[wallendar]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/opinio...bling-law/

The NCAA was a party to the suit:

The National Collegiate Athletic Association and the four major professional sports leagues went to court, arguing that the 2012 law violated PASPA. The lower federal courts agreed, prompting the New Jersey legislature to go back to the drawing board. In 2014, it passed a new law that rolled back existing bans on sports betting, at least as they applied to New Jersey casinos and racetracks. The NCAA and the leagues returned to court, arguing that the new law also violated PASPA, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit again ruled against the state.

As I understand the opinion (warning, as a non-lawyer I am veering far out of my lane), the ruling doesn't necessarily mean the federal government can't ban sports gambling; it just can't make states ban it.  It also doesn't mean that states can't ban it, just that if they chose not to, they don't have to.

Obviously, this could significantly affect the ability to gamble on the NCAA outside of Nevada (which had been grandfathered in as part of the law).

BC

How is this off topic?  It may not be specifically about Stanford, but the SCOTUS ruling absolutely impacts Stanford, as it is the most significant thing to happen to commercialized sports since athlete free agency.

This is a very big issue that affects all pro and college sports.  A number of states have already passed legislation pending the SC decision.  Quite a few other states, including California, have legislation written and ready to consider in their respective legislatures.

Given the approach the NBA is taking - they want a royalty paid since they are responsible for creating the action on which bettors will put their money down - it would not surprise me if states give a slice of the revenue pie to state universities within their jurisdiction (West Virginia is already headed down this road by considering a piece for Marshall and WVU).

[wallendar]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/opinio...bling-law/

The NCAA was a party to the suit:

The National Collegiate Athletic Association and the four major professional sports leagues went to court, arguing that the 2012 law violated PASPA. The lower federal courts agreed, prompting the New Jersey legislature to go back to the drawing board. In 2014, it passed a new law that rolled back existing bans on sports betting, at least as they applied to New Jersey casinos and racetracks. The NCAA and the leagues returned to court, arguing that the new law also violated PASPA, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit again ruled against the state.

As I understand the opinion (warning, as a non-lawyer I am veering far out of my lane), the ruling doesn't necessarily mean the federal government can't ban sports gambling; it just can't make states ban it.  It also doesn't mean that states can't ban it, just that if they chose not to, they don't have to.

Obviously, this could significantly affect the ability to gamble on the NCAA outside of Nevada (which had been grandfathered in as part of the law).

BC

How is this off topic?  It may not be specifically about Stanford, but the SCOTUS ruling absolutely impacts Stanford, as it is the most significant thing to happen to commercialized sports since athlete free agency.

This is a very big issue that affects all pro and college sports.  A number of states have already passed legislation pending the SC decision.  Quite a few other states, including California, have legislation written and ready to consider in their respective legislatures.

Given the approach the NBA is taking - they want a royalty paid since they are responsible for creating the action on which bettors will put their money down - it would not surprise me if states give a slice of the revenue pie to state universities within their jurisdiction (West Virginia is already headed down this road by considering a piece for Marshall and WVU).