On Wednesday, July 22nd, 2020, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing entitled “Protecting the Integrity of College Athletics.” The hearing featured testimony from two panels full of key athletic and legal leadership. Members of both panels shared their experiences with current NCAA and gambling standards and their effects on collegiate athletes.
The hearing began with opening remarks from three Senators on the committee. Chairman Graham shared his fear of an ongoing bidding war for the name, image, and likeness of college recruits where we have many different approaches to how you reimburse a premiere athlete. Ranking Member Blumenthal emphasized the need to establish a framework or Bill of Rights that will protect college athletes’ and dollars that fuel a multi-billion-dollar industry. Finally, Senator Cory Booker, a former athlete and one of the key leaders of this legislation, indicated how he felt that the NCAA had failed to make sure young athletes graduate and are protected throughout the process.
On Panel I, Mr. Radakovich advocated for one universal and national standard on name, image, and likeness with consensus principles. Professor Mitten spoke on the importance of providing consistency, preventing the development of conflicting state laws, and avoiding dangers of professionalizing college sports through a narrow a narrow antitrust immunity regarding NIL licensing. Mr. Wrighster talked about his frustration with the NCAA’s proposal and inability to develop appropriate NIL legislation. Dr. Emmert defended the NCAA but admitted there was much improvement necessary and his desire to find a balanced solution. Finally, Mr. Huma stressed the number of NIL restrictions his organization disagrees with.
Panel II was made up of two witnesses and focused more on gambling in college sports. Mr. Miller felt legalized betting was much easier to regulate and preserve the integrity of the competition. Ms. Lyke worried about the undue pressure gambling can place on college athletes and the widespread dangers of legalizing the practice.
The witness testimony was followed by a lengthy question and answer section that delved into topics regarding the concerns Senators had pertaining to the vulnerability of college athletes and the inequity that exists in the system. While the first panel focused on Name, Image, and Likeness legislation, the conversation opened to many other rights athletes deserve. The second panel discussed many aspects of sports gambling including playing online, prop betting, and match fixing
1. Mr. Dan Radakovich, Athletic Director; Clemson University; Clemson, SC
2. Professor Matt Mitten, Executive Director; National Sports Law Institute, Marquette University Law School; Milwaukee, WI
3. Mr. George Wrighster, III, Former Member; National Football League Players Association Board of Representatives; Los Angeles, CA
4. Dr. Mark Emmert, President; National Collegiate Athletic Association; Indianapolis, IN
5. Mr. Ramogi Huma, Executive Director; National College Players Association; Norca, CA
6. Mr. Bob Miller, President and CEO; American Gaming Association; Washington, DC
7. Ms. Heather Lyke, Director of Athletics; University of Pittsburgh; Pittsburgh, PA
Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
1. People are making money off amateur athletics and the challenge is making sure the business model is fair to people who play the sport without destroying the amateur nature of the game
2. I want to preserve the college athletic experience and many people do not turn this into their livelihood
3. We cannot start a bidding war for the name, image, and likeness of college recruits and have different approaches to how you reimburse a premiere athlete-this will have no end
4. There is a side to gambling that could be a second punch to the integrity of the sport that unnerves me about the potential for abuse
Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
1. We need to establish a framework or Bill of Rights that will protect college athletes’ lives and the dollars that fuel a multi-dollar industry under a masquerade of amateurism
2. Three states are passing legislation for athletes and the industry is asking for a national standard- we want real reform and college athletes should be compensated and prioritized
3. Racial, economic, and healthcare justice are at play as collegiate sports are disproportionately played by students of color and they are denied access to the revenue they create
4. I am proud of the Bill of Rights I have developed with Senator Booker as athletes would be able to negotiate their own contracts, have lifetime college scholarship, hold others accountable, require essential health and safety standards for their wellbeing, etc.
Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)
1. Many low-income black and brown athletes do not experience college sports in the way I did and are overrepresented and exploited in major revenue sports
2. These athletes sustain many serious injuries without compensation and limited healthcare after they stop playing and create revenue for universities with their name, image, and likeness
3. We have seen no progress as NCAA has failed to make sure young men and women graduate and the plan undermines their stated goals with differing deals between universities- this would sunset in ten years and is solely symbolism
4. I am grateful to help create a proposal for fair and equitable compensation, improvement in educational outcomes, and a standard for health and wellbeing
PANEL I TESTIMONY
Mr. Dan Radakovich
1. Student athletes at Clemson have all the tools they need for a road of success including post-eligibility scholarships, post-eligibility medical care, full cost of attendance stipends, and life skills training- between $70,000 and $125,000
2. We are asking Congress to preserve the NCAA provision of educational benefits to a diverse board of student athletes
3. We need one universal and fair national standard on NIL with consensus principles
4. We must recognize athletes as students, rather than employees by preventing NIL licensing, protecting them from unscrupulous actors, and funding lower-revenue sports
5. Universities and conferences should not be penalized for complying with Congress’s rules to have a fair NIL system that allows students to benefit from their NIL rights
6. I hope Congress will consider the multitude of athletes that participate in Olympic Sports, not only the most recognizable ones
Professor Matt Mitten
1. Case-by-case litigation to resolve the anti-trust validity of NCAA student athlete eligibility rules is not an optimal method of externally regulating intercollegiate sports competition among nonprofit institutions of higher education: it is not practical
2. Antitrust law generally does not consider legitimate, non-economic justification for student athlete amateurism eligibility rules because it is only prohibitory in nature
3. Congress can consider multiple social goals including defining the scope of permissible NIL licensing, maximizing college sports participation opportunities and scholarships, and advancing Title IX gender equity
4. I agree with Senators Graham, Booker, and Blumenthal that targeted Federal legislation is the best tool for macrolevel reforms of intercollegiate athletics and structural change
5. We must provide consistency, prevent development of conflicting state laws, and avoid dangers of professionalizing college sports through a narrow antitrust immunity regarding NIL licensing
Mr. George Wrighster, III
1. NCAA has failed to create appropriate NIL legislation and causes economic injury to student athletes who cannot profit off their talents
2. Three glaring issues in the proposal are: the one semester vesting period where athletes cannot make NIL money, the five years of “no publicity” rights before you get to college, public transparency of all deals, and the banning of deals with companies the school does not have prior relationships with
Dr. Mark Emmert
1. We have worked with experts to ensure the safe return to college athletics post COVID-19 and are making many difficult decisions to try to preserve the integrity and fairness of college sports
2. We support a student athlete’s ability to profit off their NIL as we try to improve the success of athletes and we need Congress’s help
3. A growing patchwork of state laws and imbalances in recruiting, booster activities, and direct compensation to athletes challenges the uniformity of rules that play sports fair and fun
4. College athletics needs a safe harbor in which NIL opportunities can be administered, but NCAA is not seeking a broad antitrust exemption
Mr. Ramogi Huma
1. NCAA sports uses amateurism as a cover to systematically strip generational wealth from low-income black athletes to pay for the lavish salaries of predominantly white coaches, commissioners, athletic directors, and NCAA administrators
2. NCAA sports are fighting to take away economic freedoms, allowing athletes to return to the sport during a pandemic, and Courts have said a level playing field is unattainable under the current circumstances
3. The NCPA strongly opposes the following NIL restrictions: a federal ban on direct compensation to college athletes, antitrust and litigation exemptions, prohibition of employee status, denying the ability to secure representation and earn NIL pay, punishment of athletes who do not publicly expose their NIL deals, prohibiting NIL deals with athletic boosters and companies/competitors contracting with colleges, prohibition on group licensing, enlisting the FTC to handle agent certification, and the preemption of state laws
QUESTION AND ANSWER- PANEL I
Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
1. If a college athlete is recruited, given a scholarship, and gets injured in their first year or before their first year, is there any requirement that scholarship be continued?
1. Dr. Emmert: Yes, there is. A scholarship cannot be revoked for reasons of an injury.
2. If fifty states go off on their own, is it a problem that alumni could engage in bidding wars?
1. Mr. Radakovich: Yes, that could be a problem. I think we are looking at the idea of premiere student athletes having incredible opportunities to take advantage of the NIL opportunities that could be presented to them. We must also understand that we need to create a level playing field as it relates to competition. Fifty different state laws would make it very difficult to create a level playing field across the country. We are asking Congress to help create whatever guidelines are there whether it is the principles the Autonomy 5 have put together or other information that would help create NIL opportunities for student athletes.
3. When you say, “a small antitrust exemption,” what do you mean by that?
1. Mr. Mitten: The NCAA, its member schools, and conferences would not be subject to ENI trust liability for essentially any enforcement efforts regarding the scope of the NIL rules that Congress chooses to enact. That is what is particularly important here. If antitrust is still out there and can be used.
4. So, the relief would be at the statute?
1. Mr. Mitten: Yes, it would.
5. How do you deal with the problem of the premiere athlete when every major school in the country wants this young man or woman to play a particular sport? How do you make sure that their NIL licensing concept cannot be abused to create a bidding war?
1. Mr. Wrighster: The initial problem is that that is already going on. When you look at the University of Alabama, they have different resources than Alabama A&T. Compliance officers are necessary within the universities because you are going to get an idea pretty quickly of the fair market value of your NIL. Having those registered agents to be able to vet those contracts is the key. You do not want the kids to be able to get taken advantage of and that is where the compliance officers are going to be vital. Also, having a governing body that can review some of these things to ensure there are protections around the universities and athletes. We have seen in our country, though, that the fair market value of these will eventually and quickly correct itself. You may have someone try to circumvent the rules, but there is no guarantee of success for a collegiate athlete just because he is a premiere player.
6. Should the people regulating whatever Congress does be an entity outside the NCAA?
1. Dr. Emmert: For this case around NIL, I think it should be. The conversation you were just having epitomizes the need for an independent entity that can provide some monitoring. I understand how having these relationships be public would be concerning and undesirable; however, having them vetted by a compliance director involved in the bidding war at a university does not solve the problem. We are advocating for someone outside of this.
7. Is there a limit on how long it takes you to get through school?
1. Mr. Radakovich: Especially for our football program, we have what amounts to lifelong scholarships.
8. That is no burden on Clemson University?
1. Mr. Radakovich: No sir, it is not.
9. Tell us what the future will look like given the path we are on if Congress does not do anything, and what is your takeaway from this hearing?
1. Mr. Radakovich: My takeaway from this hearing is that there are a lot of good questions out there, but there is some misinformation. One of the things that really struck me is that the Autonomy 5 Conference does not take away scholarships from student athletes who are injured. I have been in an A5 Conference for fifteen years and I have never seen that happen. I think that is something to understand. I think we have also made the student athlete experience better over the last ten years. A student athlete in 2020 has more opportunity for whatever reason how it came about. As we continue down this path, we must keep open minds as to what markets will bear for a certain number of our student athletes. We must understand that as a Director of Athletics, I serve over 475 student athletes over 19 sports and we do have several our student athletes that have incredible opportunities through NIL. We want to make sure they have those things into the future, but we must do things thoughtfully without pinging on the recruitment process.
Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
1. Can a school refuse to renew a scholarship because of injury?
1. Mr. Huma: Correct. The NCAA minimum is a one-year scholarship that is renewable or nonrenewable for any reason. So, if a player is permanently injured, a school can say, “we do not want you anymore because you cannot play for us.”
2. Do you agree with that?
1. Dr. Emmert: The school could make that assertion, but I have never seen that example in my career.
3. Would you agree to all the elements of the framework that I have outlined just now to provide real protection?
1. Dr. Emmert: I think that all the issues you have identified are important ones and for the most part, I agree with every one of them. The proposals you have in front of us from the NCAA and the A5 were provided in response from the Commerce committee to the specific issue of NIL legislation and not to address broader issues.
4. If schools can prohibit students from contracting with companies that have deals with the school, companies that compete with those companies, and companies that allegedly undermine the reputation of schools, what companies are left?
1. Mr. Huma: I think that is the question at hand. Even if a school does not have contract with the company, it can go out of its way to close off various companies because it has that power. If a player is interested in a competitor or untapped industry, the school can run out and prohibit that by making a small deal here and there. There is much to be gamed in that system. Any kind of inducement, Congress can do directly. Do not give the NCAA power to wield as its been a bad actor in that area in many areas. Congress can put forth legislation to prohibit the inducement of a prospective athlete with NIL deals.
5. Will you commit to opposing any waivers of responsibility on the part of colleges and putting that responsibility solely on students, so they are required to waive that right?
1. Dr. Emmert: I am opposed to it and I think it is an inappropriate thing for schools to be doing.
6. Would you support the College Athlete Pandemic Safety Act?
1. Dr. Emmert: I am supportive of its general direction without remembering all the details of it.
7. Can you tell me why this antitrust immunity or broad blanket exemption should go to colleges?
1. Dr. Emmert: We have been wrestling with how we can do multiple things we here. One is to provide opportunities for students to monetize their NIL and create some guardrails that will limit the inappropriate engagement of boosters and other parties that will use that opportunity to inflate or distort the marketplace. Those guardrails will provoke legal action that will make it extremely difficult to enforce this rule. Whoever oversees oversight needs to be provided with sufficient protection so they can take prudent action without the threat of litigation. I think it should be tapered to this question.
8. Has the NCAA begun to consider the possibility that fall sports are not going to played and what are the metrics you are going to consider determining it?
1. Dr. Emmert: The Board of Governors, just as we did in the winter when we sadly cancelled the NCAA Championships in the winter, March Madness, and the Frozen Four. All our Spring Championships have been monitoring these issues routinely. Our board meeting will decide what we should do about our Fall Championships. As you may know, the NCAA Championships does not have oversight over the regular seasons and competitions of schools, but it does over our championships. The decisions the Board of Governors will be very difficult as we want to give our athletes opportunities to play, but only safely.
Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE)
1. Three states have legislation going into effect within the next three years. What do you think the inertia of motion is if Congress does nothing?
1. Dr. Emmert: There are several states that have in the harbor or proposed language statutes and changes that would have an impact on this question some of which are quite varied. Some include revenue sharing models with student athletes that would convert something on the order of direct payment to those athletes. The California model also includes some prohibition against NIL in areas where schools already have sponsorships. The state bills already variable. I know many states are approaching this issue, not just because they want to improve the opportunities for their students, but they want to make sure they are competitive and their state universities can take part in the bidding wars that Senator Graham is describing. They are hastening to pass similar kinds of legislation to expand it to be more permissive than those that exist in other cases. I want to be clear that we are not seeking broad-based antitrust exemptions to do anything other than try to solve this issue. We are going to have a patchwork of state laws that will be conflicting as things currently stand and are going to create significant disruptions in the recruiting process. Students are free to make decisions about the school they want to attend and play for and injecting direct cash inducements is very problematic.
2. Does the NCAA have macro data on what happens to athletes by different sports when injured for the rest of their career? How many finish schools and how many of them had the financial opportunity to continue their time?
1. Dr. Emmert: There is a set of data we would be happy to share with you and the rest of the Committee. I agree that Senators Blumenthal and Booker are raising very important questions and ones that are well worthy of conversation. We would be very happy to engage in those discussions and similarly provide any information we have available.
3. Could you orient us to the “loss of value” insurance policies that same elite athletes buy in the middle of their college experience? Is there any broad market for something like that? Has the NCAA ever considered covering the premiums of that for a broader range of athletes?
1. Dr. Emmert: The policy todays allow universities to cover those policies. I cannot speak to the marketplace for them. Mr. Radacovich probably has a better feel for it because he has probably seen it up close more than I have. They are rarely used because they are very expensive, and I do not know of any example in which one of those policies has actually paid out. They are attractive to some individuals for obvious reasons, but their effectiveness is unclear to me.
Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)
1. Is it true that even if a school is found not to be following the NCAA’s concussion protocol, there was no enforceable penalties for that coach or that program?
1. Dr. Emmert: It probably is true. I do not know the circumstances of which you are describing, but there are not prescribed penalties for failure to follow this protocol.
2. Do you still support awarding college athletes a scholarship for life?
1. Dr. Emmert: I do. We have made significant progress in each of the three areas since we last discussed this in a previous setting. Since our last conversation, we have become the world leader in science and understanding by having invested more in research than any other entity. We have strengthened and renewed the concussion protocols to which they are much more scientifically based and rigorous today and are being followed by every school we have looked at. I think we have been a lot of progress on the concussion front and have data supporting it.
3. Do you support allowing college athletes the opportunity to attend the institution of their choice without being forced to sit out a year or forgo a year of eligibility?
1. Dr. Emmert: Yes, I do. To be clear, the Board of Governors did not walk it back. The Division I Council were unable to deal with it during the pandemic and moved that issue to January.
4. Are more lavish facilities not a competitive advantage for one school over another?
1. Mr. Radakovich: No one can understand whether those things are competitive advantages for schools. Those types of things were done consciously through our Board of Trustees, our President, and the investments we have made in football have been done with our eyes wide open. Our fan base has supported them.
5. How do you see a double standard when it comes to what athletes and universities face?
1. Mr. Radakovich: We have been supportive of transfer legislation. Maybe I am not understanding your question, but I think the student athletes and the NIL legislation we are trying to put forward will allow them in the marketplace to capitalize to whatever market opportunities are available to them. Just like coaches can capitalize within the market. We want to give athletes the ability to do that.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)
1. Why should we not let the free market protect our long-standing antitrust laws, including recent precedent precisely on this issue? Why should the government be tipping the scales one way or another?
1. Mr. Emmert: I am not a lawyer, but I believe the fundamental principle here is that to allow the NIL opportunities for student athletes to occur in an open marketplace, then those media rights for sponsorship or social influencer revenue that could come to those students should not be distorted by those boosters who may not care about that individual’s marketing capacities or their impact on marketing decisions. Their sole goal would be to interject to coerce a student to go to a certain university.
2. Would Section 3ci of the Power 5 rule out a lot of potential sponsors for student athletes?
1. Mr. Radakovich: It is problematic as you have noted. I think these consensus principles were put together by the Power 5 Conference but there is time and opportunity to get them right. We do not look at these as rules that have been enacted and accepted by all the membership of the NCAA. These are guidelines for further discussion, and I think the questions that have come forward here will be talked about before January of 2021.
3. Do you stand by the statement made by the NCAA regarding Idaho’s statement on female athletes?
1. Dr. Emmert: I do. I think it is an extremely challenging issue. We have been working closely with the U.S. and International Olympic Committees to try and keep our policies parallel about the participation of transgender athletes in intercollegiate athletes.
Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO)
1. Can you give us your views about liability limitation issue for alleged antitrust violations?
1. Mr. Huma: I am opposed wholeheartedly. In Mr. Emmert’s opening statement, he was talking about some of the progress the NCAA has made, but all those changes were made because of antitrust lawsuits or investigations against the NCAA that led to benefits for college athletes. For example, the White vs. NCAA antitrust lawsuit eliminated the NCAA’s ban on healthcare insurance. The DOJ’s investigation into the NCAA’s one-year scholarship limit ban allowed schools to have more. The stipend was a direct result from another antitrust lawsuit on NIL. Players get thousands of dollars a year, so they do not get stuck the red. The most recent Austin lawsuit locks up to $14,000 per year per player and a host of other educational compensation. The NCAA fought every one of them not to mention that if they had NIL rules, this hearing would not be taking place because California would have never had the ability to do this.
2. Explain the more targeted approach you would prefer instead of what the NCAA is proposing.
1. Mr. Huma: I think the main issue is how you prevent NIL deals from being used as inducements for high school recruits or even transfers. We are agreeable to a solution on that, but not one that gives the NCAA any kind of antitrust exemption. If anything, Congress can put action into legislation and directly restrict those NIL deals used as inducements. It does not have to put it in the hands of the NCAA or the conferences- that would be un-American. We are supposed to be about markets and many coaches have access to the free market.
3. Do you think the FTC, or some other entity, should oversee the recruitment of the licensing process and the involvement of agents and advisors?
1. Mr. Mitten: There definitely needs to be some outside entity and I like the idea of some sort of oversight. I do not know if it is the FTC, but I think that is a really important issue. Student athletes are going to need someone they can go to who has the requisite expertise to help them figure out what fair market value is and come up with the terms of NIL agreements. There needs to be some sort of entity or oversight out there to make sure that unqualified people, unsavory agents are not taking advantage of intercollegiate athletes. This happened in the context of professional sports and that is what led to the Uniform Athlete Agent Act. The NCAA, itself, is not in the best position to provide that oversight so some external entity would be good.
4. How do you think that legislation that would allow publicity rights for college athletes would affect the recruitment process? Are there any adverse effects that concern you?
1. Mr. Radacovich: I think that as we move through this process, as long as we can come to an understanding of what some of the guidelines would be, I am a huge proponent of the third party coming forward and allowing student athletes to know and understand what their rights are. This is going to be a novelty at first, but as student athletes, universities, and conferences begin to understand this, I do not believe it would be that big of an issue as long as all the rules are the same throughout the country.
PANEL II TESTIMONY
Mr. Bob Miller
7. We continue to work with state and tribal leaders to prioritize consumer protection, robust oversight, and unlocking vital resources under PASPA
8. Continued legalization, consumer education, and a sustained, coordinated crackdown on illegal sports hubs in the United States must be shared by all stakeholders and is central to preserving the integrity of the competition
9. Legal gambling operators are concerned about corruption and want to bring it under the protection of gaming regulators across the country
10. Demand does not go away by outlawing gambling and instead, pushes it underground
11. The Federal government should enforce against the illegal marketplace and repeal the Federal excise tax on sports wagers which advances no specific policy goal
Ms. Heather Lyke
6. We urge Congress to prohibit college sports gambling as was intended in the Professional Amateur Sports Protection Act and had been for so long
7. Please consider student and student athlete wellbeing, the integrity of amateur competition, and the compliance impact on all higher education institutions as result of gambling
8. The pressure and threats, mental health issues, addictive behavior, scandals, corruption, etc. will only increase among students and athletes alike
QUESTION AND ANSWER- PANEL II
Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
1. How would you respond to the argument that the biggest threat to the integrity of college athletics on the gambling side is from illegal gambling versus legal gambling?
1. Ms. Lyke: I would argue that when you have illegal gambling there are certain people that are willing to take on illegal acts. The population of people is probably much less than when you legalize it. There are more people involved, more pressure and more opportunities to do it.
2. What do you say to that?
1. Mr. Miller: In March of 2018, prior to the Supreme Court’s decision to validate PASPA, there was an estimation of ten million dollars that was bet on March Madness. Ninety-seven percent of that was illegal, so I think that during the period before legalization, gambling was still prevalent
3. Would you say that most of the ninety seven percent was office pools?
1. Mr. Miller: I tend to not try to be the policeman of office pools.
4. Why will New York not let you bet on college competitions in New York?
1. Mr. Miller: There are several different reasons. You can talk to former Governor Chris Christie as they have similar provision in New Jersey.
5. Can you do prop betting legally?
1. Mr. Miller: Not really, I think the Super Bowl is unique. Each state governs college athletics.
6. Would you say it is a bad practice to be able to bet on a pass or run in college athletics?
1. Mr. Miller: Sports books want to be able to ensure the integrity of the activity and only want to put a line on something they believe is not subject to.
7. Why should the demand for college gambling not keep us from dealing with legal gambling?
1. Ms. Lyke: College athletes are distinctly different than when you gamble on professional sports. There is a parallel existence for college athletes. They are students in the classroom, they are on a college campus, and they are athletes on a field. When you think about auto racing, this their profession. College athletes are just uniquely susceptible to financial temptation. I have seen the peril of it in college athletics. One more level of temptation or potential threat would be unnecessary and bad for the game.
8. Do you have concerns with online gaming in terms of underage users and unsavory actors?
1. Mr. Miller: In an around sport betting, the WIRE Act has jurisdiction over that.
9. Do you like the changes we have made in the WIRE Act?
1. Mr. Miller: It was my first day on the job as the new CEO of the American Gaming Association, so it made quite an impact. As you may know, we have members that have different opinions as it relates to online casino types. As it relates to sports vetting, as the states begin to develop their legislative proposals, they recognize the important oversight and role that the WIRE Act played. Mobile betting is interesting and uses geo-fencing to ensure it complies with that.
Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
1. How big of a danger is match fixing among student sports?
1. Ms. Lyke: I do not know if we can quantify how dangerous or how prevalent match fixing is, but the more permissive gambling on college sports is, the more opportunity and temptation there is to do it. It would have been hard to get access to athletes in the past for gamblers, but now with social media there is such easy access. There is a tremendous amount of exposure that they have. If you ever follow a student athlete’s account after a game, you will see that those threats, pressures, and comments are real. They must ignore them and that is an easy way for outside people to have access.
2. Mr. Miller: It is unclear. There are state laws against match fixing and at the federal level. The history is that match fixing has been discovered almost every time by the legal operators that recognized the anomalous betting activity. I absolutely believe that in the legal construct we are now beginning to see, understanding it will be much easier for law enforcement to identify irregular betting activity by identifying people who are making those suspicious bets and better investigate it than when it was illegal.
2. If there is compensation for these athletes, do you think there is less of a temptation for match fixing because there is compensation outside of that?
1. Ms. Lyke: I think there would be some. The reality is that you cannot absolve financial temptation, but it may lessen a bit.
3. Is it your sense that organized criminal networks that engage in sports vetting still have a role in this illegality?
1. Mr. Miller: We have done research around consumer behavior and fifty-two percent of people that bet believe they are betting on legal sites but are betting on illegal sites. The prevalence and easy at which people can open their cellphone and get to an illegal offshore website is just as easy as you can get to any other item on your cellphone. The illegal activity that takes place continues and our job, as we are continuing to roll out a legal, transparent, secure, consumer-friendly, and consumer oriented sports betting operation, is to create PSA campaigns and destroy the illegal market that has been predatory.