|
Contact:
Nancy H. Becker Associates For
Immediate Release SPORTS LEAGUES, EXPERTS CRY FOUL OVER NJ SPORTS BETTING PROPOSAL
NFL, NBA Team with Legal and Gambling Experts to Call on
Legislators Trenton, N.J., December 2, 2004 – The National Football League (NFL) and the National Basketball Association (NBA) today teamed with a Rutgers University constitutional law scholar and a nationally known gambling addiction expert to speak out against legislation to legalize sports gambling in New Jersey. Testifying at an Assembly Tourism and Gaming Committee hearing, NFL and NBA representatives urged legislators to oppose the measure (Assembly bill 3493), which would allow gambling on professional sports in Atlantic City casinos, if the voters approve in a statewide referendum. A federal law bars states from legalizing sports gambling. “Athletes, coaches and referees would be the equivalent of cards, dice and slot machines if sports gambling were allowed in New Jersey,” said Jay Moyer, NFL Special Counsel. “Sporting events should be appreciated for the athleticism and entertainment value, not as gambling devices. Legalizing betting on sports is the wrong message to send to younger sports fans,” Moyer said. “Because teenage boys and college-age students are particularly drawn to sports betting, adding sports betting to casinos will increase the numbers of underage casino gamblers, and in turn will increase the numbers of youth who suffer the serious consequences of a gambling problem,” said Valerie C. Lorenz, Ph.D. , Executive Director of the Compulsive Gambling Center. In 1992, after Oregon instituted a sports lottery, Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) to prevent the further spread of legalized sports gambling. While barring states from legalizing sports gambling, the law allowed sports gambling to continue where already legal. PASPA gave New Jersey a chance to legalize sports gambling in Atlantic City in the period immediately following PASPA’s enactment. Lawmakers, however, did not support a proposed initiative similar to the proposal now under consideration in the Assembly. PASPA also left Delaware free to reinstitute a sports lottery that it had operated in the 1970s, but Delaware has not done so. “In view of PASPA,” Moyer stated, “the odds would be stacked against any legal attempt aimed at bringing sports betting to Atlantic City casinos. For the state to move forward with sports gambling after New Jerseyans approved the risky venture, nearly impossible legal hurdles would need to be overcome in a court of law.” “A court would almost certainly uphold PAPSA as a valid exercise of federal power and a legal challenge to the federal legislation would very likely fail,” stated Rutgers University Law Professor Bernard W. Bell at the committee meeting. “PASPA complies with the U.S. Constitution. It is undoubtedly a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause power, and it does not run afoul of either the Tenth Amendment or the equal protection guarantee of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” In 1995 the Minnesota Legislature asked Attorney General Humphrey whether PASPA was vulnerable to constitutional challenge. In a memorandum to the Legislature he stated: “A lawsuit by the state challenging the constitutionality of the Sports Protection Act would require the commitment of significant legal resources and is highly unlikely to success in view of existing United States Supreme Court precedent.” |