Why not give players a cut? That's one way to fix our sports betting problem. | Opinion

With the shocking news about NBA Hall of Fame player and rising star coach Chauncey Billups, Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier and former National Basketball Association player Damon Jones, the time is now for sports to address the numerous problems that widespread mobile betting has created. The leagues and gambling sites need to act quickly to ensure integrity of the games, make betting more equitable to the players and remove the oversaturation of sports-betting related advertising. 

Sports betting is wildly profitable. The industry made $13.7 billion in 2024 alone. The big sports leagues have fully embraced it, becoming official partners with the major gambling sites.

One of the main drivers of sports betting is parlays, where the bettor bundles multiple wagers on events happening in one or more games (e.g., Lebron James will score more than 10 points, James Harden will have more than six assists, etc.). This compounds the odds to a potentially bigger payout. But to win a parlay, a gambler must get every prediction correct. Many bettors (including too many young people) will wager $100 on a 10-part parlay, all with the hope that every prediction hits.

When they don’t, even though it was oh so close, the one player out of the 10 who failed to score or pass, even though the odds said they should have, is showered with abuse and sometimes death threats.

Combine that abuse with the absolute barrage of sports-gambling related advertising, and it is not totally surprising when lower-paid players give in to temptation – although it is surprising when you read names that include one of the best closers in baseball or NBA coach Billups, who has been placed on immediate leave. 

The leagues cannot have another Billups, the Portland Trail Blazers' head coach alleged to have told inside health information about his players to gamblers who then bet against the team.

As a former assistant federal defender with clients involved in professional sports and betting, and a professor of criminal law who follows the gambling landscape closely, I have ideas about how to prevent this type of corruption. Here is a three-step approach to solving this growing crisis.

Gambling is profitable for leagues. Give players a cut.

A player involved in a parlay is playing a game a gambler suddenly cares about. This leads to the gambler following the game on a phone or watching it on a television, including perhaps buying an every-game “league pass,” so he can watch any game at the press of a button. Popular players and players who regularly appear on national television are involved in more parlays due to their name recognition.

All of this is good financially for the leagues, the media and gambling sites. It is bad for the players, as they are subjected to scrutiny over their daily stats by gamblers who are not invested in them or their team.

To make it fair for the players, they should be paid on every bet that a gambler places on their team. They should also be paid for every bet in which their name is used in a parlay. Players should be paid whether a bet wins or loses.

Many professional athletes, especially in the NFL, counterintuitively, are underpaid. After a lifetime of work and abuse of their bodies, their careers may last only a handful of years, and if they are not a quarterback, they are unlikely to make set-for-life type money.

Receiving a passive gambling income would allow players to feel invested in the integrity of the game because they will now be a partner. This will also benefit the gambler, as they will know that the players are a member of the system, understand the integrity rules and have incentive to comply.

How much should they be paid? I will leave that to the stakeholders, but I imagine it should be more than musicians get from Spotify. Perhaps there are examples from the early days of video game licensing that are instructive (at least with profit ratios). 

The leagues and the gambling sites should just agree to this approach (and if they do, players please remember to think of me this Christmas). That is because, first, by paying players regardless of outcome, they will have no incentive to do better or worse based on gamblers’ bets. Second, they can be disincentivized to purposefully manipulate their playing to sway a bet outcome by the uniform punishment of a lifetime ban. Third, it is the fair thing to do. 

Players have endured years of online abuse without compensation. It is also conclusive at this point that playing sports can take a serious toll on the body and mind. Fans with a stake in the game act almost like they are watching gladiators in ancient Rome, with no care for participants' health or safety – only for their wagers. That’s an extreme comparison, but one with some truth: Players deserve a piece of the action.

If necessary, unions should consider suing as a class to make that happen. But a better path – one that avoids acrimony with major partners, the sites, players and leagues – would be for those parties to work together to find an agreement that makes sense for all. 

Gambling sites have an obligation to protect players we're betting on

With players and leagues as partners, gambling sites must protect the athletes by deterring users from harassing players. In order to gamble on the sites, it should be required that each gambler provide a photo ID, their major social media handles, an email address and a signed user agreement that includes a zero-tolerance policy with regards to harassment of players.

If a gambler is caught abusing a player, they should be banned from all major gambling sites. By protecting players from abuse and sharing profits with them, the leagues, betting sites and players could work in concert to ensure the integrity of the game as well as the safety of the players.

Finally, the oversaturation of gambling content is becoming a turnoff to viewers and is unfair to sports fans who are either uninterested or trying to abstain from gambling due to addiction or financial hardship.

Leagues should incentivize their media partners to cabin their gambling coverage to specific shows or channels with a gambling and fantasy focus rather than attempt to weave it into the story of the sports game itself. The main broadcast of a live event should be free from any reference to gambling, including advertisements and announcers updating odds. The current landscape harms the integrity of the game and undercuts efforts to encourage gamblers to know their limits. 

Fans might now never get to see basketball coach Billups develop the Trail Blazers’ young core, pitcher Emmanuel Clase save another baseball game, Rozier on an NBA court. This can only get worse for all parties if they don’t come together and make changes, and soon. 

Ian H. Marcus Amelkin was an assistant federal defender in Manhattan, where he represented clients involved in both professional sports and gambling. He is now an associate professor at the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, teaching criminal law and procedure. An avid sports fan, Marcus Amelkin follows contracts and compensation closely.