Baseball Gambling

[nymr83]

Manfred opposes a legalized sports betting scheme... unless he gets a cut!

http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/22625761/sports-betting-legalization-defeated-absent-league-involvement

[MFS62]

Isn't that just like ESPN to report this. It seems like they don't give much coverage (if any) to a sport unless they get a cut, either.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

The sports leagues see legalized gambling as inevitable whether they're admitting so (NBA, MLB) or are still in denial mode (NFL) as least as far as public consumption is concerned.
The idea that Nevada is going to continue to have the sole legal waiver granted to them in perpetuity is absurd. That it's lasted as long as it has is a legal anomaly created by mob ties from a long time ago coupled with a government (local level on up to federal) which purports to hate gambling except for the kind that they have a monopoly on everywhere outside of Vegas.

So naturally when the reality gets closer the leagues are going to want a say in how Their product is used and, hell yeah, I'd want to get paid for allowing the state/locality to make money off an association with my business. The idea that they could get around things by only putting 'Detroit' and 'Boston' on the cards rather than the copyrighted names of 'Tigers' and 'Red Sox' isn't going to cut it.



I have no idea how ESPN gets "a cut" by doing this story nor the implication that they should otherwise leave it alone. It's a straightforward news story.

[nymr83]

The leagues wouldnt have a legal leg to stand on trying to force casinos to give them a cut. That's why they are doing the extensive lobbying for one with the govt now.

[Frayed Knot]

Not sure why having the names and the outcomes of their products/contests used by presumably private companies to further their own interests would leave the leagues with no legal leg on which to stand in saying that they want to be compensated for allowing their use.

[nymr83]

Google 'NBA v Motorola'

[Frayed Knot]

There was a similar case involving baseball and fantasy leagues where MLB tried to argue that it owned all the stats that came from their games and therefore deserved a piece of that action.
But I don't think that's the same legal argument as presumably private gambling interests directing their would-be customers directly to games involving copyrighted names like Cubs and Red Sox and claiming that they're not attempting to make profits off of an association with someone else's property without their permission.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Isn't there a fair use argument to be made? The NYT is allowed to report that the Chicago Cubs beat the Pittsburgh Pirates last night without having to pay MLB or the two teams even though the NYT generates revenues from its reporting of that game. Likewise, G. Prince can write and publish a10 volume, 4,000 page comprehensive history of the N.Y. Mets without owing anything to the Mets rights holders.

[Frayed Knot]

But, again, there's a difference between citing a club and commenting on what is already public knowledge vs building an entirely new business around using the league, its teams, its schedule and contests as the basis for your income.
It would be one thing for us to have 'Game of Thrones' reviews here or create a separate G-o-T discussion group on line. But it would be quite another for McDonald's to invite increased customer interest by including game cards with each of the characters in the show to be given away free with the purchase of every 'Happy Meal'


I'm not a lawyer, don't tend to play one on the internet, and aren't claiming this is cut-n-dried one way or the other, especially seeing as how this will be a whole new ballgame (pun intended) when and if this thing gets all legalized. What I am saying is that I disagree with Nymr's assertion that this has been, in effect, pre-settled and that the league(s) have no legal leg to stand on and that if I were them I'd sure as hell be out there fighting for a cut of this potential future business.