Let the fans have their fantasy sports |
Featured Commentary

Let the fans have their fantasy sports

Tim Bedison illustration

As National Football League teams start to go into their “bye” weeks when they don’t have a game to play, fantasy sports fans are scrambling to find replacements for their starting lineups on the waiver wires.

More than 75 million Americans are participating in public or private fantasy sports leagues, drafting their dream teams of real-world professional football players and putting their football knowledge to the test, hoping their choices pan out this week and their players leave it all out on the field.

And many Americans put their sports knowledge and player-evaluation skills to a real test, competing with friends or workmates for agreed-upon cash prizes.

Fearful that too many people might be having fun watching football, state and federal lawmakers are cracking down on daily fantasy sports, doing their best to guard against the haunting fear someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Daily fantasy sports (DFS), a type of fantasy sports game, has become popular this year. In daily fantasy sports, participants can draft a new team every week, instead of being stuck with the same roster over the entire season. Competition “seasons” in DFS last a single weekend: On Monday morning, it’s a new season and time to draft a new team.

Players are assigned a fictitious auction value, simulating the salary management concerns of a general manager on draft day; participants use their knowledge of National Football League statistics and player news to compete to build the best team possible within the constraints of the game rules.

Efforts are already underway in Michigan, Nevada and New York to ban daily fantasy sports, based on regulators’ mistaken understandings of American gaming law and the urge to stomp out fun.

In 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), prohibiting “gambling businesses from knowingly accepting payments in connection with the participation of another person in a bet or wager that involves the use of the Internet” but exempting any fantasy sports competitions that “(reflect) the relative knowledge and skill of the participants and are determined predominantly by accumulated statistical results of the performance of individuals in multiple real-world sporting or other events.”

Although his opinion lacks legal authority, as legal interpretations are issued by the state’s attorney general, Michigan Gaming Control Board Executive Director Rick Kalm told an industry trade newspaper, Gambling Compliance, he believes playing DFS for cash prizes is “illegal under current Michigan law.”

In Nevada, a state overwhelmingly dominated by commercial casino interests, gaming regulators determined DFS met the state’s definition of gambling because backing up one’s confidence in sports knowledge is “wagering on the collective performance of individuals participating in sporting events.”

Unless companies wishing to facilitate DFS agree to regulators’ demands for licensing fees, tax money and rolls and rolls of bureaucratic red tape, Nevadans who want to increase their enjoyment of NFL games by having a real stake in players’ performances will have to visit their neighborhood government-approved bookie to scratch that itch.

And in New York, the attorney general declared that payout fantasy football leagues are nothing more than illegal gambling.

Instead of blitzing daily fantasy sports, lawmakers should resist the urge to ban popular, benign activities and products. Leaving consumers alone and letting them spend their money in harmless ways they enjoy is a touchdown for everyone.

Jesse Hathaway is a research fellow at The Heartland Institute. Brad Bumsted is off today.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.