Stop “demonizing” sports betting sector, AGA CEO tells critics
Bill Miller accuses detractors of “undermining” industry’s progress on responsible gambling while claiming most Americans back legal wagering
The head of the American Gaming Association (AGA) has weighed in on the debate about legalizing online sports betting in the US following a flurry of rhetoric regarding the industry from outside the sector.
Writing in Newsweek, Bill Miller compared legal wagering to attending a concert or going out for dinner and insisted it was a “voluntary entertainment option.”
The CEO also trashed any suggestion that sports betting was a tax on vulnerable people — a theory he claimed was posed “lazily” by industry critics.
“According to our research, it’s so widely accepted that nine in 10 Americans believe legal gaming, like other discretionary activities, enhances enjoyment and connection for themselves and other ‘of age’ family members and friends,” Miller noted.
He later claimed that the sector was “one of the most regulated industries in the US,” adding how most operators invest significantly in safer betting initiatives and promote them frequently.
The AGA CEO explained: “Tools like deposit limits, time limits, and exclusion options are standard offerings by licensed operators. These resources allow consumers to control their engagement and set boundaries.
“In contrast, illegal operators, [that] thrived unregulated for decades thanks to the previous federal ban, intentionally offered no such safeguards.”
Miller then remarked: “The average sports bettor spends less than $100 per month — a far cry from financial ruin. For perspective, Americans spend $141 per month on cell phone bills, $300 on dining out, and $734 on car payments.
“Sports betting is a fraction of what many spend on other forms of entertainment or daily conveniences.
“For someone to single out sports betting as uniquely damaging is disingenuous and ignores the broader context of how Americans allocate discretionary income.”
Though he acknowledged a “small number” of problem gamblers existed, Miller pointed to the near-$500m contributions from operators to combat gambling-related harm through educational initiatives and the promotion of responsible wagering.
“They also prominently feature responsibility resources in their advertising and in-app platforms where they’re visible and easy for users to access,” he added.
Opting to focus on the positives that followed PASPA’s repeal in 2018 and the knock-on effects of 39 states legalizing sports betting in some capacity, Miller pointed to the billions of dollars generated in state tax revenue to fund different community schemes across the country.
“At its core, legal sports betting reflects a trust in the ability of American adults to make informed choices about how they engage with entertainment,” he commented.
“Demonizing this industry or its consumers based on worst-case scenarios only undermines the progress made in creating a safe and regulated marketplace.
“Rather than imposing misguided restrictions, the focus should remain on advancing education, expanding responsible gaming tools, and ensuring that regulators and operators continue to prioritize consumer protection.”
Among the industry’s critics were ex-Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who earlier this month, also in Newsweek, urged states that have yet to legalize sports betting to ensure the situation stayed that way.
The businessman also called on states to rethink online sports betting regulation, which he dubbed “the perfect storm” for men from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
He wrote: “I’m sure the companies are in your statehouses right now making their case. ‘It’s easy tax revenue and everyone else is doing it! It’s fun!’
“But the facts are clear: online sports betting is the equivalent of a new tax on Americans that preys upon vulnerable, low-income men in particular. It increases financial stress and emotional problems. It’s not what your citizens need.”
However, on December 5, The Economist’s editorial team threw its backing behind the cause, claiming that the US sports betting boom is one that “should be celebrated” and cited the sector’s ability to reduce levels of gambling-related harm.