean, it very well could be.
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: I mean I've always felt bad for the people that
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: wanted to get into this business that there's just such
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: a limited amount of places that they can kind of,
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: you know, cut their teeth on. So, uh, this could
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: be a big opportunity for a lot of those talented
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: individuals that are kind of been in the business for
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: a lot of years waiting for that opportunity to kind
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: of move up the ladder. Uh, this could be. This
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: could be a big moment for them as well, and
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: I think you will see that talent expand pretty quickly. Alright,
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: scooge Listen, we are very seamless here at the buffet.
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: And so while you were talking, Ryan Rodenberg are sports
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: legal expert law professor at Florida State University. He had
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: a story up about the Supreme Court's decision to legalize
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: sports betting in New Jersey on Action Network dot Com
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: very inclusive after the decision was rendered this morning, Scoot,
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: you are free to go. Ryan Rodenberg, you are on
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: the buffet. Wow, unpack this for me. There's a lot
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: to unpack. Chat over the course of forty nine pages.
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: The Supreme Court and what effectively is a seven and
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: two vote, and we can get into the interfacies later. Effectively,
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: they have declared past the federal sports betting ban unconstitutional.
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: In total, there is no portion of this band that
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: is left standing. The two justices and perhaps three who
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: disagree with the overall conclusions think there's some tiny slivers
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: of the federal band that could continue. But this is
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: a very definitive move by the Supreme Court that individual
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: states should have the right if they elect to, to regulate, tax,
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: and legalize sports betting. Certainly, it leaves the door open
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: for states that aren't interested in doing that. And then
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: perhaps one of the most important sentences, sentences that will
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: be hearing about down the road. The Supreme Court also
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: said that that that Congress could address sports betting, that
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: if Congress is going to do so, they have to
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: regulate it directly. They can't authorize sports excuse me, not
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: allow states to regulate sports betting as some sort of
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: order or edict. They have to do it directly. So
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: it's still in play at the state level. Of course
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: that in addition, Congress could also step in if they
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: want to down their own all. Right, So you just
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: said something that I think it is difficult for people
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: to comprehend if they have been paying attention to this
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: case closely, which was everyone assumed there would be three
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: ways in which the Court can rule complete repeal of
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: PASPA um New Jersey. That would be number one. New
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: Jersey would get it but pass but would remain, or
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: the Court would completely just decide that pass but could
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: remain in New Jersey doesn't get it. What you're saying
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: is that the Court has essentially said PASPA is unconstitutional
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: in its entirety? What does that mean for every state? Exactly?
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: In no way that the Supreme Court kick passed this
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: can down the road here. They could have kind of
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: delayed an ultimate decision for a later day and allowed
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: New Jersey to have this very narrow victory for their
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: partial repeal. That's not what happened in terms of the
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: figure of speech. In terms of breaking open the dam
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: or the floodgates that are now open, those are all true.
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: Individual states. Yes, they want to can certainly follow the
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: blueprint that either New Jersey did, or they can follow
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: the very first thing. In Jersey didn't have a full
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: blown regulatory uh system put in place much like Nevada
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: or what New Jersey try to do in the first
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: version of this case. They could do either, so they
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: don't even necessarily just have to have this kind of
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: odd partial repeal that New Jersey did to try to
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: fit within the tiny contours of the previous decision. Every
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: state has the right to pursue something that they want
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: to at this point. This is a dramatic, dramatic victory
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: for New Jersey, but in addition to every other state.
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: I mean, in the short news where I wrote for
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: you earlier, certainly states should send New Jersey thank you
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: though it because this is a a big boon to
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: all of them in terms of their ability to to regulate,
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: tax and authorize something if they're so inclined. Yeah, I mean,
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: this just changes everything. It It's so much bigger and
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: broader than I think in New Jersey was even expecting,
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: and certainly that I think other states were expecting as well.
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: Nobody was sort of anticipating that the court was going
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: to be as aggressive as it was. None of them were,
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: And in fact, some of the of the lawyers on
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: the New Jersey side even argued to the Supreme Court
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: and in their written court filings then that the Court
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: could take a narrower approach. The Court rejected that. They
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: went for a full blown sweep of this law. It's
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: effectively off the books in terms of being enforceable moving forward.
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: Congress could take another stab at it, But there's upwards
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: of two dozen states that are probably will be able
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: to move much faster than than Congress does in terms
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: of getting these current bills that are already pending either
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: past or at least on in terms of on the
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: dock when the next legislative legislative session opens later this
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: year or early next year. Right, So, how fast do
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: you think states can move? Right now? So, several states
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: are very very well positioned to move in a matter
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: of weeks, if not months, and those states include uh, Mississippi,
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: West Virginia, Pennsylvania to a limited extent in New York,
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: they do have a statute on the books for in
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: person brick and mortar type of sports betting at the
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: four already licensed facilities they have there nothing online though,
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: And then There's about a dozen other states that have
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: current bills penned in All of them had these placeholder
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: clauses in there, saying they would only become effective if
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court ruled favorably. Now the Supreme Court has
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: ruled favorably, so those can move forward quickly without much
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: revision if they can get it done before the legislative
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: session closes. So a few states have already missed the chance.
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: Iowa Indiana both had pending bills that would legalize sports betting,
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: but those state legislators have ended for this for the
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: for the year. So those who have to wait until
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: the next go around that several other states are still
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: in play. At Kansas and Missourior examples, there's a probably
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: a dozen or so states that, um, this becomes an opportunity,
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: and New Jersey is certainly forefront of this. Why did
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court rule this way? What was their reasoning
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: when Congress passed this law twenty six years ago? The
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: language Congress was so offensive to the tenth Amendment of
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: the U. S. Constitution that Justice Alito and he just
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: harked on this endlessly. I just finished reading his portion,
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: which took up about half of the decision. He was
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: very forceful that if Congress wants to actually regulate something,
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: they can do it, but they can't do it in
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: this way. I mean, he uses some very colorful language
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: in terms of deputizing state officials and preventing state legislatures
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: from doing their The way Congress worded this statute twenty
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: six years ago was just so bizarre and so offensive
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: that the Tenth Amendment, which gives states rights that that
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: otherwise belonged them, he found no other choice than just
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: simply say that none of this can be preserved. And
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: he tried. There was individual portions, and that's the three
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: Excuse me. The two justices that dissented there were small
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: slivers of this federal law that at least two of
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: them thought could be preserved. But the majority of the
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: justices in this case, seven out of nine, said they
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: just can't do it. And that's not just the very
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: conservative state rights lenion type of justices. Justice Elena Kagan,
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: who was nominated by President Obama back in she found
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: she joined the majority decision in much the same way
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: in full. So it certainly was something that kind of
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: crossed eciological lines. It's an important decision clearly for sports
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: getting but in the not too distances, so we'll probably
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: hear about this case in terms of the debate over
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: marijuana and immigration as well. So it's a big case.
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: It's no surprise it's getting as much media attention as
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: it as it is right now. Yeah, it's pretty stunning.
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: It's funny. Uh, my wife and I saw, you know,
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: there's a documentary out about Ruth Bader Ginsburgh called RBG,
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: and it portrays her as sort of this ah, quiet
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: fears intellectual powerhouse who has slowly moved society uh in
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: the direction of um uh vendor rights over the past
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: say forty years, and that is what got her to
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: the attention of President Clinton when he nominated her to
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. And sort of she has managed her
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: career and sort of how um just astonishing she has
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: moved through, uh, through the legal sort of hierarchy into
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: the point where now you know, notorious RBG. And she's
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: sort of got a call following and people can't wait
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: for her descents. And I actually was reading this looking
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: through like, oh my god, this is RBG going to
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: be the dissenting opinion in this case, Like what was
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: her argument in this case that so she did offer
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: the descent. So when when you when it's described as
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: a seven two decisions, the two was Justice Ginsburg who
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: actually wrote the descent, and then she was joined by
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: Justice Sonya so Tomorn, President and appointee of President Obama
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: as well. But even Justice Ginsberg and Justice so to
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: Mayor they said in problems with past, the two so
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: in that respect that all nine of the of the
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: justices found something wrong with past. But but what Justice
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: but Ginsburg describing her descent, she just simply wouldn't go
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: as far as the other seven did. So she said,
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: there's certainly problems, there's infirmities with this this law that
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: Congress passed twenty six years ago. I just wouldn't go
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: as far as to wipe it off the board. There's
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: a there's a sliver of of past, but that she
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: thought could be retained. Obviously, seven out of nine didn't
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: agree with that. Only only two did so she did dissent,
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: but for the purpose of that there was a portion
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: that could be preserved. But she certainly disagreed with all
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: of it being wiped off the board. And that's what's
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: so important here for the Supreme court to issue a
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: ruling in this case seven too, that's struck down the
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: entire statute the Congress passed. I'd have to go through
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: the through the record books. That just doesn't happen very often.
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: It's incredibly rare. And the two cases that that Ted
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: Olsen in New Jersey's legal team relied on to get
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: this result, even those two cases one was one was in.
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: Even those two cases didn't involve a statute that would
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: be wiped clean off the book, so to speak. So
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: this is certainly an incredible result. The core argument that
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: Governor Christie and now Governor Murphy's legal to even put forth.
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: Seven out of nine of the justices agreed with it.
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: And this is just an incredible victory for New Jersey.
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: So what do you think Congress does react? So Congress,
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: to a to a certain extent, has already reacted somewhat,
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: and that there is one pending bill that has been
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: formally introduced. It's gotten no traction whatsoever. It will be
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: revisited at this point Congress if they want to play
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: a role in sports betting regular regulation, which is what
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: NBA Commissioner Adam Silver wants them to do. He continues,
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: to talk about how a federal framework is preferred as
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: opposed to a patchwork of individual states passing these laws.
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: Congress would have to move pretty quick because individual states
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: simply aren't waiting. I mean they're they have pending bills
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: already out there that could get enacted fairly quickly. If
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: Congress were to do it, what they'll have to do
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: is somehow deputize is whether it's the Federal Trade Commission,
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: whether it's the Commodity Futures Trading Commissioners, some government entity
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: to oversee the regulation of sports betting. Because that's the
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: whole problem with with how this federal band was written.
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: Twenty six years ago, there was no federal policy in
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: terms of regulating sports betting. It simply told the states
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: what they can't do seven out of nine, and Supreme
• 21:24
  Speaker 1: Court Justice says that's not the way it works. You
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: just simply can't do that. So if Congress is going
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: to do it, they'd have to completely rework and retool
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: the way that they want to regulate sports betting, and
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: maybe they do that through a an SEC Securities and
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: Exchange Commission type of entity that actually actively regulates this.
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: But it's simply telling states what they can and can't
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: do in an area that that the federal government chooses
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: not to regulate him. Because this is a definitive statement
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: that Congress can't do it that way, So you would
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: involve some some novel thinking, and you just simply couldn't
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: be a at ban or a flat permission. Individual states
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: are going to want to retain some autonomy there too,
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: because they want the tax revenue and they feel like
• 22:08
  Speaker 1: they can do it much better than the federal government can.
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: So whether Nevada and your Jersey, some of these other
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: states that that have bills now on the books that
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: they're being considered, they'll probably be a coming kind of
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: policy legal fight over Capitol Hill versus individual state legislatures.
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: But that's that's a little bit down the road at
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: this point. UH certainly need to wait to see what,
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: if anything, Congress does, and they can certainly choose to
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: do nothing. I mean this, certainly there's a long history
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: of of decades, if not centuries, of individual states taking
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: the lead on gaming regulations. So that's probably the path
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: of least resistance in terms of giving states the prerogative
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: whether they want this or not. You UH and I
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: were on a panel at the Sloan Sports Conference at
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: M I T. So I said, handicapped for me, Ryan Rodenberg,
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: how long you think before sports betting is legal? You
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: predicted it would happen legislatively before it happened judicially. No way,
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: I mean, I'm getting this wrong. You predicted that it
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: would be legal in four years, which was close. If
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: I remember the way you framed the over under. You
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: just asked into the how long until sports betting is legalized?
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: And I think I said four and a half years,
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: but maybe I did sing four, but I think I
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: said four and a half years. So in this case,
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: the underworld of cash if you had a ticket for
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: the under on that one. But uh, in terms of
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: the legislative outcome versus the judicial one, I mean, to
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: a certain extent, they've kind of moved on parallel tracks.
• 23:46
  Speaker 1: But when we talked about this at the M I T.
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: Sloane Conference in and even the later panels that you've
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: moderated there, at that time, none of us were thinking
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: that upwards of two dozen states would just, you know,
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: latterly start having sports betting bills in the absence of
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: some direction from the Supreme Court. But they now have
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: that direction. I just I can't recall back at the
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: at the time of the panel whether we even contemplated
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: that all of these states would start moving forward even
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: though the federal band was technically still in place. Well
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: under the next steps, it's still going to be interesting.
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: There's still a lot to unpack. There's still a lot
• 24:22
  Speaker 1: to uncover. Ryan Rodenberg covering it for Action Network dot Com,
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: Sports law professor at Florida State Avid Supreme Court Watcher,
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: You've done a phenomenal job with this. Thank you so much.
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: Thanks Tad. We'll stay on top of it. Thanks brother,