NFL’s gambling policy appears consistently inconsistent – USA Today – USA TODAY

USA TODAY Sports' Lindsay H. Jones looks at the division's big offseason changes. USA TODAY Sports

NFL policy prohibits team owners from having a stake in casinos, but two casino owners are on the governing board of the landlord that will own the Las Vegas stadium where the Raiders are scheduled to play in 2020.(Photo: Kirby Lee, USA TODAY Sports)

Now more than ever before, the NFLs public position on gambling has become quite an artful dance.

On one side of the ballroom, the league still opposes sports gambling and is against promoting casinos. The NFL even continues to fight a lawsuit that seeks payback from the league after it banned Tony Romo and other players from an event at a Las Vegas casino property in 2015.

On the other side of the room, the league increasingly has flirted with the gambling industry in recent years, including allowing advertising from casinos. In Arizona, a casino company called Gila River Gaming Enterprises confirmed to USA TODAY Sports this monththat it's been havingdiscussions with the Arizona Cardinals about buying naming rights to their stadium.

This pertains to thestadiumnaming rights, thecasino company said before recently noting it has entered anon-disclosure agreement with the team about these discussions. This is aresult of continued communications with the Arizona Cardinals through our strong existing relationship.

NFL fighting youth charity over gambling policy

The league's current gambling policystill prohibitsthe sale of primary stadium or field naming rights to gambling-related establishments. So why is this even a possibility in Arizona?The bigger question many have asked recently is why the league maintains this conflicted policy, especially after approving the relocation of the Oakland Raiders to the gambling capital of Las Vegas.

The simple answer is power and money to control players and personnel for the sake of appearances while making exceptions for the sake of revenue. The policy iseven atissue in federal court, where the NFL is fighting a charity organizationthat said the league forced it to move a youth bowling event with NFL players in 2015. The charitysaid the NFL made it relocate to a much smallerbowling alley in Las Vegasbecause thebigger bowling alley was part of a casino resort.

There is no reason for the NFL to alter its gambling policy if the only adverse ramifications are accusations of hypocrisy and negative media stories, said Daniel Wallach, a gaming and sports law attorney in Florida.

The only reason for the league to overhaul it, he said,would be for compelling legal or business reasons, which some predict could come within the next five years.

In the meantime, the Arizona discussions appear to be one of the most expensive examples yet of a rising NFL conflict a league policy rooted in old, negative perceptions against gambling vs. the demand for more lucrative ties between NFL teams and gambling businesses.

Stadium naming rights are lucrative sources of revenue for NFL teams. The Cardinals last stadium naming rights deal, with the University of Phoenix, paid the teaman average of $7.7 million per year.

But there are restrictions. No NFL stadium is named after a casino company, though Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens is named after company that includes casinos in its portfolio.

Sale of naming rights for stadium lounges and other sections of the stadium is permitted by the NFL for certain casinos. For example, in 2015, the Detroit Lions unveiled the MGM Grand Detroit Tunnel Club lounge at Ford Field. But the policy specifically excludes gambling-relatednaming rights for the "field or primary building name, according to the league policy.

The NFL referred questions about the Cardinals stadium naming rights to the team, which declined comment.

Its possible the policy could change, like it did when the league allowed teams to accept limited casino advertising in 2012. Its also possible the team could try to thread the needle by selling naming rights to the casino company but not putting the casino companys brand in the stadium name.

Perhaps the stadium could be called "Gila River Stadium, just like the Gila River Arena next door, home of the Arizona Coyotes of the NHL, a league that has a more permissive stance about sponsorships with casino companies.

Gila River Gaming Enterprises is part of the Gila River Indian Community. The NFLs gambling policy says its permissible to have general advertising in the sovereign name of a Native American Nation, regardless of whether that Native American Nation operates or holds interests in a casino.

The problem is perception. Such nuanced exceptions make the NFLs policy increasingly easy for critics to lampoon and raise questions about the point of such contortions as gambling becomes more publicly accepted.

In November 2012, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell testified in a legal proceeding that gambling was No. 1 on his list of threats to the integrity of pro football in the U.S. In March, he also said the league doesnt envision changing its policies just because the Raiders are moving to Las Vegas.

Even social gambling among co-workers can lead to discord, violence and a loss of team cohesion, the NFL policy states.

Gila River Gaming Enterprises is behind the name of the NHL arena adjacent to the Arizona Cardinals' stadium. Will the stadium adopt the name of a gaming operation too?(Photo: Christian Petersen, Getty Images)

The leagues steadfast resistance to sports gambling stems from its fear that bettors might scandalize the NFL by bribing players or coaches to fix game scores to their benefit. Critics of this stance long have pointed out that legalized, regulated sports betting will reduce this risk, not add to it.

Yet the leagues opposition to sports gambling still doesnt seem to explain the leagues position on being against certain types of casino associations, but not others. Or why the NFL is against a team owner even partly owning a casino but not against two casino executives serving on the governing board of the landlord that will own the Las Vegas stadium where the Raiders are scheduled to move in 2020.

Its ban on certain types of gambling relationships stem from old public perceptions that associated gambling with organized crime and viewed gambling in very negative terms, according to a 1999 memo to NFL teams from then-NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

But as legalized gambling became more publicly accepted, parts of the leagues policy evolved, too, in ways that make it seem inconsistent and conflicted.

On the one hand, team owners have been allowed to hold stakes in daily fantasy sports companies, which are illegal in some states and cant operate in Nevada without gambling licenses.On the other, the NFL confirmed lastweek it is still reviewing whether to discipline players for appearing at an arm-wrestling event at a Las Vegas casino in April.

The NFLs opposition to gambling has always sort of been 'until they can make money on it,' said John Holden, an attorney and visiting scholar at Florida State who has studied sports league gambling policies. Its not totally clear where the line is, or even if the line is very firm.

A company affiliated with former Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo calls the NFL's gambling policy "disingenous."(Photo: LM Otero, AP)

Wallach notes the league is enormously successful and therefore not inclined to fix anything until feels it must.

It could be a court decision that causes the NFL to change, Wallach said. It could be a further decline in television ratings or a diminution of (media) rights deals.

The U.S. Supreme Court soon is expected to decide whether to hear the state of New Jerseys challenge to the federal ban on state-sponsored sports gambling, which is largely illegal outside of Nevada. The NFL is opposing New Jerseys challenge, but if the law changed and more states wantedto legalize sports gambling, the league could change its tune for acceptable regulations and financial considerations.

Meanwhile, a company affiliated with Romo, the former NFL quarterback, is still fighting the NFL in court over its gambling policy. The company sued the league in 2015, saying the league used its disingenuous policy to effectively shut down the companys fantasy football event in Las Vegas. The league prohibited players from appearing at the event because itspolicy forbids promotional appearances associated with casinos.

After a judge sided with the NFL last year and threw the case out, the company appealed, and the case is still pending in Texas court.

The reality is that when the NFL gets a piece of the pie, the NFL flagrantly and systematically violates its own supposed policy against casinos and gambling, the lawsuit states. Countless examples show the NFLs true attitude toward betting.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

View original post here:

NFL's gambling policy appears consistently inconsistent - USA Today - USA TODAY