Gary Bettman says NHL wants cut of gambling action

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
Interesting then that owners get to reap the benefits of public money, while communities get the scraps.

But you're already converted, so why bother convincing you otherwise.

The owners put in the initial investment of hundreds of millions of dollars, the fans do not. Yes, the owners get tax handouts, but that doesn't mean that suddenly Joe from the suburbs should suddenly get a cut beyond which he has put in...
 

BogsDiamond

Anybody get 2 U yet?
Mar 16, 2008
1,132
79
The owners put in the initial investment of hundreds of millions of dollars, the fans do not. Yes, the owners get tax handouts, but that doesn't mean that suddenly Joe from the suburbs should suddenly get a cut beyond which he has put in...

LOL, not really.
Most owners buy a team with the idea of the franchise gaining worth and then selling for a profit. Most of these guys wouldn't know Bobby Orr if they slept with him.
They buy a team based on loans. Then they get brand new facilities paid for by the tax payers.
Then, after 2 or 3 lockouts, and more cost certainty is obtained, the value of the franchise increases and they sell for a handsome profit - usually by including the sale of the facitlies which they didn't put one dime into.

So yeah, the owners do owe the fans something. But Bettman and crew don't give a rats behind about the fans. If they did, they would have done more than paint "Thank you fans" after scrubbing an entire season off the books.
What he and the BOG's should have done is create a bylaw that states at least 2000 seats in every rink have to be sold for less than $10 a night, allowing honest, blue collar fans, and their family's to attend a game without giving up a kidney.
But then that would mean less money in their bloated pockets. And who gives a crap about the fans anyway?

Bettman fought gambling services like ProLine for years for no other reason than they weren't seeing a profit from it.

I can't wait for the next Lockout so the owners can cry poor again and take another pound of flesh from the players while taking the fans behind the woodshed.
10ad3485-ae27-4031-ac82-bb682ca90d23_text_hi.gif
 

TheLegend

Megathread Gadfly
Aug 30, 2009
35,927
27,408
Buzzing BoH
Because fans are the ones paying into the leagues. It's interesting that teams exist only because of fans and yet fans never get a return on their investment.

:facepalm:

That’s like suggesting the league should be paying the fans for the privilege of entertaining them. :laugh:

Interesting then that owners get to reap the benefits of public money, while communities get the scraps.

But you're already converted, so why bother convincing you otherwise.

Ah... now I see where this was headed.

You do understand that there are many teams in the league which have heavy financial investments into their arenas, yes?
 
Last edited:

Fantomas

Registered User
Aug 7, 2012
13,242
6,557
:facepalm:

That’s like suggesting the league should be paying the fans for the privilege of entertaining them. :laugh:

Sure, in a sense they can. For example, if a league were to come into a large stream of revenue why shouldn't they dramatically decrease prices? That's a form of payment. More money stays in my pocket, n'est ce pas?

There is also a thing called community-owned franchises. There are not many in American professional sports. Among the four big sports, only the Green Bay Packers are one. But the Packers are among the most successful in their league and the most stable. They have about 300,000 stakeholders and the team never threatens to leave because of a capricious owner.

You do understand that there are many teams in the league which have heavy financial investments into their arenas, yes?

Largely funded by their communities, yes.
 

Fantomas

Registered User
Aug 7, 2012
13,242
6,557
LOL, not really.
Most owners buy a team with the idea of the franchise gaining worth and then selling for a profit. Most of these guys wouldn't know Bobby Orr if they slept with him.
They buy a team based on loans. Then they get brand new facilities paid for by the tax payers.
Then, after 2 or 3 lockouts, and more cost certainty is obtained, the value of the franchise increases and they sell for a handsome profit - usually by including the sale of the facitlies which they didn't put one dime into.

Yeap. Poor owners! Seeing posters shill for rich guys is too funny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BogsDiamond

TheLegend

Megathread Gadfly
Aug 30, 2009
35,927
27,408
Buzzing BoH
Sure, in a sense they can. For example, if a league were to come into a large stream of revenue why shouldn't they dramatically decrease prices? That's a form of payment. More money stays in my pocket, n'est ce pas?

There is also a thing called community-owned franchises. There are not many in American professional sports. Among the four big sports, only the Green Bay Packers are one. But the Packers are among the most successful in their league and the most stable. They have about 300,000 stakeholders and the team never threatens to leave because of a capricious owner.

The only reason Green Bay is still community owned is because it was grandfathered in. None of the pro sports leagues would allow that today.

Green Bay also benefits from the NFLs gargantuan media contracts. They can suffer through years of bad teams, half filled stadiums and still profit on that alone.

The NHL doesn’t have that luxury.

People seem to have this false notion that if the NHL were to move some of the struggling teams to cities that prospered better the owners would lower prices out of their generosity.

Not... going... to... happen.

Fans in Toronto or New York or Montreal aren’t paying the ticket prices they are because those teams are sending off checks to the bottom end teams. They do it because they know they’ll get it. Nothing is going to changed that short of fans just stop buying tickets and walk away.


Largely funded by their communities, yes.

Vegas isn’t....
Ottawa isn’t...
Toronto isn’t...
Montreal isn’t...
Winnipeg isn’t (for the most part)...
New York (Rangers) isn’t .....
Seattle coming in 2020 or ‘21 won’t be...

Those I know of off the top of my head.

Now if you want to say Arizona... Florida... yes. Those two easily fall into your description.

Most of the others will fall in various places between. I get what you’re trying to say. What I’m saying is you can’t just paint the entire league with such a broad stroke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CHRDANHUTCH

Fantomas

Registered User
Aug 7, 2012
13,242
6,557
The only reason Green Bay is still community owned is because it was grandfathered in. None of the pro sports leagues would allow that today.

You have a gift of telling me things I already know. I am making aspirational points, not merely observational ones.

Even privately owned teams owe a debt of gratitude to their fans, which is precisely the point. Maybe they feel like they don't, but that's a strike against them and is something we can change if we work for it.
 
Last edited:

lawrence

Registered User
May 19, 2012
15,883
6,620
why are people ripping Bettman? every damn league wants this as well..

Bettman is going to bat for the owners here. Nothing wrong with this. IF he gets some money, it's a win, if nothing comes out of it, he tried, at least theres a chance, not that anyone will come out of it.
 

zooperdooper

Registered User
May 13, 2009
82
11
I work in the betting industry in another country that have these "integrity fees" otherwise known as product fees locally so I can provide some context to them.

I may be biased but all they are is just an incredibly easy revenue stream for leagues (they don't need to do anything other than invoice each bookie and await for the payment), have nothing to do with protecting the integrity of a sport and the states would be idiotic to bow down to the sporting leagues.

The leagues already have deals with services such as Betradar that monitor betting behaviour across numerous bookmakers. The problems with match fixing doesn't occur on mainstream leagues anyway. It is an issue with lower league soccer and challenger tennis tournaments where players are getting paid peanuts and nobody is watching.

If integrity fees don't come into place the bookies will still cooperate with the leagues if there are any concerns around the integrity of a sport because they also have a vested interest in knowing that a sport/league is fair. If customers have an unfair edge they will be taking money off the bookie which is not good for their bottom line.

In terms of the amount that the leagues want for these integrity fees it will be a slippery slope if given the all clear. Bettman and co may want 1% of turnover now but that will change. It will be the easiest lever to pull to increase revenue without having to do anything.

1% will turn into 2% and then 3%. Etc. And you know who will pay for these increased fees? The customer and it will come in the form of increased juice on lines. Instead of the normal -110 lines will become -114.

The leagues don't need these integrity fees to get paid. The increased interest in games from people who have a bet on a game will result in more eyeballs on TV telecasts,league websites/apps. Also, the elephant in the room is advertising. The amount of money that will be spent attracting customers to all these new bookies is going to astronomical. This will result in tv networks having more money to spend on sporting rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mmvvpp

TheLegend

Megathread Gadfly
Aug 30, 2009
35,927
27,408
Buzzing BoH
You have a gift of telling me things I already know. I am making aspirational points, not merely observational ones.

Even privately owned teams owe a debt of gratitude to their fans, which is precisely the point. Maybe they feel like they don't, but that's a strike against them and is something we can change if we work for it.


I’m afraid you’re living in a bit of a fantasy world.

You shifted your argument away some after I pointed out teams who own 100% of their arenas. BTW.... add Los Angeles to that list.

But I don’t quite get this “gratitude” thing you’re stuck on.

It’s very simple.

Sports teams provide a product..... it’s called entertainment. People can choose to spend their money to be entertained (or not) based upon the value they feel they get out of it. The level of satisfaction will vary from person to person but, in general, if the product sucks then people will more than likely begin to spend their dollars elsewhere.

The ONLY place where a team should extend any sort of “gratitude” to its fans is working to provide the best product they can for them. They owe them nothing more than that. They’re already motivated by the theory that if the product is better, then more people will come and give them money to consume it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeHab

Fantomas

Registered User
Aug 7, 2012
13,242
6,557
The idea that professional sports teams are the exclusive property of billionaire owners is a notion even the most hardened capitalists reject. Which is why the NBA forced Donald Sterling to sell his stake in the Clippers. We are not talking about selling pancakes here.

There is always a public component to big sporting franchises. It's not a matter of owner-knows-best and if-you-don't-like-it-then-leave.

And as has already been mentioned, and ignored, several times, big sporting franchises do not exist without an influx of public money. Saying 'take it or leave it' ignores the fact that you can't leave what you are already paying into.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BogsDiamond

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,284
12,583
South Mountain
The idea that professional sports teams are the exclusive property of billionaire owners is a notion even the most hardened capitalists reject. Which is why the NBA forced Donald Sterling to sell his stake in the Clippers. We are not talking about selling pancakes here.

There is always a public component to big sporting franchises. It's not a matter of owner-knows-best and if-you-don't-like-it-then-leave.

And as has already been mentioned, and ignored, several times, big sporting franchises do not exist without an influx of public money. Saying 'take it or leave it' ignores the fact that you can't leave what you are already paying into.

Not sure what point you’re trying to make here? The NBA “forced”* Sterling to sell to a guy Forbes recently listed as the #22 wealthiest person on the planet.


*FWIW, legally the NBA never ultimately forced Sterling to sell. Sterling’s wife forced the sale after taking over control of the family trust that owned the Clippers. Whether the NBA could legally force Donald Sterling to sell wasn’t settled.
 

Fantomas

Registered User
Aug 7, 2012
13,242
6,557
Not sure what point you’re trying to make here? The NBA “forced”* Sterling to sell to a guy Forbes recently listed as the #22 wealthiest person on the planet.


*FWIW, legally the NBA never ultimately forced Sterling to sell. Sterling’s wife forced the sale after taking over control of the family trust that owned the Clippers. Whether the NBA could legally force Donald Sterling to sell wasn’t settled.

My point is that Sterling is no longer the Clippers owner because of public pressure. Even under capitalism there is a minimum standard of responsibility in the public arena. Fans have a say about the way sporting franchises are run and contribute more than just their money.

In other words, fans have an implicit stake in their cities' franchises, just as all of us have a stake in the way our cities are run. Unfortunately we cannot vote out the owners.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BogsDiamond

Goptor

Registered User
Jun 30, 2016
2,201
2,552
I'm surprised Bettman would fall down this hole. There are decades, probably even centuries of precedence that individuals, companies, organizations, etc. cannot claim ownership of facts.

The NHL can make all the lawsuits they want but a judge would throw them out real fast.

Lars Eller scored the 2018 cup clinching goal in the 3rd period of game 6. The NHL cannot charge the newspaper companies for printing this. They cannot charge various online publishers for releasing the info. They cannot charge me for typing it on HFBoards. They cannot charge sports booking companies for making payoffs or collecting betting money because of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mmvvpp

LeHab

Registered User
Aug 31, 2005
15,956
6,259
I'm surprised Bettman would fall down this hole. There are decades, probably even centuries of precedence that individuals, companies, organizations, etc. cannot claim ownership of facts.

The NHL can make all the lawsuits they want but a judge would throw them out real fast.

Lars Eller scored the 2018 cup clinching goal in the 3rd period of game 6. The NHL cannot charge the newspaper companies for printing this. They cannot charge various online publishers for releasing the info. They cannot charge me for typing it on HFBoards. They cannot charge sports booking companies for making payoffs or collecting betting money because of it.

I think you are referring to "fair use" in the context of journalism which is quite powerful. How this would apply in the context of gambling is another story. Fair Use definition is vague, don't underestimate deep laweyering pockets pro sports have.
 

willy702

Registered User
Jul 3, 2016
3,751
2,088
This is an important debate to have in any event. I think hockey is potentially a mess with the coming trends of gambling because of its low scoring nature. In-game betting will become the largest share of betting as it becomes widespread and official data will matter because there will be controversies. People will want to bet on things like who gets the next shot on goal, who gets the next hit and they will want to bet on these subjective numbers for the game as well because for some betting on who scores the next goal or gets the next penalty (undeniable facts) will just take too long for them to be interested. Imagine the power of the scorekeeper who says what's a shot on goal and what's not, and who gets credited for a "hit" which for anyone who has gone to arenas knows is a total joke. We all know there is a LOT of grey area there and yet these decisions will decide bets in the future. So the league has to be smart and stand by its official data stance. They can't charge as much as they threw out there with the 1% nonsense, but as the MGM deal with the NBA shows, there are ways to make deals for that data. Other sources can claim to do this for a lower price, but there will be a massive problem when another source's data doesn't match NHL data and bettors on the wrong side of those decisions will be furious.
 

Goptor

Registered User
Jun 30, 2016
2,201
2,552
I think you are referring to "fair use" in the context of journalism which is quite powerful. How this would apply in the context of gambling is another story. Fair Use definition is vague, don't underestimate deep laweyering pockets pro sports have.

I was bringing up media as an example for the far reaching consequences.

With regards to gambling: Boxing federations cannot claim ownership of player's victories and records, Horse racing tracks/organizations cannot claim ownership of final placings, Casino/Poker tournament organizers cannot claim intellectual property of which cards are drawn nor dealt to the players.

Final score of games. The amount of goals scored. The time of game and player associated with each goal. The players on the ice at a given time. Penalties accrued by team and by individual. Pretty much everything the bookmaking companies use to determine payoffs are facts. There is no intellectual owner and the NHL will not be able to enforce fees via lawsuits.
 

LeHab

Registered User
Aug 31, 2005
15,956
6,259
I was bringing up media as an example for the far reaching consequences.

With regards to gambling: Boxing federations cannot claim ownership of player's victories and records, Horse racing tracks/organizations cannot claim ownership of final placings, Casino/Poker tournament organizers cannot claim intellectual property of which cards are drawn nor dealt to the players.

Final score of games. The amount of goals scored. The time of game and player associated with each goal. The players on the ice at a given time. Penalties accrued by team and by individual. Pretty much everything the bookmaking companies use to determine payoffs are facts. There is no intellectual owner and the NHL will not be able to enforce fees via lawsuits.

By "fair use" I was referring to exploitation of NHL owned trademarks. A journalist can write an article on New York Rangers. Yeah what you have posted is not trademarked (or copyrighted). Was wondering if gambling sites could still use "New York Rangers vs New York Islanders" under fair use or will they have to use non-trademarked reference. If latter, they would need something else than a generic "Pro New York hockey team vs Pro New York hockey team".
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,284
12,583
South Mountain
This is an important debate to have in any event. I think hockey is potentially a mess with the coming trends of gambling because of its low scoring nature. In-game betting will become the largest share of betting as it becomes widespread and official data will matter because there will be controversies. People will want to bet on things like who gets the next shot on goal, who gets the next hit and they will want to bet on these subjective numbers for the game as well because for some betting on who scores the next goal or gets the next penalty (undeniable facts) will just take too long for them to be interested. Imagine the power of the scorekeeper who says what's a shot on goal and what's not, and who gets credited for a "hit" which for anyone who has gone to arenas knows is a total joke. We all know there is a LOT of grey area there and yet these decisions will decide bets in the future. So the league has to be smart and stand by its official data stance. They can't charge as much as they threw out there with the 1% nonsense, but as the MGM deal with the NBA shows, there are ways to make deals for that data. Other sources can claim to do this for a lower price, but there will be a massive problem when another source's data doesn't match NHL data and bettors on the wrong side of those decisions will be furious.

Maybe in some hyper gambling future down the road, but I doubt that’s going to happen for a long time.
 

willy702

Registered User
Jul 3, 2016
3,751
2,088
Maybe in some hyper gambling future down the road, but I doubt that’s going to happen for a long time.

In-game is far larger in Europe, just a matter of a few years really. Mobile betting makes it happen.
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,284
12,583
South Mountain

This was brought up in the other Supreme Court gambling related thread. IMO the racetrack has a reasonable chance to get damages from the leagues as it was the leagues themselves who took legal action to get the injunction against the racetrack. The judge in the case even required the leagues to post a bond in the event the racetrack won an appeal, which it did.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->