♪ This program is brought to you by the members of WCNY.

Thank you.

♪ ♪ KATKO: Welcome, America, to "Balancing Act", the show that aims to tame the political circus of two-party politics.

I'm John Katko.

This week: online sports betting -- harmless entertainment or a public health crisis in the making?

In the center ring, we'll speak with Massachusetts Gaming Commission chair, Jordan Maynard, on how online gaming has impacted his state.

On the trapeze, addiction psychiatrist, Dr.

Timothy Fong, and Joe Maloney, president of the Sports Betting Alliance, take swings at the issue.

Plus, I'll give you my take.

But first, let's walk the tightrope.

♪ Not that long ago, if you wanted to bet on sports, you'd tap a bookie.

Now, you tap your phone.

What was once mostly illegal in America is now the norm.

In 40 states, 32 of which allow online betting, and the public is buying in.

Last year, Americans wagered nearly 168 billion on various sporting events.

Roughly 96% of that was online, or through a mobile app.

But for decades, sports betting in America was mostly underground, or limited to places like Nevada.

Upon the arrival of the Internet, though, it drifted from underground to offshore.

Then, in 2006, Congress stopped it in its tracks, passing a law designed to choke off payments tied to unlawful online gambling.

The idea was simple: If you can't move the money, you can't grow the business.

It's a push.

But the modern era truly began in 2018.

That's when the U.S.

Supreme Court struck down the federal law that had blocked most states from legalizing sports betting.

Overnight, the question went from, "Is it legal in America?"

to "Is it legal near you?"

Sports betting moved out of the shadows and into the light of your phone or computer.

U.S.

sports wagers went from 6.6 billion in 2018 to 168 billion in 2025.

But now, some believe the ease with which one can place a bet is creating a public health crisis, especially among young men.

According to Pew Research, 10% of U.S.

adults say they placed an online sports bet in the past year.

The National Council on Problem Gambling survey reveals that 2.5 million Americans have a severe gambling problem.

15% of adults aged 18 to 34 reported concerning behavior versus 2% of those over 55.

And according to that same council, men are approximately twice as likely as women to report gambling-related problems.

Today, bettors aren't just wagering on the outcome of the game, either.

Enter microbetting, sometimes referred to as prop betting, where you can wager on things like the next pitch, strike, or ball.

The next play, run, or pass, or even a coin toss to start the game.

Microbetting doesn't just raise questions about speed and access, it raises all kinds of questions about athletes.

The more betting focuses on individual plays and player props, the more concerns grow about harassment, integrity, and pressure on players themselves.

This has led to recent allegations in pro baseball and basketball of players being compromised by sports betting.

But what about the payout?

States collect taxes from legal operators, and that money can be used and directed to things like education, sports programs, and problem gambling services themselves.

According to the U.S.

Census Bureau, tax revenue from state sports betting increased 382% from 2021 to 2025.

In addition, proponents argue that a regulated market is easier to monitor than an illegal one, with age checks, geolocation, and other tools.

So here are the stakes.

Supporters argue the upside of legal online sports betting is straightforward.

There is tax revenue.

There are consumer protections.

And moving people out of the illegal market and into a regulated one has its benefits.

Critics question whether the safeguards are strong enough to offset the social costs.

So, is online sports betting harmless fun, or are we gambling with the next generation's future?

Let's find out as we go all in on the center ring.

♪ KATKO: Joining me now is Jordan Maynard, Massachusetts Gaming Commission chair.

Jordan, thanks for coming on the show.

And right away, how long has Massachusetts had online gaming?

MAYNARD: Well, thank you for having me, Congressman.

I have to say that I'll remember this date very well.

It was August 1st, 2022.

That was the day that sports wagering was passed in Massachusetts.

And I remember that date because it was my first day as a commissioner at the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.

So I've literally lived with the regulation of sports wagering since the day I started.

KATKO: Well, that's quite a first day, I tell you.

Listen, I'm going to talk about the pros and cons of it in Massachusetts.

It's kind of a case study, so let's talk about what are some of the good things that have happened since online gaming has been implemented.

MAYNARD: Well, let me tell you, John, sports wagering has existed for hundreds of years.

One of my favorite articles that I keep in my office is a 1913 article from The New York Times, where bookies were taking bets on Francis Ouimet in Massachusetts.

So there's no question that there are people who want to sports wager.

So 100 years before there was a Massachusetts Gaming Commission, people were doing this.

The question was really, were they doing it in a regulated way?

And so legalizing sports wagering has given us great insight into the activity.

So, you know, we now have the ability to regulate, look at data, we can set spending limits, require our operators to set spending limits for patrons.

We have time limits on these applications that will allow people in Massachusetts to say, "Hey, I've spent too much time on the app."

Patrons have to have win-loss statements given to them.

And then ultimately, we have a whole host of services for those people that sports wager and experience harm.

So that's something that didn't exist in the unregulated market, nor does it exist in this pseudo-regulated prediction-type market that exists.

But we know it exists here in Massachusetts.

KATKO: So what about the revenue standpoint?

Has it brought in some revenue to the state?

MAYNARD: There's no question that states have benefited from revenue generation.

I think the most important part of bringing this activity into the regulated space is that it's actually generated an opportunity to take that revenue and spend it in a way that helps patrons.

So, for example, we now have an ability to restrict certain types of predatory advertising.

We have an ability to limit folks who are under 21.

We don't allow them to access legalized sportsbooks.

But revenue is definitely a piece of it, John.

KATKO: So let me ask you something: You talked about some of the safeguards.

Are they actually working?

I know you said implemented.

How effective are they?

MAYNARD: I think they're really effective, especially when you stack them.

Different patrons and different people have different needs.

So some people just need to limit their time on the apps.

I know I have to limit myself on my cell phone.

And so, the cell phone's the most addictive product that was ever created, in my opinion.

And then some people need to actually set limits on how much money they're depositing into their account.

And some people just need to know how much they've lost.

So I think when you stack them, when you have them available, it's much safer than not having them available in the unregulated market with an unregulated bookie or with the so-called prediction markets.

KATKO: What are some of the indicators a regulator such as yourself looks at to determine if there could be a problem with an individual gambler?

MAYNARD: Well, what we do is we set standards for the operators, and we make sure that the operators create a situation where there's access to these tools for people.

We know that about 2 to 3%, through our research, 2 to 3% of gamblers have serious harms.

There's 7 to 8% of sports wagers who could have those types of harms, or they may fit into that 90% or so that do so for entertainment.

At the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, we actually have a robust research and responsible gaming program.

And in that program, which is funded by those revenues that we discussed earlier, we can research these issues.

And so what we try to do is give people on that continuum who may be experiencing harm a safer space where they're not experiencing that harm.

KATKO: It seems like this balance, in some sorts, between personal responsibility and your responsibility as a regulator.

How is that working?

How do you find that right balance between making an individual responsible for what their own actions are, but also you playing that role?

MAYNARD: John, that's a great question.

It's a tightrope.

Obviously, there is a demand for the market.

We know that because, as I had discussed earlier, people have been sports wagering for years.

They just weren't doing it in a regulated way.

So we have to strike a balance between maximizing the benefits to the commonwealth and minimizing the harms to the commonwealth.

And we do a really good job of that here at the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.

We have meetings all the time, multiple times a month, between the commissioners, and we're always looking for innovation and new ways to ensure that people are safe.

We've formed an AI committee, for example, and funded studies through UNLV on how we can use artificial intelligence for good and not for bad.

We want to be able to look for financial markers.

If somebody does go multiple times in a day and deposit money into their account, you know, we want to be able to flag that.

We're actually having a meeting this Thursday on that alone.

So I use that as an example of where we are trying to be curious and we're trying to continuously innovate.

KATKO: Prop betting seems to be a growing concern, not only from a corruptive standpoint on the sports that people are prop betting on, but also from getting more and more people to bet more money.

So are you concerned at all with prop betting as it currently stands?

MAYNARD: Well, I have to take this as an opportunity to say how proud I am of Massachusetts.

When they actually passed that sports wagering law and signed it, the governor signed it in, now the president of the NCAA, Charlie Baker.

They actually didn't allow individual prop bets on collegiate athletes.

We're one of the only jurisdictions in the country to outright ban that in the statute, and so we are concerned about it.

What I will say is it's a balancing act, going back to our conversation earlier.

We have to make sure that the regulated market has enough product availability to keep people in the regulated market and not in those offshore books or on those so-called prediction markets.

While at the same time, understanding that integrity is very important.

I'll tell you, John, we require our operators to have independent integrity monitoring services.

So when there are issues where people think the game may be rigged, we get involved and we say, let us know about it.

And I think the reason you're seeing more of these issues come to light is because there's a regulated market to catch when these issues come up.

KATKO: So quick question.

I've only got about a minute left, but briefly, Are people still going to offshore markets to place bets?

And if they are, how are they regulated, if at all?

MAYNARD: Well, I will tell you, these offshore books, people are still going to them.

My biggest worry as a regulator is the fact that consumers can get confused, John, between what is regulated.

We are rigorous in Massachusetts in regulating our operators.

And these offshore books have little to no regulation.

And then maybe what may even be scarier are these pseudo-federally regulated trades that I consider sports wagering, which give the air of being regulated by someone like the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, but they're actually not.

So I worry about consumer confusion, and I'll take this as an opportunity to say, if you're in Massachusetts and you want to sports wager, you should do so with a licensed operator in Massachusetts.

You can find our Massachusetts seal of approval on those applications.

Click that, and it will take you back to the Massachusetts Gaming website.

KATKO: So, Jordan, briefly, just 10 seconds left.

Do you think there's any sort of a health crisis or any sort of a crisis with respect to gambling right now in America?

MAYNARD: I think that there could be if we don't get enough people into the regulated market, where they can actually get those essential services that they need.

KATKO: Jordan Maynard, Massachusetts Gaming Commission Chair.

Thanks so much for joining us.

For more on the upside and downside of online sports betting, let's swing into the trapeze.

Joining us now is Joe Maloney, president of the Sports Betting Alliance, and Dr.

Timothy Fong, a board-certified addiction psychiatrist and co-director of the UCLA Gambling Studies Program.

Gentlemen, welcome to the show and this very important topic, so let's get right to it.

Online sports betting as it exists today, mostly harmless entertainment for adults, or are we seeing the earliest signs of a public health problem?

Dr.

Fong, we'll start with you.

DR.

FONG: So thank you for having me.

Number one, we've seen a massive escalation and expansion of sports betting to the point where it's become a normalized and accepted part of American culture.

Now, for the vast majority of people who do bet on sports, they do not incur long-lasting harm.

That's super important.

But there are concerning trends where we do know that we see rises in the rates of gambling disorder.

But that number still is at a very significant 2 to 3%, but it's definitely an area of concern where we want to make sure that we have public health policies and regulations and legislation in place to protect the American public from additional harm.

KATKO: Dr.

Fong, sticking with you just for a moment, drilling down on the 2 to 3% that you're concerned with is there a certain age group or subgroup within there that you're most concerned about?

DR.

FONG: Well, again, we're concerned about anyone who bets on sports, because technically any human is potentially vulnerable to developing problems from gambling.

But the ones that we are seeing a trend in are, of course, the young folks from 12 to 30 years old.

We do know that one of the biggest risk factors to develop addiction is starting younger, so before age 18, and gambling on a regular basis.

We're also concerned about folks with co-occurring mental health problems, like depression and substance use disorder, and also older adults who have a limited amount of money and potentially could incur harm from gambling at a faster rate than those who are working.

KATKO: Mr.

Maloney, your take on whether there's a problem with gambling in this country and what you're doing about it.

MALONEY: Dr.

Fong said it himself that this is an activity that is enjoyed by millions of Americans, the vast majority of whom are able to conduct this activity in a manner that is positive and in a manner that is responsible.

Forty jurisdictions and the District of Columbia, since the 2018 Supreme Court decision, have decided to platform legal, regulated sports wagering.

Some in person at physical casinos, others online in about 31 states with legal online wagering.

It's an acknowledgment that Americans have been betting on sports for as long as there have been sports to bet on.

So we have the opportunity with legal regulated markets.

The companies that I represent seek licensure to fulfill the duties and obligations of the statutes, as passed by voters in some states, or by elected leaders, Democrats and Republicans coming together to say let's legalize this activity.

Let's regulate it, and let's tax it.

And let's dedicate those tax revenues to support those that might have issues so they can access culturally relevant and accessible clinical care should they have problems managing their behavior.

But most importantly, we have to acknowledge that gambling is not risk-free.

There is activity that can become disordered.

It can become problematic.

It is addictive for a small number of individuals.

And we just have to make sure that our industry is continuing to work to demonstrate the commitment to promote responsibility when it comes to participating in this activity.

KATKO: Dr.

Fong, to Mr.

Maloney's point, it's almost like the devil you know, right?

So when it became legalized in 2018, is it better than it was before, because before it was a Wild West where everyone was going offshore and there was no regulation to it?

DR.

FONG: Well, there are still a lot of folks who are, unfortunately, gambling in that unregulated space, and what's changed, not only in 2018, is the technology, the ease, the ability to generate websites and use artificial intelligence to create unregulated gambling activities.

So there's certainly no doubt that we see that expansion.

And again, to Joe's point, our concern is, how do we create an activity that promotes connection, regulation, entertainment, financial responsibility, and stability?

Too often we get a lot on both sides saying, "Oh my gosh, the sky's falling and everyone's going to develop a crisis."

I'm very concerned.

I'm concerned, again, about too many people who are not well-trained or well-educated or who don't understand the risk, who do develop gambling problems and don't get help until it's too late.

As an example, I saw a young man last week, 19 years old.

He should not have been on legal gambling sites, but he was able to get on, and unfortunately, by the time he saw me, about $180,000 of his money and his family's money were spent.

So the question again, who's responsible for a story like that?

Partly him, partly the website, partly his family, partly society.

So there's no doubt that we see some of these trends that we're concerned about, and certainly unregulated gambling is one of the hardest things, I think, to stop, in part, again, because of the technology and the ease with which these websites can generate and operate.

KATKO: Yeah, so Mr.

Maloney, that's one of the things I wanted to follow up on with you, is it just too easy to gamble?

Is that part of the issue?

Or that's number one.

Then when you get done with the answer to that question, I'm going to ask you a follow-up question, and that is, what's the industry doing to do their part in trying to find that balance between personal responsibility and the responsibility of regulators?

So start with, is it just too easy to do all the gambling?

MALONEY: In short, yes, it is.

We've made tremendous progress as the legal regulated industry, migrating bettors out of the illegal and unregulated settings and into legal regulated settings that come with consumer protections, that come with age and identity verifications, that come with responsible gaming tools and resources like wager limits, deposit limits, and time-on-app limits.

But yes, you know, today, the illegal and unregulated sports betting market is really targeting vulnerable populations.

It's targeting 16, 17, and 18-year-olds.

In legal markets, it's 21 to bet.

And that age and identity must be verified.

And so if someone is underage on one of our legal operator websites or apps, they're doing it through a proxy.

A parent is giving them permission, or they've stolen an of-age family member's or a friend's identity with a driver's license or a Social Security number.

That's proxy betting.

That's against the terms of service.

But the illegal and nonregulated market continues to be predatory and pervasive, and they continue to focus on jurisdictions with advertising where it's not yet legal.

One third of American adults continue to live in a jurisdiction where sports wagering is not yet legal, which means two thirds of Americans are able to do this in legal regulated settings.

What does that look like?

That's why today, even a few weeks ago, the winning car in the Daytona 500, the largest logo on the hood of that car and on the side door of that car, was a sweepstakes casino.

A sweepstakes casino that's been banned in nine states, that's received 20 different letters from attorneys general asking them to cease and desist, but they don't stop.

They hide in the shadows and even blatantly and brazenly continue to advertise on social media platforms, again targeting mostly vulnerable populations.

So it is easy.

It is very easy to access these sites and to go on and immediately wager money.

What are we doing about it for your second question?

It goes back to toolkits and resources.

It's ensuring that the consumer has every opportunity and is prompted, intervened with, to ensure that they can take advantage of these tools and resources that promote positive play, things such as a deposit limit, a wager limit, and a time-on-app limit.

When those are not able to provide the appropriate amount of protection or promote the type of positivity that might be necessary for an individual, we also provide the opportunity to self-exclude.

With one or two clicks within an app, you can exclude yourself from these apps at the click of a button over a certain period of time.

And those public databases can be matched back to the state.

KATKO: What about advertising in general when it comes to gambling?

Should it be better regulated, like it is with tobacco?

MALONEY: So, you know, each and every day, legal regulated operators in the sports betting space compete against each other, but also compete against illegal market operators that face no advertising restrictions and pay no attention to laws and rules around targeting minors.

Our industry is committed to responsible advertising.

That's why we have partnerships with professional leagues that govern the frequency of sports betting advertisements and include required and mandated disclosures about problem gambling and responsible gambling resources.

So we have to continue commitments to smart advertising.

We have to ensure that the advertisements that we are platforming are being viewed by of-age viewers, and they continue to promote this activity as entertainment and not as a wealth-creation exercise.

Those are the commitments that we stand for and why our advertising is expected to continue to provide this opportunity to platform legal regulated gaming.

KATKO: Thanks for that.

Dr.

Fong, what should someone do if they suspect they may have a gambling problem?

Where can they go?

DR.

FONG: The number one thing is to get proper information.

One can call 1-800-GAMBLER, or another national helpline, 1-800-MY-RESET.

You can also take a look at our website, uclagamblingprogram.org, or ncpgambling.org.

But I often encourage people to think of it like any other health condition.

If you had chest pain, if you had blood in your stool, if you had headaches that weren't going away, you would seek medical professional help.

I think if anyone's curious, concerned, or just wondering what their gambling behavior is doing to their body, brain, mind, wallet, or spirit, it's for them to seek professional guidance by talking with a mental health counselor or therapist who specializes in understanding gambling behaviors.

And again, 1-800-GAMBLER gets you linked up to a number of those properly trained and authorized mental health specialists.

KATKO: Dr.

Timothy Fong, clinical psychiatrist at UCLA, and Joe Maloney, president of the Sports Betting Alliance.

Thanks so much for a great conversation.

KATKO: After the 2018 Supreme Court decision, it became clear that online sports betting is here to stay.

The question now is not whether it should exist, but how to make it safer and more accountable.

Two priorities stand out.

First, we need a stronger response to gambling addiction, especially among younger adults.

That means public education, better partnerships with legal operators, smarter tools to spot risky behavior early, and connecting people to help.

Second, we need to take a hard look at prop betting and some forms of microbetting.

Recent scandals in baseball and basketball have raised very serious questions about integrity and how easily some of these bets can be manipulated.

Major League Baseball and sportsbook partners have already moved to limit some pitch-level wagers, which tells you the concern is real.

Online betting companies have a major role to play here, too, because if they want to preserve public trust, they need to help lead on safeguards before Congress decides to act for them.

And that's My Take.

That's all for this week, folks.

To send in your comments for the show or to see "Balancing Act" extras and exclusives, follow us on social media or go to BalancingActWithJohnKatko.com.

Thank you for joining us.

And remember, in a circus that is politics, there is always a "Balancing Act".

I'm John Katko.

We'll see you next week, America.

♪ ♪ ♪