It’s not often in this country that a decision is made that changes the landscape such as the one on Monday (May 14) that brought an end to the sports betting monopoly held by just a couple of states. That the Supreme Court finally got around to this decision in 2018 suggests more that the powers in control of the government finally have their pawns in order. I am not one to quickly rush or relish in such a decision with unbridled optimism. As someone that’s grown up with bookmakers in the background and seen first hand how sports betting, or more importantly the use of credit, works on gamblers, I worry about whether this decision will lead to a better end. Of course sports betting is not what should be the primary concern of this column or any when the focus is supposed to be on harness racing. Yet it is a factor in what the future holds for gamblers and whether it proves to be an ally or an enemy is still something to be determined. That this decision took until 2018 to occur suggests that the forces that succeeded in keeping it from reaching the Supreme Court for years have now ceded ground. If it was unconstitutional in 2018 then it has always been. That some professional sports leagues have abandoned their previous stance has become the major driving force towards this decision. At one time all of the leagues were extremely opposed to sanctioning of legalized gambling on their games. During a brief period in the 80’s when I worked part-time for College & Pro Football Newsweekly, a gambling-based publication of the Sports Eye group, we didn’t even have permission to get any information from the NFL, who at the time frowned on any magazine that promoted gambling as opposed to just the sporting part of football. Times have changed and so the decision to open the doors to other states has now been forever (we think) sanctioned by the highest court in the land. What follows this decision will have an impact on racing and that’s what should be our focus. For those who see it as another potential lifeline, I suggest to look elsewhere. This sport at some point will have to stand on its merits and the advent of legalized sports betting adds another game to the multitude of choices gamblers currently are exposed to. If slots and lotteries aren’t enough of a money grabber, sports, especially during peak seasons, could drain even more of that money out of our handles. Unlike slot machines and lotteries, states may find gambling on sports to be more of an erratic means of generating revenue. Lotteries, with their absurd takeout and payout over time, have zero risk and incredible reward for all states. Slot machines, until they have completely saturated markets, are another guarantee for state governments with a hand in the pie. Sports betting, on the other hand, is a completely different game of chance. Wagers come in all denominations and odds must be moved in order to try to gain a perfect balance and give the house its actual advantage. Essentially takeout, or the house’s cut, is a variable in sports betting and something that is completely fixed in slots, the lottery and of course horse racing. What I find amazing about today’s ruling is just how it will potentially have the opposite impact of the one that first legalized OTB in New York in the 1970’s. The original push for Off Track Betting was said to help put an end to bookmaking and that kind of illegal activity while letting the state receive the benefits of the wagering. As time has passed, OTB did reduce the need for bookmakers to take wagers. OTB could not provide to gamblers what all bookmakers could and that was credit. Fast forward to 2018 and legalized sports betting will certainly make it easier for the regular player with assets to put in a bet on a game of interest and enjoy it with full knowledge that he could collect at the end of the game. What legalized wagering on sports won’t do is allow players a week or 10 days to make additional wagers without physically handing over money for each bet. The churn impact of sports betting is one best achieved by a house that can advance credit to its players. Mind you bookmakers can offer credit to players without letting their family members in on the equation. Legalized sports betting may give rise to credit cards being used for such purpose, but those records may not look as good over the kitchen table as we’d like to think. To me there is only one certainty that can arise from the Supreme Court’s action. Bookmakers will now be reappearing and for the first time have an avenue to lay off excess action in a legal manner. That’s right. If states allow legal wagering, local bookies can offer credit and also have no risk of being on the wrong side of any game. Essentially the perfect storm for bookmakers. While states will be forced to take excess action on one side of a game, bookmakers will have the luxury of knowing they will get their cut of the action no matter what the outcome. Honestly, do we really expect states to go into the gambling business and then prosecute bookmakers for questionable activities? I’m not suggesting we all get into the bookmaking business, but it’s going to be interesting when the bookie is asked about his activities and he simply claims that he was putting in bets for his friends at a state sanctioned facility. Those in racing should be wary of this activity. At best with a reasonable cut and a profitable sports book (no guarantee), there could be additional purse money. At worst, the proliferation of bookmakers and credit syphon off even more of the gambling dollar and the money goes to neither state nor horsemen.