By Yoon Tae Sung and Ryan M. Rodenberg
On August 7, 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, a lawsuit was filed challenging the Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, and two other state employees, David Rebuck and Frank Zanzuccki, for attempting to institute a sports gambling operation following a November 11, 2011 statewide referendum on the issue that passed by a wide margin. The quintet of plaintiffs included the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the National Basketball Association (NBA), the National Football League (NFL), the National Hockey League (NHL), and Major League Baseball (MLB). This primer summarizes the prominent pleadings filed to date, including the complaint, various declarations, and briefs submitted by both parties.
Complaint
The main contention in the complaint is that the proposed New Jersey sports gambling scheme is a violation of the Professional and Amateur Sport Protection Act (“PASPA”), which was enacted by Congress in 1992 to protect professional and amateur sports from the purported harms of sports gambling. In addition to PASPA’s four state-specific exceptions (Nevada, Montana, Oregon, and Delaware), the statute also gave New Jersey the opportunity to introduce licensed sports betting during the twelve month period immediately following passage 20 years ago, but the state declined to act within the requisite time. Thus, the plaintiffs allege, New Jersey has already given up its right to be exempted under PASPA.
Following the aforementioned 2011 referendum, Governor Chris Christie signed the so-called “Sports Gambling Law” on January 9, 2012 and allows licensed casinos and racetracks in Atlantic City to run any type of sports betting. The plaintiffs allege implementation of such sports books will threaten the leagues by “fostering suspicion that individual plays and final scores of games may have been influenced by factors other than honest athletic competition” (p. 3). The five sports leagues have been successful, the lawsuit posits, based on fair and honest competition, so the influx of sports betting in the state could harm the reputation of the plaintiffs, causing irreparable damage that would not be able to be remedied monetarily. Moreover, according to the complaint, the New Jersey statute is internally inconsistent in that it does not allow sports betting on “any collegiate sport and athletic event that takes place in New Jersey or a sport and athletic event in which any New Jersey college team participates regardless of where the event takes place” (p. 8).
Declaration of NBA Commissioner David Stern
In his 35 page declaration, NBA Commissioner David Stern maintains that the NBA pursues a unique relationship with its fans “based on the passion, intensity, teamwork, and charisma of the players” (p. 12). He also asserts that the league has educated their players, referees, and staff about the prohibition of sports betting and that the league has always opposed sports betting schemes. The recent litigation in Delaware is pointed to as an example. The declaration states that the attempt of New Jersey to permit sports betting threatens the relationships that the league has built up over a long period, by making fans more interested in betting outcomes than actual game outcomes. Moreover, the state’s sports betting scheme is a clear violation of PASPA, resulting in irreparable harms that cannot be calculated in monetary terms.
Declaration of NCAA President Mark Emmert
NCAA President Mark Emmert notes that “the fundamental purpose of the NCAA is to maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body” (p. 2). Thus, the NCAA has tried to preserve its characteristic of fair competition for a long time. However, the declaration described how the spread of legalized gambling on sporting events could degrade the unique characteristic of sport due to point shaving or game fixing scandals. The NCAA has also educated its constituents about the governing bodies’ strict prohibition on sports betting and consistently opposed sports betting implementation, such as the state-sanctioned sports betting contemplated by Delaware a few years ago.
Declaration of MLB Commissioner Bud Selig
As the representatives of a self-described national pastime, MLB has pursued healthy competition and enjoyed great success. However, Commissioner Selig’s declaration opines that the spread of sports betting can increase the chances of game fixing, noting the Chicago White Sox scandal of in 1919 as one example. Because of the scandal, the declaration describes how cynicism arose and the viability of the sport was threatened, damaging the integrity of the league. It also highlights decreased fan support when customers care more about betting outcomes than players and teams. Therefore, the declaration continues, as a violation of PASPA, the possible harm cannot be compensated monetarily.
Declaration of NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman
Like the other plaintiffs, the NHL Commissioner’s declaration makes clear that the league has consistently tried to oppose the legalization of sports betting to protect its integrity. The declaration makes a number of points in this regard – (i) as the spread of sports wagering comes into effect, public confidence in the league and its reputation can be harmed; (ii) young people may also think of sporting events as being related to sports betting, even if they are not combined with each other; and (iii) if fans bet on a certain game and lose their bets, they might have suspicions about the game as well, so the harms caused by the sports betting scheme in New Jersey cannot be calculated monetarily.
Declaration of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell
In the longest of the five declarations filed (70 pages), NFL commissioner Roger Goodell outlines how the NFL has tried to maintain its integrity and how the league’s success would not have been achievable without fan support and public confidence. However, if the sports betting plan in New Jersey is implemented, the league explains that it could be harmed by the threat of increased cynicism in connection with normal game situations. Accordingly, the relationship between fans and teams would be broken, damaging the nature of the NFL and its image of fair competition. Commissioner Goodell’s declaration concludes by asserting that the New Jersey’s sports betting plan violates PASPA and, if implemented, would subject the league to irreparable harms.
Plaintiff Brief
The opening plaintiff brief argues, among other things, that New Jersey’s sports betting plan is illegal according to PASPA. The plaintiffs consistently maintain that the defendants have obviously shown their disregard for the federal law, which was enacted to protect amateur and professional sports leagues from harms associated with gambling. In turn, the plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo, as PASPA and state-sponsored sports betting in New Jersey cannot peacefully co-exist.
Defendant Brief
Filed September 8, 2012, the defendants counter the plaintiffs on a number of fronts. First, the defendants contend that the plaintiffs do not have the right to sue the employees of the state of New Jersey to prohibit its sport betting scheme, with plaintiffs’ constitutional standing at issue. In support of their position, the defendants claim that the sports leagues misunderstand both PASPA and the Supreme Court’s standing doctrine. Second, the brief outlines how possible harms from sports betting in New Jersey cited by the plaintiff would be “self-inflicted” (p. 16). In other words, the brief describes how any game fixing or point shaving would be conducted by the leagues’ own employees (players, referees, coaches, etc.), not state regulators or licensed sports books in New Jersey. Third, the defendant’s brief flags how huge amounts of illegal wagers take place annually and, if sports gambling detrimentally impacts the plaintiffs’ reputation and goodwill, such degradation should have already occurred given the estimated $380 billion that is wagered annually through illegal channels such as neighborhood bookmakers and offshore internet sports books. The defendants conclude by arguing that the plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed.
Yoon Tae Sung is a doctoral student at Florida State University. He earned his master’s degree from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ryan M. Rodenberg is an assistant professor of sports law analytics at Florida State University. © Yoon Tae Sung and Ryan M. Rodenberg 2012.
