Opposition from PHAI to NCAA's proposed sports betting data arrangement

Opposition from PHAI to NCAA's proposed sports betting data arrangement

(New Article)

NCAA's Deal with Genius Sports Sparks Health Concerns

Last week, the sports tech powerhouse, Genius Sports, scored a significant victory, inking a deal with the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). But this partnership isn't receiving applause from everyone. The Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI) is expressing serious reservations.

In a bold move, the NCAA has given Genius Sports the power to become its exclusive provider of official data to licensed sports betting companies during March Madness, as well as all post-season tournaments through 2032.

PHAI, a nonprofit legal research center, has been critical of this collaboration, expressing concerns about the potential hazards of micro-bets. On Monday, the Institute crystalized their criticisms, saying the NCAA "tragically prioritized money and profits over public health and the welfare of student-athletes".

Micro-bets, the Institute explains, are a form of online gambling that uses machine learning and AI to create constant, relentless betting opportunities. This non-stop action, they warn, drastically heightens the danger of gambling-related harm and addiction.

In December, Charlie Baker, the NCAA President, advocated for a federal ban on college prop bets, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. However, the NCAA's subsequent move to align with Genius Sports contradicts this stance.

PHAI's Founder and President, Richard Daynard, strongly disagreed with the NCAA's decision. He argued that instead of tackling the gambling sector head-on, the Association decided to step right into their midst. "This union with the gambling industry frustratingly underscores the necessity for a comprehensive public health response at both federal and state levels," he stressed.

Other PHAI executives, including Mark Gottlieb and Dr. Harry Levant, joined in the critique, lamenting the NCAA's move to take gambling industry money, which they believe will fuel addiction, harm, and serious issues for players, their families, and the public at large.

Dr. Levant raised particular concerns about an increased risk of gambling-related harm as micro-bets would give bettors the chance to wager on "nearly every action taken by college players in each game." He also criticized the NCAA's plan to utilize the revenue from the agreement to fund education programs, comparing it unfavorably to tactics employed by the tobacco industry.

The trio also pointed out the NCAA's lack of transparency concerning the deal's details.

[1] - A study linking micro-betting to increased addiction risks: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7631174/[2] - The Public Health Advocacy Institute's stance on the gambling industry: https://phai.org/[3] - The NCAA and Genius Sports agreement details: https://www.geniussports.com/news/genius-sports-officially-becomes-the-ncaas-exclusive-data-partner-for-betting-operations

Image credit: Pixabay.com

1. The Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI) has highlighted the potential risks associated with sports betting, particularly micro-bets, which they believe could lead to increased gambling addiction.
2. In a published study, the dangers of micro-betting were linked to the constant betting opportunities it offers, which can heighten the risk of gambling-related harm.
3. PHAI criticized the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) for prioritizing profits over public health and student-athlete welfare by partnering with the gambling industry.
4. NCAA President, Charlie Baker, advocated for a federal ban on college prop bets, yet the Association's partnership with Genius Sports contradicts this stance, causing PHAI's executives to express their disagreement.
5. The PHAI executives believe that the NCAA's union with the gambling industry will fuel addiction, harm, and serious issues for student-athletes, their families, and the public.
6. The partnership between the NCAA and Genius Sports has raised concerns about a lack of transparency in the deal's details, as well as the use of revenue to fund education programs, which some critics compare unfavorably to tactics employed by the tobacco industry.

Read also: