The Economist: US online sports betting boom “should be celebrated”

The Ecomonist has issued its backing to US online sports betting as the media outlet’s editorial team championed the regulated sector’s ability to reduce levels of gambling-related harm.

An opinion piece filed in the magazine’s Leaders section, where the editorial team express their views on various topics, gave its wholehearted support to the industry.

Published yesterday, December 5, The Economist argued that sports betting’s legalization “should be celebrated as an expansion of people’s freedom to lead their lives as they choose.” 

At the time of writing, 39 US states, plus DC, have legalized sports betting in some capacity since PASPA was repealed in 2018.

The Economist said sports betting’sexpansion and subsequent boom was a result of the US “catching up” with other countries that have long held more modern, liberal attitudes towards gambling.

The magazine cited advancements made in technology in recent years as another factor behind why sports betting has become so popular in the US and, while it acknowledged some of the concerns surrounding gambling, it pointed to the alcohol industry as one that does significantly more harm. 

The editorial team wrote: “Sports betting is a far cry from sitting at a machine, alone, feeding quarters into a slot. It is often a communal activity.

“Unlike roulette, a game of luck in which everyone understands that the house always wins, it can be a skill. Other vices that America enjoys and taxes, like alcohol, are responsible for more catastrophic harm.”

However, The Economist did note that further steps could be made by the sector to “quell fears” over its operations but suggested that to ban gambling altogether was the wrong approach.

The publication continued: “The lesson from other countries is not to ban gambling altogether, but to regulate its harms. Some countries place restrictions on how accounts must be funded (via bank account, not credit card) and on when and how gambling companies can advertise. 

“The gambling industry itself could do more to quell fears about its practices. Its approach to customer selection means that good players are quickly identified and their stakes limited to a few dollars or even pennies.

“Being more open about that practice, or even relying on it less, would do a lot to dispel fears that the odds are stacked against the player. However, trying to shut gambling down again would probably leave America worse off.” 

The article went on to argue that to push back against the sector would “deprive tens of millions of people of entertainment and drive the most compulsive bettors underground.”

The Economist’s view stands in stark contrast to the advice recently issued by former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who pleaded with the remaining US states that haven’t launched a legal sports betting market to stay that way. 

While writing in a Newsweek column, Yang urged a rethink over online sports betting regulation and dubbed wagering the “perfect storm” for men from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. 

The businessman also described online sports betting as a “new tax” that “preys” on vulnerable Americans.

“I’m sure the companies are in your statehouses right now making their case. ‘It’s easy tax revenue and everyone else is doing it! It’s fun!’ But the facts are clear,” Yang wrote. 

“Online sports betting is the equivalent of a new tax on Americans that preys upon vulnerable, low-income men in particular. It increases financial stress and emotional problems. It’s not what your citizens need.” 

On September 14, The Washington Post’s editorial board published an opinion piece titled ‘Sports betting is bad for America’s financial health. New data shows it’ in which the newspaper called for further consumer protections.