America’s High-Stakes Bet on Legalized Sports Gambling (U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary)

Hearing	America’s High-Stakes Bet on Legalized Sports Gambling
Committee	U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Date	December 17, 2024

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Proliferation of Sports Betting within the U.S.: The hearing focused primarily on the proliferation of sports gambling following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) decision. This decision had struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA), which had enabled states to legalize sports betting. Sports betting is now legal in 38 states and Washington, DC. Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses discussed how sports betting has grown significantly since sports betting has become more legal and has changed how many Americans watch both college and professional sports. They highlighted how sports leagues have partnered with sportsbooks and have integrated sports wagering into their games and broadcasts. They also noted how sports betting advertisements have become ubiquitous and how there exist extensive menus of available betting options for consumers.
  • Gambling Addiction: Several Committee Members, Mr. Bademosi, Mr. Whyte, and Dr. Levant raised concerns regarding gambling’s potential to be addictive. Full Committee Chairman Richard Durbin (D-IL) referenced an National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) estimate that 2.5 million adults have severe gambling problems and that between 5 million and 8 million additional adults have mild gambling problems. Mr. Whyte noted that while this increase in gambling problems since 2018 is “unprecedented,” he indicated that 2024 data shows that the increase in risky gambling behavior appears to have stabilized. He asserted however that it remains too early to assume that gambling problem rates are stable. Mr. Rebuck stated that the gaming industry has invested significant money in research to reduce gambling harms and highlighted how the gaming industry had recently established the Responsible Online Gaming Association.
  • Prevalence of Sports Betting Among Young Educated Men: Mr. Whyte noted how the NCAA had conducted a survey finding that most young male college students have placed a sports bet during the previous year. He also mentioned how his organization, the NCPG, had found that educational status is one of the greatest predictive factors of sports betting. He stated that sports betting is unique among all forms of gambling in that higher education levels are correlated with a greater likelihood to bet on sports. He added that this positive correlation between education level and sports betting is unique to the U.S. He remarked that the U.S. must address this greater propensity for young educated men to bet on sports.
  • Harassment and Threats Directed at Athletes: Several Committee Members, Mr. Baker, and Mr. Bademosi raised concerns that the proliferation of legalized sports betting has caused sports bettors to harass and threaten athletes. Mr. Baker testified that his organization, the NCAA. has conducted four different surveys over the past several months and stated that each survey shows that between 10 percent and 15 percent of NCAA Division I athletes have experienced harassment from bettors. He indicated that the NCAA refers abusive, threatening, coercive, or criminal social media activity to social media platforms and/or law enforcement agencies. He further remarked that harassment against student athletes is “far more prevalent” in major women’s championships than in major men’s championships. Mr. Rebuck indicated that he shares the concerns of the other witnesses regarding the potential for sports betting to result in the harassment of athletes. He mentioned how his state of New Jersey had affirmatively reached out to all of the state’s Division I schools to remind them that the schools have a duty to report harassment experienced by student athletes to law enforcement. He further mentioned how New Jersey had expressed its commitment to investigate and pursue instances of harassment against student athletes related to gambling.
  • Pressures on Athletes to Adjust their Performances: Several Committee Members and Mr. Baker raised concerns that athletes, coaches, and officials often face pressures from bettors to adjust their performances so that certain bets will win. They noted how there have been previous instances where these pressures have undermined the integrity of sporting events and predicted that these pressures would continue to threaten the integrity of these events moving forward. Mr. Baker testified that the NCAA operates sports betting integrity and education programs to address these pressures. Mr. Rebuck also discussed how his state of New Jersey has engaged with sports leagues and the NCAA to ensure the integrity of sports matches, the education and training of athletes, and compliance with gambling policies. He also stated that policymakers should always consider new methods and technologies that enable information sharing and the implementations of risk assessments to identify and address these pressures.
  • Widespread Prevalence of Illegal Sports Betting: Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and Mr. Rebuck also noted how illegal sports betting remains widespread, despite the proliferation of legalized sports betting. Sen. Blackburn noted how sports betting accounts for 10 percent of organized crime revenue, which she called concerning.
  • Targeted Betting Offers from Sports Betting Companies: Sen. Blumenthal and Dr. Levant raised concerns that sports betting companies will often make targeted betting offers to gamblers to encourage them to make bets. Dr. Levant highlighted how DraftKings had recently purchased an artificial intelligence (AI) technology company. He stated that this acquisition enables DraftKings to target vulnerable customers with addictive micro betting opportunities. Sen. Blumenthal and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) further raised concerns sports gambling operations can limit successful bettors from making bets while pursuing bets from unsuccessful bettors.
• Policy Proposals to Address Sports Betting: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in exploring whether and how the federal government should address sports betting issues related to regulation, permissible bets, access, and addiction.
  • Public Health Approaches to Sports Betting: Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mr. Whyte, and Dr. Levant called on the U.S. to approach sports betting as a public health issue given its associated economic and social harms. Mr. Whyte noted that while state and tribal governments have historically overseen gambling in accordance with constitutional precedent, he lamented how many of these governments have not invested in their problem gambling programs or created gambling regulations. He mentioned that while $134 million in public funding had been invested in state problem gambling programs in 2023, he indicated that this amount represents only $0.50 per capita. Sen. Blumenthal and Mr. Whyte expressed support for the Gambling Addiction, Recovery, Investment, and Treatment (GRIT) Act, which would provide funding to prevent, research, and treat gambling addiction. Mr. Whyte explained that the legislation would return nearly half of sports betting excise tax revenue to state health agencies.
  • Federal Involvement in the Regulation of Sports Betting: Several Committee Members, Mr. Baker, Mr. Bademosi, Mr. Whyte, and Dr. Levant expressed varying degrees of support for adopting minimum national standards for sports betting. In particular, Sen. Blumenthal and Dr. Levant expressed support for the Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet (SAFE Bet) Act, which would establish such minimum national standards for sports betting. They indicated that these minimum national standards would prohibit many promotions, advertisements, pitches, and deceptive techniques from gambling companies. Dr. Levant added that the legislation would not preclude states from adopting additional gambling rules. Mr. Baker and Mr. Bademosi stated that while they are not fully familiar with the SAFE Bet Act, they expressed support for certain elements of the legislation. Mr. Whyte indicated that while the SAFE Bet Act contains many elements that the NCPG supports, he stated that the NCPG must remain neutral on the legislation because it would provide a temporary prohibition on sports betting. Mr. Rebuck expressed opposition to the SAFE Bet Act and asserted that states and tribal governments (rather than the federal government) are best equipped to address sports betting, He argued that states have already adopted best practices to address sports betting, including mandatory self-exclusion, partnerships with addiction treatment providers, and partnerships with universities to engage in evidence-based research for reducing gambling harms. 
  • Bans on Proposition Betting and Negative Bets: Mr. Baker called on Congress to ban proposition bets in college sports and asserted that such a ban would reduce the likelihood that bettors would scrutinize, coerce, or harass student athletes. He noted that while the NCAA has successfully lobbied several states to impose such bans, he stated that the process of lobbying individual states to ban these bets is time consuming. Mr. Bademosi also advocated that Congress ban negative bets (including bets on injuries, penalties, and player discipline). He stated that prohibiting negative bets would ensure that fans are not gambling on negative outcomes and therefore do not have an incentive to heckle athletes and encourage negative outcomes at a sporting event.
  • Tribal Gambling Concerns: Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Mr. Rebuck asserted that tribes must be consulted as part of any sports betting legalization efforts. Sen. Padilla mentioned how his state of California’s voters had granted tribes exclusivity in gaming operations nearly 25 years ago and stated that this commitment must be maintained as part of any attempts to legalize and expand sports betting. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) expressed frustration however that the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Carolina is using sports betting revenues (including revenues derived from proposition bets) to fund an opposition campaign against another North Carolina tribe seeking to obtain federal recognition.
  • Sale of Data to Support Gambling Operations: Dr. Levant and Mr. Bademosi raised concerns over how sports leagues, teams, owners, and athletes sell their data to the gambling industry. They noted how the gambling industry uses this data to develop instant micro-betting opportunities. Mr. Bademosi called on Congress to prohibit the purchase of athlete biometric data and asserted that such a prohibition is key for protecting athlete privacy.
  • Illegal Betting Websites: Mr. Baker called on federal authorities to take additional actions to address black market betting websites. He commented that many underage student bettors are using these websites.
  • Sports Integrity Investigation Capabilities: Mr. Baker called for federal legislation to strengthen the ability of sports leagues to investigate integrity issues. Mr. Bademosi stated however that there should be full due process rights in sports betting conduct investigations. He explained that these full due process rights would require athletes and their labor unions to be notified when there is an alleged violation of sports betting policies.
  • Accessibility of Sports Gambling to Children: Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Dr. Levant lamented how there do not exist protections against gambling for children within the virtual space. They commented that children’s access to online gambling is easy and that this gambling is harmful and addictive. Dr. Levant noted that while there exist age barriers to making sports bets via a smartphone, he indicated that there do not exist age barriers to merely looking at odds on a sports book via a smartphone.
  • Concentrated Nature of the Sports Betting Industry: Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) expressed interest in how a small number of companies dominate the sports betting industry. He mentioned how he had sent a letter to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) inquiring whether the sports betting industry has antitrust issues. He expressed interest in exploring whether greater competition within the sports betting industry would result in the development of better sports betting practices.
• Other Issues Impacting College Sports: Committee Members used the hearing to raise other college sports policy issues for the Committee’s consideration.
  • New Protections for Student Athletes: Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) expressed interest in ensuring that student athletes remain protected as money flows into the college sports space. He mentioned how his state of California had enacted reforms that provide for academic support to student athletes when a program’s graduation rates fail to meet certain thresholds and scholarship protections for student athletes. Mr. Baker testified that the NCAA now provides all student athletes with access to post-eligibility health insurance for injuries and mental health concerns that occurred during the playing careers of the student athletes. He also mentioned how all NCAA Division I schools must provide elevated health and wellness benefits, guaranteed scholarships, and other academic support services. 
  • Student Athlete Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) Compensation Rights and Direct Compensation for Student Athletes: Full Committee Chairman Richard Durbin (D-IL) expressed interest in ensuring the continued integrity of college sports and amateur athletics considering the growing expenditures in the student athlete recruiting space. Mr. Baker mentioned how the NCAA has negotiated a settlement with several plaintiffs that addresses compensation for the use of student athlete NIL rights and other topics. He remarked that the NCAA had pursued these settlements to create a structure for enhancing the benefits, opportunities, and revenue sharing for student athletes that participate in sports at athletically successful schools. He also commented that these direct payments would mitigate many current pressures on student athletes related to sports betting.
  • Participation of Transgender Athletes in Women’s College Sports: Several Committee Republicans criticized the NCAA for permitting transgender athletes to participate in women’s college sports. They stated that transgender athletes have unfair advantages over biological female college athletes and that the participation of transgender athletes in women’s college sports can pose safety risks to biological female college athletes. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) further criticized the NCAA’s policies for permitting transgender student athletes to use women’s locker rooms during NCAA events. Mr. Baker stated however that the NCAA’s policies regarding transgender student athlete participation in college sports are based on federal court decisions and that the NCAA must abide by these decisions. He also expressed his willingness to work with Congress on creating clarity surrounding the participation of transgender females in women’s college sports. Full Committee Chairman Durbin and Mr. Baker further emphasized that less than ten student athletes of the 510,000 NCAA student athletes are transgender.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Mr. Johnson Bademosi, Former NFL Player, The National Football League Players Association
2. The Hon. Charlie Baker, President, National Collegiate Athletic Association
3. Dr. Harry Levant, LP.D, MA PCC, ICGC-I, JD, Director of Gambling Policy and Certified Gambling Counselor, Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University School of Law
4. Mr. David L. Rebuck, Former New Jersey Assistant Attorney General, Former New Jersey Director of the Division of Gaming Enforcement
5. Mr. Keith S. Whyte, Executive Director, National Council on Problem Gambling

Member Opening Statements:

Full Committee Chairman Richard Durbin (D-IL)

• He mentioned how the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down PASPA in 2018 and noted how this ruling had enabled states to legalize sports betting.
  • He highlighted how sports betting is now legal in over three dozen states and Washington, DC.
• He discussed how professional sports leagues are now partnering with sportsbooks and have integrated sports gambling into their games and broadcasts.
  • He called it “virtually impossible” to watch a sporting event without viewing advertisements encouraging sports betting and noted how these advertisements often include celebrity endorsers.
• He remarked that this legalization of sports betting has been profitable for many industries and highlighted how over $30 billion had been bet on sports during the third quarter of 2024.
  • He noted that this amount constitutes a nearly 30 percent increase over the previous year.
• He stated however that the legalization of sports betting imposes costs on bettors, sports, schools, and athletes.
  • He showed a video outlining the prevalence of advertisements that depict sports betting as fun and how the number of Americans with sports betting addictions is increasing.
• He remarked that while gambling may be a form of entertainment when done responsibly, he noted that a large amount of sports betting is not being done responsibly.
• He noted how the NCPG estimates that 2.5 million adults have severe gambling problems.
  • He also noted how the NCPG estimates that between 5 million and 8 million additional adults have mild gambling problems.
• He discussed how the advent of online sports betting makes sports betting accessible through smartphones and emphasized how people now have 24/7 access to sports betting.
  • He commented that people with gambling problems can easily place bets on a wide variety of sporting events and quickly accumulate losses.
• He remarked that gambling operators must play a greater role in preventing gambling addiction on the front end through helping to identify problem gamblers and directing these problem gamblers to addiction treatment services.
• He recounted how someone had told him the previous evening that their college age son and his son’s friends engage in daily sports betting.
  • He expressed concerns that sports betting is becoming institutionalized and professionalized.
• He then discussed how consumers are becoming less interested in being fans of players and teams and are becoming more interested in the gambling implications of sporting events.
• He expressed concerns that sports bettors are often taking their gambling frustrations out on individual players.
  • He recounted how various college basketball players have reported receiving overly critical messages from sports bettors following games for causing the sports bettors to lose their bets.
• He also stated that athletes, coaches, and officials deal with temptations to adjust their performances to make bets win.
  • He mentioned how there have been numerous scandals involving coaches and players adjusting their performances and using inside information to win sports bets.
  • He predicted that there will occur similar sports betting-related scandals involving athletes, coaches, and officials moving forward.
• He called it “critical” for Congress to study the impact of sports betting on America and determine how the sports betting industry ought to be regulated.

Witness Opening Statements:

The Hon. Charlie Baker (National Collegiate Athletic Association):

• He remarked that modern college student athletes face more complex issues than he had faced as a student athlete 45 years ago.
• He testified that his organization, the NCAA, has delivered “transformative long overdue” changes to address the needs of modern student athletes.
  • He highlighted how the NCAA now provides all student athletes with access to post-eligibility health insurance for injuries and mental health concerns that occurred during the playing careers of the student athletes.
  • He also mentioned how all NCAA Division I schools must provide elevated health and wellness benefits, guaranteed scholarships, and other academic support services.
• He discussed how the rapid expansion of legal sports betting is an emerging issue and testified that the NCAA is “deeply engaged” in protecting and supporting student athletes with regard to legal sports betting.
• He mentioned how the NCAA has engaged experts to monitor contests for integrity issues, surveyed college students to assess the prevalence of sports betting, and increased efforts to educate student athletes regarding the dangers of sports betting.
  • He also noted how the NCAA monitors social media activity surrounding college sporting events and refers abusive, threatening, coercive, or criminal social media activity to social media platforms and/or law enforcement agencies.
  • He commented that much of this abusive content contains references to sports betting.
• He remarked that the growth of sports betting has significantly impacted the NCAA and student athletes and asserted that none of the consequences are as challenging as the harassment and coercion that student athletes experience.
• He testified that the NCAA has conducted four different surveys over the past several months and stated that each survey shows that between 10 percent and 15 percent of NCAA Division I athletes have experienced harassment from bettors.
  • He noted that while these surveys had found that basketball and football players were more likely to experience harassment, he indicated that athletes in other sports also had experienced harassment.
• He discussed how student athletes have publicly indicated that they receive demands for money from unhappy bettors for trivial things that do not impact a sporting event’s outcome.
  • He also mentioned how many student athletes have received death threats from bettors, as well as in-person threats and accusations during sporting events.
• He emphasized how student athletes differ from professional athletes in that they attend classes and reside on campus, which makes student athletes more accessible to students and fans.
  • He commented that this dynamic increases the opportunity for threatening coercive behavior against student athletes and creates “senseless risk.”
• He discussed how gambling regulators in many states lack the authority to ban bettors for harassment and noted how these state gambling regulators primarily rely on the gambling industry to share information across state lines.
• He asserted that while these disparities in state laws warrant federal action, he stated that the NCAA is actively lobbying individual states to change their gambling policies.
  • He mentioned how several states, including West Virginia, Ohio, New Mexico, and Wyoming, have passed legislation to codify anti-harassment measures related to sports betting.
• He lamented however that many states with legal sports betting lack adequate protections for student athletes and noted how the NCAA is lobbying states to eliminate proposition bets on individual student athletes.
  • He acknowledged that the U.S. would continue to permit sports betting and asserted that the U.S. should regulate sports betting.
• He stated that restricting the ability of bettors to gamble on the individual performances of student athletes would reduce the likelihood that bettors would scrutinize, coerce, or harass student athletes.
• He discussed how the NCAA’s lobbying efforts have successfully reduced the number of states permitting proposition bets involving student athletes from 23 states to 19 states.
  • He asserted that any potential federal legislation related to sports betting should include a ban on proposition bets for college sports.
• He also called on federal authorities to take additional actions to address black market betting websites and noted that many underage student bettors are using these websites.
• He lastly remarked that federal legislation could strengthen the ability of sports leagues to investigate integrity issues.

Mr. Johnson Bademosi (Former NFL Player; The National Football League Players Association):

• He thanked the Committee for holding a hearing to address legalized gambling in sports and for considering possible federal legislation to address player safety, game integrity, and addiction prevention.
• He recounted how he had started playing team sports to make friends and to earn a college scholarship.
  • He noted that while legalized sports betting had not existed during his time as both a student athlete and a professional football player, he stated that student athletes had still faced intense scrutiny and external pressures from fans and critics during this time.
• He remarked that the sophistication of mobile devices and the rapid growth of media platforms have enabled fans and critics to interact directly with athletes.
• He stated that while the growth of legalized sports gambling has led to increased levels of fan engagement with sports, he also noted how this growth has introduced more stress and new mental health challenges and has led to increased threats and harassment toward both amateur and professional athletes.
  • He commented that this harassment often extends beyond internet exchanges and noted how this harassment has caused families to suffer emotional distress and the loss of loved ones.
•  He expressed appreciation for Congress’s continued efforts to protect amateur and professional athletics and to maintain the integrity of sports.
  • He also mentioned how many athletes have worked to raise awareness of these issues and have collaborated with lawmakers on important pieces of legislation, such as the College Athletes Protection & Compensation Act.
• He remarked that sports betting has added new and complex pressure for athletes to win games.
• He also noted that while social media has provided athletes with unprecedented new branding and marketing opportunities, he highlighted how social media provides an “extremely” accessible avenue for threats and harassment directed toward athletes and their families.
  • He explained that gamblers will target athletes for insider information or pressure athletes to perform so that the gamblers can win their bets.
• He remarked that the ability for gamblers to communicate with athletes via social media platforms has an overall negative effect on an athlete’s physical security and mental health.
  • He indicated that these communications directed toward athletes can include harassment and death threats.
• He stated that these episodes of harassment harm the mental health and overall well-being of athletes and cause distractions that can undermine athlete performance and increase the likelihood of injuries.
  • He noted how most athletes do not have access to special security outside of sporting events and lamented how problematic gambling exposes these athletes to greater threats.
• He asserted that play safety both during and outside of sporting events should be a priority and called for the adoption of safeguards to protect athlete safety.
• He acknowledged that while legalized sports gambling has deepened fan engagement in sports, he stated that this gambling has simultaneously led some bad actors to express resentment and misguided indignation toward athletes.
  • He commented that this behavior dehumanizes athletes and asserted that fans that exhibit this type of behavior should not be allowed near athletes, coaches, or other fans.
• He then remarked that the rapid expansion of legalized sports gambling has raised significant societal concerns.
  • He noted that while legalized sports gambling generates substantial tax revenue and economic opportunities for sports leagues in partnership with sports betting entities, he warned that this gambling activity risks “commodifying hope” and devaluing sports as a pursuit of skill and integrity.
• He stated that sports betting can be operated in a manner that does not compromise the integrity of sports.
  • He asserted that Congress has a role to play in passing policies that reinforce the integrity of sports while also protecting athletes.
• He discussed how player unions have collectively worked to have player protections included in state sports betting laws, including prohibitions on negative bets, prohibitions on the use or purchase of athlete biometric data for the purposes of gambling, and full due process rights in sports betting conduct investigations.
  • He explained that these full due process rights would require athletes and their labor unions to be notified when there is an alleged violation of sports betting policies.
• He stated that prohibiting negative bets would ensure that fans are not gambling on negative outcomes and therefore do not have an incentive to heckle athletes and encourage negative outcomes at sporting events.
• He stated that prohibiting the purchase of athlete biometric data would protect athletes from “fundamental” invasions of privacy.
  • He added that this prohibition would ensure that athletes remain in full control of their personal health information.
• He stated that ensuring due process rights in athlete conduct investigations would apply “bedrock” legal principles to these investigations.
• He concluded that while legalized sports gambling can enhance fan engagement, he asserted that this gambling has an “insidious” effect on the mental health outcomes of players, fan culture, and the integrity of sports.
  • He recommended that Congress take a “balanced approach” to the issue that prioritizes ethical considerations and athlete safety and well-being.

Mr. Keith S. Whyte (National Council on Problem Gambling):

• He discussed how his organization, the NCPG, advocates on behalf of the nine million Americans that suffer from gambling addiction and the “millions” of additional people in recovery from gambling addiction.
  • He elaborated that the NCPG leads awareness and advocacy efforts to reduce gambling harm and emphasized that the NCPG has taken a neutral position on legalized gambling.
  • He indicated that NCPG’s members include 35 state affiliate chapters, addiction counselors, addiction researchers, gambling addicts in recovery, gambling treatment clinics, gambling regulatory authorities, gambling operators, sports leagues, and state human services agencies.
• He discussed how 38 states and Washington, DC have legalized sports betting since 2018 and highlighted how over half of the Committee Members represent states with legal sports betting.
  • He noted how no Committee Members had represented states with legal sports betting in 2018.
• He discussed how sports betting advertisements are now common across all media (including in states where sports betting remains illegal).
  • He commented that sports betting has become “ingrained” in college and professional sports.
• He recounted how he had previously expressed concerns to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary in 2018 regarding vast increases in gambling advertising (including in-game advertising), advances in technology (including mobile online sports betting), and “virtually unlimited” menus of betting opportunities on sporting events.
  • He noted that while mobile online sports betting technology could enhance responsible gambling through setting personalized limits and providing self-exclusion programs, he commented that this technology also increases risk factors for gambling addiction.
• He stated that gambling problems have grown over the previous six years and commented that this trend is especially prevalent among young male online sports bettors.
• He noted that while this increase in gambling problems since 2018 is “unprecedented,” he indicated that 2024 data shows that the increase in risky gambling behavior appears to have stabilized.
  • He emphasized however that there remain nine million people with gambling problems and asserted that it remains too early to assume that gambling problem rates are stable.
• He discussed how many risk factors (such as increased advertising) and protective factors (such as expanded prevention programing and greater public awareness of gambling’s harms) impact gambling problem rates.
  • He noted that while sports betting has recently garnered “enormous” public attention, he highlighted how most Americans did not place a sports bet in the recent year.
• He also stated that problematic gambling behavior extends beyond sports betting and asserted that this behavior demands a broader national public health risk approach.
  • He explained that public health involves partnerships with communities, health providers, social services, and the gambling industry.
• He remarked that the U.S. should consider the gambling policies of other countries while ensuring that U.S. gambling policies are embedded in the U.S.’s cultural, political, and economic systems.
• He noted that while state and tribal governments have historically overseen gambling in accordance with constitutional precedent, he lamented how many of these governments have not invested in their problem gambling programs or created gambling regulations.
  • He mentioned that while $134 million in public funding had been invested in state problem gambling programs in 2023, he indicated that this amount represents only $0.50 per capita.
  • He added that the amount spent on problem gambling is 338 times less public funding than the amount devoted to substance abuse.
• He asserted that state governments have not provided sufficient support to address problem gambling and also commented that public health is a shared responsibility between the states and the federal government.
• He expressed support for the GRIT Act and explained legislation would provide funding to prevent, research, and treat gambling addiction.
  • He commented that this legislation would accomplish these goals without increasing taxes or government bureaucracy.
  • He explained that the legislation would return nearly half of sports betting excise tax revenue to state health agencies.
• He stated that the GRIT Act would increase access to problem gambling treatment and noted how NCPG estimates that every $1 spent on preventing and treating gambling addiction saves governments at least $2 in criminal justice and health care-related social costs.
• He remarked that expanded sports betting has resulted in increased harm and called it essential for Congress to pass the GRIT Act. 
  • He described the legislation as the single most important action that Congress can take to address the negative impacts of sports betting and gambling in general.

Mr. David L. Rebuck (Former New Jersey Assistant Attorney General; Former New Jersey Director of the Division of Gaming Enforcement):

• He recounted how he had previously served as the Director of New Jersey’s Division of Gaming Enforcement between 2011 and 2024.
  • He explained that this Division is a law enforcement agency that is responsible for the regulation of New Jersey’s retail and online casino industry and New Jersey’s retail and online sports wagering operations performed by state casinos and racetracks.
• He mentioned how he had led a strategic overhaul of New Jersey’s gaming laws during his tenure as Director of the state’s Division of Gaming Enforcement.
  • He indicated that this overhaul had included leading new initiatives to ensure stakeholder compliance with existing laws and the gaming industry’s compliance with policies governing new forms of gaming.
  • He noted how New Jersey had become the second state to launch online casino gambling in 2013 and how the state’s Division of Gaming Enforcement had oversaw the development and implementation of the state’s legalized sports wagering system in 2018.
• He expressed support for state-led regulation of legal gaming (including sports wagering) and asserted that states and tribal governments (rather than the federal government) are best equipped to address sports wagering issues.
• He remarked that legalizing and regulating sports wagering is fundamentally about protecting consumers, vulnerable populations, and underaged populations, preventing fraud, and ensuring the suitability of all entities to engage in gambling and the integrity of the operations of these entities.
• He noted that while many states (including New Jersey) had previously enacted constitutional bans on gambling, he highlighted how citizens have steadily acted to remove those bans through constitutional referendums.
  • He mentioned how New Jersey has long maintained a multitude of well-regulated legal gambling options before sports wagering, including horse racing betting, a state lottery, bingo gambling, raffle sales, boardwalk and arcade game wagering, and casinos.
• He then stated that the confluence of internet access and historical retail gambling games has substantially expanded the landscape of how citizens desire to engage in gambling.
  • He commented that the total capacity for gambling is as large as ever because citizens desire the freedom to engage in previously prohibited activities (such as sports wagering).
• He discussed how millions of people had previously wagered billions of dollars on sports through illegal operations prior to the legalization of sports betting.
  • He noted how these illegal operations often commit fraud, evade taxes, and have ties to organized crime.
  • He also emphasized that these illegal operations offer no consumer protections, which leaves Americans vulnerable to identity theft and other harms.
• He remarked that every state in the U.S. has illegal gambling (including sports wagering) readily available.
  • He commented that anyone can easily access illegal gambling websites and that state and federal laws that prohibit citizens from accessing these websites are “flaunted with impunity.”
• He then acknowledged the challenges associated with regulating sports wagering and noted that these challenges include ensuring responsible gambling and compliance with regulatory standards.
• He remarked that states are already addressing these challenges through adopting best practices.
  • He indicated that these best practices include mandatory self-exclusion, partnerships with addiction treatment providers, and partnerships with universities to engage in evidence-based research for reducing gambling harms. 
• He also stated that the gaming industry is engaged in research to reduce gambling harms and highlighted how the gaming industry had recently established the Responsible Online Gaming Association.
  • He commented that the gaming industry’s $20 million investment represents a “profound commitment” to engage in research that will identify, implement, and propose best practices for responsible online gaming.
• He urged the Committee to respect the previous success that states have achieved in regulating gambling and asserted that federal oversight of gambling regulation is not needed.
• He noted however that states are cooperating with the federal government on certain gaming-related issues.
  • He expressed support for state efforts to continue collaborating on these issues with the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ).

Dr. Harry Levant, LP.D, MA PCC, ICGC-I, JD (Certified Gambling Counselor; Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University School of Law):

• He asserted that the phrase “responsible gaming” is code for gambling industry self-regulation and state control and remarked that the U.S. should instead regulate the gambling industry as a public health issue.
• He stated that the “unprecedented expansion” of online sports gambling has created a public health “crisis.”
  • He expressed hope that the hearing would ultimately result in Congress enacting legislation to bring comprehensive public health reform and regulation to the sports gambling industry.
• He mentioned how he is a gambling addict in recovery and testified that his gambling addiction had almost led him to attempt suicide.
• He remarked that gambling addiction’s risk of suicide is omnipresent and noted how nearly half of gambling addicts will contemplate suicide.
  • He added that nearly one-fifth of gambling addicts will attempt suicide.
• He discussed how his gambling addiction had harmed his loved ones and business associates and stated that gambling addiction can irreversibly damage one’s most trusted and intimate relationships.
  • He testified that his gambling addiction had caused him significant harm and had left him homeless.
• He recounted how he had committed financial crimes because of his gambling addiction and stated that he has since worked to prevent other people from suffering from gambling addiction.
• He reiterated his assertion that online gambling constitutes a public health crisis and called on Congress to act on the issue.
  • He commented that gambling is an addictive product and compared gambling disorder and addiction to heroin, opioids, tobacco, alcohol, and cocaine.
• He discussed how governments regulate the advertising, promotion, distribution, and consumption of addictive products and lamented that the U.S. is not taking such a regulatory approach with gambling.
• He remarked that the gambling industry’s business model is designed to deliver constant and non-stop betting action on every phone, tablet, and computer.
  • He commented that the gambling industry and its sports and media partners have used technology and AI turned every micro-moment in every sporting event into gambling action.
• He asserted that the gambling industry and its sports partners have diminished the significance of sporting events and stated that sports have become primarily focused on gambling activity.
• He then indicated that while he supports sports gambling’s “properly regulated legalization,” he expressed opposition to the sports gambling policies that have arisen over the previous six years.
  • He lamented the creation of the AI-generated online gambling business model that delivers a fundamentally different, defectively designed, and inherently dangerous product to phones, tablets, computers, and televisions.
• He discussed how the gambling industry has expanded to include partnerships with sports leagues, teams, owners, athletes, media companies, technology companies, social media, AI, and state governments.
  • He commented that all of these parties are working together to deliver instantaneous access to online gambling and non-stop betting action.
• He asserted that the gambling industry’s new AI-fueled business model will result in increased gambling addiction and greater gambling-related harms.
• He then remarked that online sports gambling is a fundamentally different and more dangerous product than could have ever been imagined.
  • He highlighted how DraftKings had recently purchased an AI company, which enables DraftKings to deliver targeted AI-generated gambling to individual users.
• He also discussed how sports leagues, teams, owners, and athletes now sell their data to the gambling industry and noted how the gambling industry uses this data to develop instant micro-betting opportunities.
  • He commented that the only way for the gambling industry to profit from this data is to convert the data into more and faster instant gambling action.

Congressional Question Period:

Full Committee Chairman Richard Durbin (D-IL)

• Chairman Durbin discussed how it is currently legal to use payments to induce student athlete recruits to matriculate at a given school. He also stated that student athletes might face requests from other people (including less wealthy friends) to adjust their performances during sporting events so that these other people can win bets. He remarked that this situation jeopardizes the future athletic careers of student athletes (if the activity is ever discovered) and undermines the integrity of sporting events. He described the mixture of gambling and sports as a “lethal combination.” He further discussed how the current college sports landscape involves significant payments to student athletes for the use of their NIL rights and commented that these payments are often used to recruit student athletes to schools. He stated that sports betting creates additional pressures for student athletes. He asked Mr. Baker to comment on this current dynamic surrounding student athletes and sports betting.
  • Mr. Baker expressed concerns over the coercive influence of proposition bets in college sports. He mentioned how the NCAA is advocating that all states ban proposition bets for college sporting events. He testified that many student athletes have told him stories of being asked to adjust their performances during sporting events so that other people could win bets. He also stated that NCAA basketball player Armando Bacot’s experience of receiving critical messages from bettors for failing to make enough rebounds in a game is not unique. He asserted that banning proposition bets would help reduce the pressure, harassment, and abuse experienced by student athletes.
• Chairman Durbin then discussed how the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill had recently hired football coach Bill Belichick. He indicated that Mr. Belichick’s contract includes a commitment from the school to provide $23 million for the school’s football team to attract student athletes to the school. He commented that the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill’s significant expenditures on student athlete recruiting are not unique within the college football landscape. He asked Mr. Baker to address how the U.S. could preserve the credibility of college sporting events and amateur athletics given the combination of these growing student athlete recruiting expenditures and the presence of sports betting.
  • Mr. Baker mentioned how the NCAA has negotiated a settlement with several plaintiffs regarding compensation for student athletes for the use of their NIL rights and other topics. He remarked that the NCAA had pursued these settlements to create a structure for enhancing the benefits, opportunities, and revenue sharing for student athletes that participate in sports at athletically successful schools. He noted how a judge had provided this settlement with preliminary approval and would hold a final hearing on the settlement in April 2025. He remarked that this settlement could position the U.S. to provide hundreds of millions of dollars directly to student athletes. He commented that these direct payments would mitigate many current pressures on student athletes related to sports betting. He stated however that the allowance of proposition bets in college sports is causing student athletes to experience abuse, harassment, and pressure. He called for the elimination of proposition bets for college sports and mentioned how the NCAA has lobbied multiple states to ban such bets for college sports.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC):

• Sen. Tillis remarked that many states with legalized sports betting have problematic policies and noted how 34 states with legalized sports betting permit proposition bets.
  • Mr. Baker interjected to note that 19 states with legalized sports betting permit proposition bets.
• Sen. Tillis described the reduction in legalized proposition bets as a “good trend.” He stated however that significant amounts of money are being spent to advocate against banning proposition bets. He mentioned how the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians derives significant gambling revenue from proposition betting. He expressed frustration that the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is using this gambling revenue to fund an opposition campaign against another North Carolina tribe seeking to obtain federal recognition. He commented that the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians will likely work to maintain their ability to offer proposition betting. He then remarked that there appears to exist a “substantial” correlation between states that have legalized marijuana and states that have legalized sports betting. He commented that there exists a “patchwork” surrounding both state laws governing marijuana and state laws governing sports betting. He stated that policymakers must consider how to make the gambling market safe, address negative consequences associated with gambling, and properly resource government agencies to ensure that gambling is safe and that gambling’s negative consequences are addressed. He expressed disagreement with Mr. Rebuck’s assertion that there should be no federal guidelines for gambling. He indicated that he would oppose federal legislation that would legalize gambling or marijuana at the federal level. He expressed openness however to establishing an independent commission that would develop minimum standards for states that choose to enact legalized gambling measures. He asserted that the federal government needs to play a role in overseeing gambling and warned that the federal government’s failure to authenticate legitimate sports betting operations would put Americans at risk. He expressed hope that these issues would be considered in the upcoming 119th Congress. He commented that the movement of Americans to access legal sports betting triggers interstate commerce concerns. He warned that Congress’s failure to address sports betting will cause sports betting problems to worsen, bad actors to become more powerful, and the integrity of sports to deteriorate.
  • Dr. Levant expressed agreement with Sen. Tillis’s assertion that the federal government should provide some federal oversight for the gambling space. He expressed support for the SAFE Bet Act and noted how this legislation would set minimum federal standards for gambling. He emphasized that the legislation would not preclude states from adopting additional gambling rules. He also stated that the SAFE Bet Act could address the problem of proposition betting. He noted how the NCAA must currently advocate each state individually to ban proposition bets, which he commented is a time consuming and resource intensive process. He indicated that the SAFE Bet Act could enable the banning of proposition bets across all states.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA):

• Sen. Padilla noted how Mr. Rebuck’s testimony had advocated for state-led regulation of legal gambling (including sports betting). He mentioned how his state of California has 109 federally recognized tribes. He noted how California’s voters had granted tribes exclusivity in gaming operations nearly 25 years ago. He stated that this commitment must be maintained as part of any attempts to legalize and expand sports betting. He remarked that California would require a uniquely tailored approach as part of any sports betting legislation to maintain a model that respects tribal sovereignty and the exclusive rights of tribes to operate gaming within the state. He asked Mr. Rebuck to discuss how he had handled any similar stakeholder dynamics during his tenure as Director of New Jersey’s Division of Gaming Enforcement.
  • Mr. Rebuck noted that the jurisdictional sovereignty of tribes is recognized under federal law and that the federal government regulates these tribes. He indicated that his state of New Jersey does not have tribes. He testified that he therefore had not interacted with tribes during his tenure as Director of New Jersey’s Division of Gaming Enforcement. He expressed confidence however in the regulatory ability of tribes. He mentioned how he had met with many tribes and noted that many tribes are currently engaged in sports wagering activities. He remarked that the federal government could influence the regulatory activities of these tribes if the federal government believes that these tribes are not adequately overseeing the gambling space. He stated that California had experienced opposition from its tribes regarding proposed sports wagering policies because California had failed to engage these tribes on its sports wagering policies. He then mentioned how he works closely with three tribes in New Jersey that are licensees and operate within New Jersey. He clarified that these tribes are based outside of the state. He described these tribes as “very talented” and stated that these tribes are dedicated to ensuring gaming operations have integrity and are suitable. He indicated that these tribes have the same regulatory authorities as states. He expressed agreement with Sen. Padilla’s sentiment that tribes should be engaged in any efforts to expand sports wagering to their tribal lands or to the states in which the tribes are located.
• Sen. Padilla remarked that the Committee should include the perspectives and participation of tribal leaders as part of its future work on sports betting issues. He then expressed interest in the amount of money flowing into college sports and the treatment of student athletes. He highlighted how significant amounts of money are being spent on contracts for college coaches and on college sports facilities and venues. He raised concerns that college sports are de-prioritizing the academics of student athletes. He mentioned how California had enacted reforms that provide for academic support to student athletes when a program’s graduation rates fail to meet certain thresholds. He also mentioned how California provides scholarship protections for student athletes.
  • Mr. Baker noted how all NCAA Division I student athletes will maintain their scholarships for ten years beginning in August 2025, regardless of whether they play their sports or not. He also mentioned how the NCAA will provide a post-eligibility injury insurance program for student athletes. He explained that this program will cover any sports-related injury if the student athlete remains in treatment for two years after the student athlete leaves their school. He further mentioned that the NCAA will provide mental health, health and well-being, and academic support services to student athletes. He noted how the NCAA had recently released its data on student athlete graduation rates and indicated that student athletes across all three NCAA Divisions graduate at higher rates than their non-student athlete peers. He expressed his commitment to share this graduation data with Sen. Padilla and the Committee.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

• Sen. Blackburn remarked that the U.S. will be the “epicenter” for sports in the coming years given how the U.S. will host the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics. She noted how sports betting accounts for 10 percent of organized crime revenue, which she called concerning. She also stated that match fixing has become a concern. She mentioned how she and Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) had recently sent a letter to the DoJ regarding the issue of match fixing. She asked Mr. Rebuck to discuss additional actions that should be taken to address match fixing.
  • Mr. Rebuck discussed how New Jersey has engaged with sports leagues and the NCAA to ensure the integrity of sports matches, the education and training of athletes, and compliance with gambling policies.
• Sen. Blackburn interjected to comment that New Jersey is seeking to develop a partnership with sports leagues and the NCAA.
  • Mr. Rebuck remarked that the NCAA has a partnership with sports leagues and the NCAA. He also noted how the professional sports leagues have made “massive” investments in sports integrity measures.
• Sen. Blackburn interjected to ask Mr. Rebuck to indicate whether the issue of match fixing is being sufficiently addressed.
  • Mr. Rebuck expressed confidence that the U.S. is “on a good path” to addressing match fixing. He remarked however that policymakers should never be confident regarding the status quo in the gambling industry. He stated that policymakers should always consider new methods and technologies that enable information sharing and the implementations of risk assessments.
• Sen. Blackburn then thanked Dr. Levant for his op-ed supporting the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). She lamented how there do not exist protections against gambling for children within the virtual space. She commented that children’s access to online gambling is easy and that this gambling is harmful and addictive. She asked Dr. Levant to identify additional actions that can be taken to keep children from participating in gambling.
  • Dr. Levant remarked that the U.S. should address the “overall normalization” of the relationship between gambling and sports. He commented that young children now associate sports with gambling. He noted that gambling companies sponsor the television broadcasts of sporting events and that these television broadcasts openly discuss betting as part of their coverage of the sporting events. He stated that this incorporation of gambling discussions into sports coverage will create long-term problems for children. He then discussed how anyone can easily access a sports book through their smartphone. He expressed frustration that states permit this easy access to sports books. He noted that while there exist age barriers for making sports bets via a smartphone, he indicated that there do not exist age barriers for looking at odds on a sports book via a smartphone.
• Sen. Blackburn interjected to note that her question period time is limited. She expressed interest in having further conversations with Dr. Levant regarding his concerns. She then raised concerns over the online harassment faced by athletes (and particularly female athletes). She expressed disappointment that the NCAA lacks a policy for protecting women in competition. She called it imperative for the NCAA to address this issue.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT):

• Sen. Blumenthal first thanked the witnesses for helping him to draft the SAFE Bet Act and the GRIT Act. He remarked that the U.S. is experiencing a sports betting “boom,” which he described as one of the most severe public health problems facing the U.S. He stated that sports betting causes addiction for millions of Americans, harms families, constitutes a criminal justice problem, fosters unemployment, and harms mental and behavioral health. He remarked that the gambling industry’s nomenclature and techniques are very sophisticated. He specifically raised concerns over how the gambling industry can offer risk-free bets, target bets to losers, and limit betting opportunities for winners. He commented that these techniques all benefit the gambling industry at the expense of bettors. He noted how colleges had initially partnered with gambling companies to promote gambling on their campuses. He mentioned how he had written letters to these colleges regarding these partnerships and indicated that these colleges had subsequently ended the partnerships. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether they would support the SAFE Bet Act. He noted that this legislation would establish minimum national standards for sports betting and provide relief to gambling addicts. He explained that the DoJ would set these minimum national standards and that states would need to adhere to these minimum national standards. He indicated that these minimum national standards would prohibit many promotions, advertisements, pitches, and deceptive techniques from gambling companies.
  • Mr. Baker testified that he is not fully familiar with the SAFE Bet Act and that he only has familiarity with certain elements of the legislation. He stated that the NCAA supports the elements of the SAFE Bet Act that he is familiar with. He also noted how each state that has legalized sports betting collects different data and maintains different data sharing rules. He remarked that this variation in requirements makes it difficult to develop a comprehensive understanding of the nationwide sports betting landscape. He commented that New Jersey likely possesses one of the best sports betting data collection programs in the U.S. He stated that the U.S. should bolster its data collection efforts regarding sports betting. He also expressed support for the SAFE Bet Act’s national prohibition on proposition betting in college sports. He commented that this national prohibition would enable him to avoid lobbying individual states to prohibit proposition betting on college sports.
  • Mr. Bademosi testified that he is not familiar with all of the SAFE Bet Act’s details. He stated however that he supports the legislation for its protections for the health and wellness of athletes and its protections for athletes against sports betting companies.
  • Mr. Whyte indicated that the SAFE Bet Act contains many elements that the NCPG supports. He noted however that the SAFE Bet Act would temporarily prohibit sports betting. He stated that the NCPG must therefore remain neutral on the legislation given the organization’s neutrality on the issue of legalized gambling.
  • Mr. Rebuck indicated that his testimony before the Committee is on his own behalf and not on the behalf of any other parties. He expressed opposition to the SAFE Bet Act and asserted that states deserve the right to regulate sports wagering. He noted how the SAFE Bet Act addresses the needs for safeguards, guardrails, and responsible gaming measures. He stated that all jurisdictions with legalized gambling are interested in these issues. He mentioned how there are currently ten states that have no legal sports wagering.
• Sen. Blumenthal interjected to emphasize that all states have sports betting and that much of this sports betting is illegal. He indicated that his question period time is limited.
  • Dr. Levant mentioned how he had worked with Sen. Blumenthal and Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) to draft the SAFE Bet Act and expressed support for the legislation. He expressed his willingness to address why the legislation sets appropriate public health standards.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA):

• Sen. Kennedy remarked that he generally takes a libertarian position on gambling legalization issues. He asked Mr. Rebuck to indicate whether there exists any form of legalized gambling where the gambling operator does not possess a significant advantage.
  • Mr. Rebuck stated that the gambling industry always has the advantage in the bets that they offer. He also stated that consumers are aware of this fact.
• Sen. Kennedy then asked Mr. Baker to confirm that the NCAA exists in part to promote fair competition in college sports.
  • Mr. Baker confirmed that the NCAA exists to promote fair competition in college sports.
• Sen. Kennedy asked Mr. Baker to confirm that a transgender woman is a biological male.
  • Mr. Baker confirmed that a transgender woman is a biological male.
• Sen. Kennedy asked Mr. Baker to confirm that a biological male will always have a physiological advantage when competing in a collegiate sport against a biological female.
  • Mr. Baker stated that there does not exist significant research regarding whether a biological male will always have a physiological advantage when competing in a collegiate sport against a biological female. He described the assertion that a biological male will have an advantage over biological women in sports as “debatable.”
• Sen. Kennedy expressed shock with Mr. Baker’s response. He asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether a biological male always has an advantage when competing against a biological female in sports.
  • Mr. Baker answered affirmatively.
• Sen. Kennedy asked Mr. Baker to explain why the NCAA supports permitting transgender women (who he described as biological males) to compete against non-transgender biological females.
  • Mr. Baker noted how five federal court decisions over the previous two years have ruled that transgender women must be permitted to compete in women’s college sports.
• Sen. Kennedy interjected to ask Mr. Baker to clarify whether he is stating that the NCAA has been forced to permit transgender women to compete in women’s college sports.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that there does not currently exist legal clarity regarding the participation of transgender women in women’s college sports.
• Sen. Kennedy reiterated that the purpose of the NCAA is to promote fair competition in college sports and stated that biological males will have unfair advantages over biological females in sports. He asked Mr. Baker to indicate why the NCAA does not prohibit transgender females from competing against biological females in college sports.
  • Mr. Baker noted how federal courts have ruled on five different occasions during the past year and a half that transgender females possess a right to compete in women’s college sports.
• Sen. Kennedy interjected to comment that the NCAA could challenge these federal court decisions permitting transgender females to compete against biological females in college sports.
  • Mr. Baker expressed his willingness to work with Congress on creating clarity surrounding the participation of transgender females in women’s college sports.
• Sen. Kennedy interjected to criticize the NCAA for permitting transgender females to compete against biological women in women’s college sports. He stated that the NCAA derives significant revenues from the efforts of student athletes and fails to address various pressing issues. He indicated that these pressing issues include the student athlete transfer portal, student athlete NIL compensation, gambling, and the allowance of biological men to compete against biological women in college sports.
  • Mr. Baker asserted that the NCAA has made progress on the issues that Sen. Kennedy had mentioned.
• Sen. Kennedy interjected to ask Mr. Baker to take a position on transgender females competing against biological females in women’s sports. He noted how Mr. Baker had previously indicated that transgender females have an advantage over biological females in sports.
  • Mr. Baker expressed the NCAA’s openness to working with Congress on developing a federal standard for participation in college sports.
• Sen. Kennedy asked Mr. Baker to indicate why the NCAA does not address the issue of transgender females competing against biological females in women’s sports on its own.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that the NCAA is a national governing body that follows federal law.
• Sen. Kennedy asserted that the NCAA should challenge federal laws that permit transgender females to compete against biological females in women’s sports. He stated that the NCAA’s main objective should be to promote fairness in college sports. He reiterated his criticism of the NCAA for failing to assert that transgender females should not be permitted to compete against biological females in women’s sports.
• Note: Sen. Kennedy’s question period time expired here.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA):

• Sen. Schiff discussed how sports betting has become a “cultural phenomenon” on college campuses and stated that sports betting has driven increased attention, money, and resources to college sports. He asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether this increased focus on college sports could draw attention, money, and resources away from other elements of the college experience. He also asked Mr. Baker to address how colleges could better balance all elements of the college experience. He then expressed interest in how sports gambling operations can limit successful bettors from making bets while seeking out bets from unsuccessful bettors. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether states have sought to regulate the ability of gambling operators to throttle sports bets. He further asked the witnesses to indicate whether there exists a justification for permitting gambling operators to throttle sports bets.
  • Mr. Baker noted how there are 500,000 student athletes across 1,100 schools in the U.S. He stated that the growth in revenue for college sports has not impacted the experience for most student athletes. He remarked that the NCAA is focused on enhancing the available benefits for student athletes, developing a model to provide revenue-generating student athletes with additional benefits, maximizing the protections for student athletes, and providing student athletes with guidance advice. He testified that the NCAA operates the largest sports betting integrity program on a per game basis in the world. He also testified that the NCAA operates the largest in-person sports betting education program for athletes in the world. He further remarked that the NCAA has successfully worked to change state proposition betting policies. He also discussed how the NCAA tracks the abuse and harassment directed toward student athletes and commented that the NCAA’s public release of the data had brought attention to the issue. He concluded that the greatest challenges facing college sports occur at the elite level and that addressing proposition betting would be beneficial for reducing these challenges.
  • Mr. Whyte noted how an NCAA survey had found that most young male college students have placed a sports bet during the previous year. He also mentioned how the NCPG had found that educational status is one of the greatest predictive factors for sports betting. He stated that sports betting is unique among all forms of gambling in that higher education levels are correlated with a greater likelihood to bet on sports. He added that this positive correlation between education level and sports betting is unique to the U.S. He remarked that the U.S. must address this greater propensity for young educated men to bet on sports.
  • Dr. Levant mentioned how he runs a gambling addiction patient treatment group. He testified that 14 out of the 15 patients in this treatment group had asked him to emphasize to the Committee that gambling companies target them to maintain their gambling behaviors. He expressed his willingness to watch a sporting event with Congressional staffers to demonstrate how gambling companies constantly target bettors during sporting events.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO):

• Sen. Hawley asked Mr. Baker to clarify whether he had asserted that federal law requires the NCAA to permit biological men to participate in women’s sports.
  • Mr. Baker noted that five federal court decisions over the previous 18 months have ruled that the NCAA must permit transgender athletes to participate in NCAA events.
• Sen. Hawley remarked that the NCAA is affirmatively permitting biological men to participate in women’s sports. He stated that there is no federal law that requires the NCAA to permit biological men to participate in women’s sports. He asked Mr. Baker to confirm that the relevant law governing gender participation in college sports is Title IX.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that federal Title IX guidance and federal discrimination law guidance would clarify gender participation uncertainties in college sports.
• Sen. Hawley interjected to assert that Title IX is already federal law. He also asked Mr. Baker to confirm that no federal courts have ordered the NCAA to permit biological males to participate in women’s sports.
  • Mr. Baker stated that federal courts have ordered the NCAA to permit transgender women to participate in women’s sports.
• Sen. Hawley interjected to reiterate his assertion that no federal courts have ordered the NCAA to permit biological males to participate in women’s sports. He also stated that federal law does not require the NCAA to permit biological males to participate in women’s sports. He noted how Title IX explicitly states that no person in the U.S. on the basis of sex can be denied the benefits of any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. He indicated that the NCAA is currently arguing in litigation that Title IX does not apply to the NCAA. He called this argument “astounding” given the amount of federal money that the NCAA receives. He mentioned how five women’s volleyball teams had needed to forfeit seven games in their NCAA conference play during the previous year because a biological male was playing on a rival’s team. He asked Mr. Baker to explain how this situation does not constitute an instance where women’s athletes had been denied the benefit of the sport. He also asked Mr. Baker to indicate how this situation is fair to women student athletes.  
  • Mr. Baker stated that this situation had been federally litigated. He indicated that the federal judge had ruled that the transgender female in this instance must be permitted to participate in women’s sports.
• Sen. Hawley asserted that the NCAA had not engaged in federal litigation regarding this particular situation.
  • Mr. Baker stated that a federal judge had ruled that transgender women must be permitted to participate in women’s college sports.
• Sen. Hawley remarked that federal courts have not reviewed the NCAA’s rules. He stated the NCAA’s rules explicitly permit biological males to participate in women’s sports. He asked Mr. Baker to explain how these rules are fair to women student athletes. He noted how many biological women have needed to forfeit games and their championship prospects because of the NCAA’s rules. He asked Mr. Baker to explain how the NCAA’s current policies regarding gender participation in college sports protect women.
  • Mr. Baker stated that federal courts have ruled that transgender women must be permitted to participate in women’s college sports.
• Sen. Hawley interjected to assert that no federal courts have ordered the NCAA to permit biological males to participate in women’s sports.
  • Mr. Baker interjected to remark that federal courts have interpreted federal law to require that transgender women be permitted to participate in women’s college sports.
• Sen. Hawley interjected to assert that the NCAA’s policy is to permit biological males to participate in women’s sports. He called this policy “indefensible.” He asked Mr. Baker to explain why the NCAA is permitting biological men to participate in women’s sports.
  • Mr. Baker stated that the NCAA permits transgender women to participate in women’s sports because this participation is consistent with federal policy.
• Sen. Hawley stated that Mr. Baker is asserting that the NCAA believes that federal law compels biological men to participate in women’s sports. He asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether the NCAA would prohibit biological men from participating in women’s sport under a different interpretation of federal law.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that clarity on gender participation issues in college sports from the federal government would be helpful.
• Sen. Hawley described Mr. Baker’s response as a “cop out.” He asserted that the NCAA is seeking to shirk responsibility on its decision to permit biological men to compete in women’s sports while continuing to accept federal money. He also criticized the NCAA for arguing during litigation that Title IX does not apply to its activities.
  • Mr. Baker interjected to state that the NCAA does not receive any federal funding.
• Sen. Hawley asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether the NCAA is arguing that Title IX does not apply to its activities because it does not receive federal funding.
  • Mr. Baker answered affirmatively.
• Sen. Hawley asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether the NCAA should be subject to Title IX.
  • Mr. Baker stated that the NCAA does not believe that it is currently subject to Title IX and commented that federal courts have affirmed the NCAA’s view.
• Sen. Hawley expressed astonishment with Mr. Baker’s response. He noted how female student athletes are currently suing the NCAA for allowing biological males to participate in women’s sports and to enter women’s locker rooms. He asked Mr. Baker to explain why the NCAA’s guidelines permit biological men to enter women’s locker rooms without the consent and foreknowledge of women athletes.
  • Mr. Baker stated that the NCAA’s guidelines do not permit biological men to enter women’s locker rooms.
• Sen. Hawley disputed the veracity of Mr. Baker’s response. He stated that the NCAA’s guidelines indicate that transgender student athletes should be able to use the locker room, shower, and toilet facilities in accordance with their gender identity.
  • Mr. Baker stated that the NCAA’s guidelines also indicate that student athletes should have the opportunity to use other facilities if they wish to do so.
• Sen. Hawley remarked that the NCAA’s policies put the burden on women student athletes if they do not wish to share a locker room with a transgender student athlete.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that the NCAA places a significant amount of emphasis on the hosting party’s plans for addressing locker room matters.
• Sen. Hawley remarked that the NCAA’s guidelines indicate that biological men can use women’s locker rooms if they choose. He stated that the NCAA’s guidelines do not account for the wishes of women student athletes.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that the NCAA’s guidelines give athletes optionality with respect to how the athletes choose to use facilities.
• Sen. Hawley interjected to ask Mr. Baker to clarify his use of the term “optionality.” He stated that the NCAA’s guidelines permit transgender student athletes to use the locker room, shower, and toilet in accordance with their gender identity. He remarked that these guidelines permit biological men to use women’s locker rooms. He noted how women student athletes have previously told the Committee that they were forced to accept the insistence of biological men using their locker rooms. He also stated that the women student athletes had the burden of finding alternative locker room arrangements if they did not want to share a locker room with biological men. He asked Mr. Baker to explain how this situation is fair.
  • Mr. Baker stated that the NCAA requires the hosts of its events to find accommodations for the athletes participating in NCAA events.
• Sen. Hawley remarked that Mr. Baker is arguing that both the federal government and local hosting organizations are responsible for permitting biological males to compete in women’s college sports and enter women’s locker rooms. He asserted that the NCAA is shirking its responsibilities regarding these issues and stated that the NCAA is meant to serve as the governing body of college sports. He also criticized Mr. Baker for asserting that the NCAA is not subject to Title IX. He asserted that student athletes are suffering because of the NCAA’s policies and that the NCAA is refusing to defend these policies.
• Note: Sen. Hawley’s question period time expired here.

Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT):

• Sen. Welch asked Mr. Baker to discuss how sports gambling imposes emotional pressure on student athletes.
  • Mr. Baker recommended that Committee Members talk with student athletes and ask the student athletes to share the messages that they receive via their phones. He also stated that Committee Members should listen to the messages that student athletes receive from crowds during sporting events. He mentioned how the NCAA had released data indicating the aggressive and brutal messages that student athletes receive.
• Sen. Welch asked Mr. Baker to confirm that the negative messages that student athletes receive come from sports bettors desiring particular outcomes.
  • Mr. Baker confirmed that the negative messages that student athletes receive come from sports bettors desiring particular outcomes. He mentioned how the NCAA had provided 24/7 police protection to a sports team during one championship event in response to legitimate threats from a bettor directed at the team.
• Sen. Welch asked Mr. Baker to discuss the amount of pressure on student athletes to participate in sports betting activities.
  • Mr. Baker stated that student athletes receive significant peer pressure to adjust their athletic performance so that certain bets will win.
• Sen. Welch asked Mr. Bademosi to comment on the pressures facing athletes related to sports betting activities.
  • Mr. Bademosi remarked that athletes are susceptible to pressures when they are financially in need. He also stated that universities vary in terms of the support that they provide to their student athletes.
• Sen. Welch then expressed interest in how a small number of companies dominate the sports betting industry. He mentioned how he had sent a letter to the FTC inquiring whether the sports betting industry has antitrust issues. He expressed interest in exploring whether greater competition within the sports betting industry would result in the development of better sports betting practices. He asked Dr. Levant to comment on this issue.
  • Dr. Levant called for the U.S. to adopt minimum federal standards for sports betting. He mentioned how DraftKings had recently purchased an AI technology company. He stated that this acquisition enables DraftKings to target vulnerable customers with addictive micro betting opportunities.
• Sen. Welch described the capacity for sports gambling companies to target customers with micro betting opportunities as “an incredibly powerful marketing device.”
  • Dr. Levant noted how the SAFE Bet Act establishes federal standards for in-game micro betting. He stated that this legislation would have Congress determine which types of sports bets ought to be permitted from a public health perspective.
  • Mr. Whyte remarked that focusing on which bets to prohibit or allow ignores the fundamental nature of addiction. He elaborated that addiction will flourish regardless of legalization or regulation. He expressed support for the GRIT Act, which would provide federal support for states to establish prevention, treatment, and research needed to address gambling addiction.
• Sen. Welch then remarked that federal minimum standards for sports betting would help states to develop rules for sports betting. He asked Mr. Rebuck to explain his opposition to the adoption of federal minimum standards for sports betting.
  • Mr. Rebuck first indicated that he shares the concerns of the other witnesses regarding the potential for sports betting to cause the harassment of athletes. He mentioned how his state of New Jersey had affirmatively reached out to all of the state’s Division I schools to remind them that the schools have a duty to report harassment experienced by student athletes to law enforcement. He also mentioned how New Jersey had expressed its commitment to investigate and pursue instances of harassment against student athletes related to gambling.
• Sen. Welch interjected to note how Mr. Baker had stated that proposition betting is responsible for much of the harassment directed at student athletes. He asked Mr. Rebuck to indicate why the U.S. should not pursue a federal prohibition on proposition betting. He commented that such a prohibition would prevent student athletes from experiencing harassment in the first place.
  • Mr. Rebuck noted how there are ten states without legal gambling and 15 states with bans on betting for in-state college sporting events. He stated that New Jersey’s efforts to reach out to the state’s Division I schools to report harassment against their student athletes have yielded few reports from the schools. He remarked that there exist tools for addressing harassment directed at student athletes and that these tools are not being sufficiently employed.
• Sen. Welch interjected to indicate that his question period time had expired.

Full Committee Chairman Richard Durbin (D-IL)

• Chairman Durbin noted that while the hearing is nominally focused on sports betting, he indicated that other issues related to college sports have been raised during the hearing. He asked Mr. Baker to indicate the number of student athletes at NCAA schools.
  • Mr. Baker indicated that there are 510,000 student athletes at NCAA schools.
• Chairman Durbin asked Mr. Baker to indicate the number of transgender athletes at NCAA schools.
  • Mr. Baker stated that he was aware of less than ten transgender student athletes at NCAA schools.
• Chairman Durbin emphasized that less than ten student athletes of the 510,000 NCAA student athletes are transgender. He then asked Mr. Baker to indicate whether state laws govern the NCAA.
  • Mr. Baker answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Durbin asked Mr. Baker to confirm that the NCAA is bound by the state laws that dictate that transgender children can play in sports according to their gender identity.
  • Mr. Baker confirmed that the NCAA is bound by state laws that dictate that transgender children can play in sports according to their gender identity.
• Chairman Durbin provided Mr. Baker with an opportunity to provide additional comments on the participation of transgender student athletes in college sports.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that the NCAA faces challenges dealing with a “very murky” set of state and federal court decisions regarding the participation of transgender student athletes in college sports. He commented that these court decisions create a lack of clarity surrounding the NCAA’s policies. He stated that the NCAA’s policies must ultimately comply with federal policies. He remarked that regulatory or statutory guidance regarding the participation of transgender student athletes in college sports would be “very helpful.”
• Chairman Durbin reiterated that only ten student athletes out of the NCAA’s 510,000 student athletes are transgender.
  • Mr. Baker indicated that the number of transgender student athletes participating in NCAA sports may be less than ten.
• Chairman Durbin then commented that the NCAA is likely concerned with other issues in women’s sports.
  • Mr. Baker remarked that harassment against student athletes is “far more prevalent” in major women’s championships than in major men’s championships. He testified that the NCAA’s data had found that the worst examples of online threats, abuse, and harassment had been directed at women’s basketball players participating in the NCAA’s women’s basketball tournament. He commented that this finding is not as known as it should be. He further stated that the NCAA is only aware of the public harassment directed at student athletes and that student athletes may face additional harassment in their direct messages. He noted how student athletes have indicated that the harassment that is transmitted through direct messages is worse than the public harassment directed at student athletes.
• Chairman Durbin called Mr. Baker’s comments on the harassment directed at women student athletes “very important.” He also remarked that Congress will continue to consider sports betting-related issues moving forward.