The NCAA won by losing this week with the Supreme Court’s decision to lift the federal ban on sports wagering. The governing body took one in the gut, but member schools stand to grow their coffers.
The decision in Murphy v. NCAA, handed down Monday by a 6-3 vote, was reminiscent of the 1984 SCOTUS ruling that the association’s ownership of television rights violated antitrust law.
The act of turning control of TV rights over to the conferences (to act on behalf of the schools) created modern college football in both structure and economics.
Legalized gambling could have a similarly momentous impact. The issue is in congressional hands at the moment, but more than 30 states are expected to eventually allow sports wagering. (Some, it seems, could do so within the next year.)
It’s a galaxy changer for all sports, not merely those of the “amateur” variety.
“Mindboggling,” according to Ryan Rodenberg, who would know as well as anyone.
An associate professor in Florida State’s department of sports management, Rodenberg specializes in sports law analytics and filed an Amicus brief to the Supreme Court (in support of neither party).
That he grew up in Seattle, got his doctorate from Washington and knows one Power Five conference from another — well, all the better.
Rodenberg began his explanation of the SCOTUS decision by describing three potential sources of revenue.
* The first could take the form of support funds:
Payments from state oversight boards to the universities to bolster compliance staffs and educational initiatives.
* The second would unfold as marketing income:
Numerous entities, from hotel/casinos to gaming associations to fantasy sports leagues, could spending advertising and sponsorship dollars with the schools (or buy commercial time on the conference-affiliated TV networks).
Does that mean Autzen Stadium could become DraftKings Stadium, or that we’d see Powerball Pavilion at UCLA? Maybe not … Or maybe yes.
Source:: The Mercury News – Sports