Paul's Blog August 13, 2018

Written on 12 August 2018. Posted in Paul's Blog .

-- Legal precedent does not support Leagues' rights to fees for sports data

-- Court confirms that UIGEA prohibits Tribal Nations from offering online gambling to players not physically located on Tribal land.

Read the blog here

Paying fees to professional sports leagues is under consideration by New York state regulators who are drafting rules that govern betting. If New York adopts that kind of fee structure it would go against current practice by other states which do not pay the fee. And, insofar as legal precedent indicates that states are under no obligation to impose such a fee on sports betting operators, that would be very magnanimous of them. Legislators who are shaping regulatory laws probably need to look carefully at the vested interests who are advocating for regulatory terms, conditions, taxes, fees to be paid, and such. For instance, the article that describes the NY legislative motion to consider the fees referred to the advocacy of a gambling law professor at Columbia University who is also deputy president of Sportradar Group. This company partners with the NFL, NHL, and NBA leagues to sell rights to league data that helps sports books set odds. Maybe there is no conflict of interest. However, Sportradar Groups’ partnership with the leagues to monetize the dissemination of data should, though, be disclosed when invoking the expert opinion of the professor of gambling law from Columbia University who is also deputy president of Sportradr Group.

See article titled “Making Sense of Pro Sports Leagues’ Search for Sports Betting Data Fees: Case Study No. 6” for a detailed analysis of case law dealing with this issue of ownership rights of intellectual property, how these issues have been litigated in the past, how the courts decided, and the ways the court decisions of the past relate to the current debate over sports data, intellectual property, and ownership rights of the leagues. “The question that many are asking is why should the leagues get paid? What is the legal basis and foundation of their argument? The short answer is that their argument’s foundation is built on sand in a typhoon zone.”

See article “Federal Court appellate decision affirms a lower court’s ruling that the Lipay Nation’s plans violate the US’s Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA)” for description of the court’s decision that affirms that State-Tribal “compacts” do not allow sovereign Indian tribes to offer games online to players who are not physically located on the sovereign land. So, residents of the state contiguous to the Tribal lands can not play online in their homes - they must go to the sovereign tribal land to gamble either in a casino or online. The UIGEA does not prohibit otherwise legal gambling. But the court decision clarifies the intent of UIGEA is to require that a “bet or wager” must be legal both where it is “initiated” and where it is “received.” Any other interpretation (like, for instance, that online gambling be legal only where the bet is received, or only where the central server that processes the transaction is located, and not where the bet originates, i.e. where the player is physically located) makes no sense.