Archive

Fantasy hypocrisy: What’s the problem? | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Fantasy hypocrisy: What’s the problem?

Greater federal and state scrutiny of increasingly popular daily fantasy sports websites just makes the gambling hypocrisy of governments and major professional leagues more apparent.

A 2006 federal law banning most online gambling exempted fantasy sports as games of skill, not chance. Yet U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., wants a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on daily fantasy sports. He questions how they differ from betting on the outcomes of games, implicitly questioning daily fantasy’s “skill” component, which is as genuine as poker’s.

It’s telling that Massachusetts’ attorney general is looking into Boston’s DraftKings and that lawmakers in several cash-strapped states are eyeing it and New York’s FanDuel as revenue sources. Perhaps that’s Mr. Pallone’s real agenda: ensuring that government, which blesses state lotteries and licensed casinos, gets a cut from the multibillion-dollar daily fantasy industry, too.

Meanwhile, the ostensibly gambling-averse NFL and Major League Baseball happily accept millions of dollars of advertising from fantasy sites. Pittsburgh’s Steelers and Pirates are among them.

Add the harmlessness of playing fantasy sports daily, weekly or season-long, online or not, and it seems that government is in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.