Today’s guest columnist is Julie Sommer, executive director of The Drake Group Education Fund.
The seamless integration of gambling in college sports was on full display in Iowa women’s basketball star Caitlin Clark’s NCAA record-setting game in February. As she neared the scoring milestone, announcer Gus Johnson hyped real-time wagering opportunities as part of the broadcast. “Not only can fans wager on the point spread but they can wager on Clark’s prop bets … Action, action, action on Caitlin!” he breathlessly pitched.
While Johnson received blowback for his enthusiastic call, he in many ways was simply reflecting the changing sports media landscape. While announcers have refrained from such blatant cross promotion in the 2024 men’s and women’s NCAA Tournaments themselves, sportsbooks and their media partners have cashed in through aggressive advertising, pre- and postgame commentaries and other tie-ins.
In 2023, an estimated 68 million Americans wagered over $15.5 billion on the men’s NCAA Tournament alone. This was more than five times the amount in 2022 and could be eclipsed this year—sportsbooks are already reporting nearly $2.7 billion wagered, with billions more informally exchanging hands in bracket pools across the nation.
This exponential growth in gambling on college games isn’t driven by a sudden surge of interest in the game itself—TV ratings for the men’s game have dipped over the past decade and the competitiveness of the brackets themselves have not changed in meaningful ways. Instead, the proliferation of gambling is tied, unsurprisingly, to the ease of it—normalizing the industry through direct marketing to young people most at risk of problem gambling or gambling addiction, including athletes themselves. Problem gambling is defined as an emotional problem and addiction which can lead to financial ruin, damaged relationships and mental health issues—particularly concerning for young people whose brains are still developing and are more susceptible to addiction.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court opened the floodgates to legalized sports gambling in its 2018 Murphy v. NCAA decision, 38 states and the District of Columbia have legalized sports betting in some capacity, with several more states actively considering legislation.
As gambling expands, lines are becoming progressively blurry between wagering and entertainment, with media conglomerates partnering with the gaming industry and targeting consumers, including vulnerable young people, with sophisticated gambling advertisements and inducements.
Despite the fact the legal betting age in most states is 21, national surveys of Americans ages 18-22 reflect this surge. Nearly 60% report having wagered on sports, with 4% doing so daily. More troubling is that one in 10 are habitual or problem gamblers. Among students and young people generally, the highest rates of gambling—and problem gambling—are among men, with young men of color disproportionately suffering the impacts of problem gambling.
With promises of excitement and easy wealth through “free” bets and large payouts, college athletes are not immune from aggressive corporate targeting—and mainstream acceptance—of college sports gambling. The omnipresence of wagering on their campuses, in homes and dormitories, in sports and social media apps, and on their televisions runs counter to the guidance athletes receive from athletic departments on how they should—or must—avoid gambling. In doubling down on a double standard, at least five schools have struck deals with gambling companies—with offers of payments for each student who signs up for a betting account. In 2023, four of the five schools announced those partnerships were terminated amid public backlash.
Yet while the NCAA struggles with antitrust limitations on its overall regulatory power, it has continued to enforce—unevenly at best—prohibitions on gambling. When the NCAA proposed easing suspension and loss of eligibility for gambling violations late last year, it was as much an admission that it doesn’t have a solution as it was a display of compassion. In the lead-up to March Madness this year, the NCAA announced a new “Draw the Line” program to help educate and address athlete gambling—a needed step forward that will require investment and widespread application to make a difference.
During March Madness, NCAA president Charlie Baker went even further. In response to growing reports of players harassed online by losing bettors, he called for states to ban proposition, or “prop” bets, reflecting growing concerns over game integrity. While many states already prohibit college-level prop bets, Baker’s call for uniformity reflects both the elevated concerns and the lack of enforcement power within the governing body.
Some members of Congress have also taken notice of the growing crisis of problem gambling and overall concerns with gambling. The recently introduced Gambling Addiction, Recovery, Investment and Treatment Act (GRIT) would use an existing federal excise tax on gambling to fund state-based programs to help expand recovery programs.
In the meantime, the march toward vertical integration of gambling and entertainment continues, with college sports a central pillar for revenue and growth. Last year ESPN launched its own branded online and sportsbook enterprise, promising users “the ability to place bets with less friction from within our products”—expanding the notion that gambling is integral to truly enjoying the sports experience.
How the NCAA, college athletic programs and their media partners reconcile the requirement of integrity in sports—free of meddling, match fixing and the appearance of conflict of interest—with their embrace of gambling revenue must be answered. How we protect students and athletes from the lure and impacts of gambling is a duty we owe them.
To date, holding athletes more accountable than the industry targeting them is both hypocritical and fails to address the risks of gambling on the integrity of the games, or the well-being of college athletes. Like the young people they target, the gambling industry, power conferences and their media partners are chasing the promise of easy money without regard to the long-term impact of their risky proposition.
Julie Sommer, a Seattle attorney who serves as executive director of The Drake Group Education Fund, is a former All-American swimmer at the University of Texas and past U.S. National Team member. She’s on Twitter @JulieRSommer.
