Fantasy Sports = Gambling?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Like I humorously stated in another thread, if idiot adults want to lose their money, more power to them. But I don't think they should have TV advertising for it.
They advertise? I haven't noticed.
Absolutely it is gambling, of course it is.
Gambling: 1.the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes.
Game of chance: 1.a game in which the outcome is determined by chance rather than by the skill of its players, as roulette.
Well, hell, based on those definitions it isn't, but maybe I'm using the wrong terms. It is something, betting, wagering, gaming, whatever. They are placing money/other wagers on the outcome of something they, themselves cannot completely control.
Should it be prohibited? No, probably not. Certainly not in theory. In practice there are a lot of things to be concerned about, including addictive/compulsive behaviors that hurt various aspects of life. Is society better/worse by prohibiting it? I think we have a good general plan, keep it restricted to specific places that can be regulated and people can be "helped". How do you determine where that is? I have no f*ng idea. Certainly the way Iowa has done it has been a clusterf***.
Gambling: 1.the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes.
Game of chance: 1.a game in which the outcome is determined by chance rather than by the skill of its players, as roulette.
Well, hell, based on those definitions it isn't, but maybe I'm using the wrong terms. It is something, betting, wagering, gaming, whatever. They are placing money/other wagers on the outcome of something they, themselves cannot completely control.
Should it be prohibited? No, probably not. Certainly not in theory. In practice there are a lot of things to be concerned about, including addictive/compulsive behaviors that hurt various aspects of life. Is society better/worse by prohibiting it? I think we have a good general plan, keep it restricted to specific places that can be regulated and people can be "helped". How do you determine where that is? I have no f*ng idea. Certainly the way Iowa has done it has been a clusterf***.
Yes. It's a combination of skill/chance, with other's actions determining the outcome, where money is risked in order to win more money.
I don't care. It should be legal. But so should sports betting. Estimates range from $80b-250b annually are wagered, illegally and legally, on sports. That's not even including the amount of resources we expend to investigate and prosecute those involved in the illegal gambling.
I think an interesting aspect to this is the suit Garcon filed against FanDuel for profiting off his image. If these companies have to give a portion to the players' associations, they're going to become less profitable pretty quickly.
I don't care. It should be legal. But so should sports betting. Estimates range from $80b-250b annually are wagered, illegally and legally, on sports. That's not even including the amount of resources we expend to investigate and prosecute those involved in the illegal gambling.
I think an interesting aspect to this is the suit Garcon filed against FanDuel for profiting off his image. If these companies have to give a portion to the players' associations, they're going to become less profitable pretty quickly.
As a matter of fact, the only kind of TV ads that should be allowed are beer ads featuring women in bikinis.
I am amazed you watch that many commercials. Maybe you don't have the TV control in the proper position.
The Garçon suit will be thrown out quickly. Names when tied to stats aren't subject to publicity laws
The lottery is what truely makes this gambling crap a joke. Why can I buy a $20 lottery ticket, but can't bet $3 in a millionaire fantasy football challenge?
Interesting. But surprising to me. Especially with the agreements in place with the leagues (hence why he's suing FD and not DK). I haven't been on any of these sites. Do they not advertise the uniform or the players face? Is it simply P. Garcon - WSH- WR- $7.30 or something like that?
Also, the plaintiff's counsel aren't exactly slouches...
http://www.baileyglasser.com/attorneys/detail/biography/20/Athanasios Basdekis
http://www.baileyglasser.com/attorneys/detail/biography/40/Brian A. Glasser
http://www.mmmb.com/team/ (Murray, Murphy (from Jenner), and Moul (from Kirkland) have all filed for pro hac vice).
Explain. I have been in a fantasy league for years that gives out money for best weekly lineup and most explosive player that week....how is that any different?
No "advertising" without a players permission. They show the guys face, cost and stat summary - no different than what you'd see on SI.com looking at the leagues top passers. Think about how many websites use that exact information?
Not sure how the precedent was set, but understand it is solid. Otherwise this lawsuit would be a disaster. Say goodbye to all the fantasy sites (ESPN, CBS, Yahoo). I would think this could also extend to other contests on sites like the NCAA tournament. And how does a writer analyze something for a story if he has to pay a royalty for the stats?
The complaint is out there, so I could give an informed answer, but I didn't read it, just flipped to the end to see who was representing him, but my guess is they distinguish it some way. Off the top of my head I'd say that daily fantasy is the only place where you give something of monetary value to be represented by the aforementioned face/stats/etc., and where you receive monetary value if the player whose stats you've rented performs well. In regular fantasy the provider doesn't collect fees and in game summaries, articles, box scores or stats leaders sections of websites, there isn't a contest that is determined by those statistics.
I'll look up the complaint again later if I find some free time and try to see what they are arguing. I just wouldn't be so quick to say either of "this will get dismissed" or "this would ruin fantasy and or sports journalism."
You seem better informed than me and what you describe makes sense to at least argue daily is different. I'm just repeating what I heard about the precedent and adding a doomsday scenario.
Personally I wouldn't mind if daily went away. The commercials are awful and take advantage of idiots
Count me in the "Legalize it and tax the ever loving bejeezus out of it" camp. The Feds have no idea how many billions of tax dollars they are passing up from online gambling.
Similar threads
