The world of professional sports was once again rocked by a gambling scandal this month, with the Cleveland Guardians' All-Star closer, Emmanuel Clase, being placed on leave amid an MLB investigation into sports betting. This news follows a string of similar incidents that have put leagues on high alert. Now, a similar set of concerns could be heading for college campuses. A proposal being considered by the NCAA to potentially allow Division I student-athletes to bet on professional sports has ignited a complex debate, forcing a re-evaluation of the relationship between collegiate athletics, personal freedoms, and the integrity of the game.

As it stands, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) enforces a comprehensive ban on sports wagering for its student-athletes, coaches, and athletics staff. NCAA Bylaw 10.3 explicitly prohibits these individuals from placing any form of wager on amateur, intercollegiate, or professional sports in which the NCAA conducts a championship. This includes a wide array of activities, from betting on games to participating in fantasy leagues with cash prizes or providing "insider information" to influence wagers.

The penalties for violating these rules are significant, potentially leading to a loss of eligibility. The long-standing rationale for this policy is to protect the integrity of collegiate competition from external pressures and to safeguard student-athletes from the potential harms associated with gambling, such as addiction and corruption.

The argument to relax these stringent rules is rooted in pragmatism and the evolving legal landscape of sports betting in the United States. Proponents of reform suggest that with sports wagering now legal and accessible in a majority of states, enforcing a complete ban on adults is becoming increasingly impractical. They contend that allowing student-athletes to bet on professional sports—while strictly maintaining the prohibition on all college events—could be a more realistic approach.

This perspective suggests that such a change would allow the NCAA to concentrate its enforcement efforts on the most critical threats, like point-shaving or the fixing of college games. Matt Banker, a former NCAA administrator and current associate athletics director at Louisville, has questioned the current priorities, stating, "Is pro sports gambling by a college athlete or coach the biggest threat to college athletics? It’s not." The core idea is that regulating this behavior within legal, transparent markets is a better strategy than driving it into unregulated, underground channels.

Despite the arguments for modernization, many administrators, coaches, and mental health experts have raised significant concerns about the potential consequences of such a policy shift.

1. Athlete Well-being and Financial Health: A primary worry is the potential impact on the student-athletes themselves. College is an inherently stressful period, and student-athletes face unique pressures. There are concerns that introducing a sanctioned avenue for sports betting could become a gateway to addiction for a population known for its competitive nature. Data suggests that a notable percentage of college students already exhibit signs of problem gambling. The financial risks are also a point of discussion; an athlete accumulating significant betting debt could become vulnerable to outside influences, potentially creating a pathway to the very corruption the rules are meant to prevent.

2. The Perception of Professional Leagues: Another area of concern involves the future careers of these athletes. A student-athlete's ambition is often to reach the professional level. Questions have been raised about whether a documented history of sports gambling, even if legal at the time, could be viewed as a liability by professional teams. As leagues invest millions in their talent, they are increasingly cautious about any off-field behaviors that could lead to scandals or suspensions.

3. The Locker Room Environment: The potential effect on team dynamics is also a frequent topic of conversation. A hypothetical scenario often raised is one where team chemistry could be negatively affected by gambling-related tensions. For instance, if teammates are betting on professional games, a significant loss could create friction or resentment within the locker room, potentially undermining a team's success.

The debate extends beyond athletic departments. Public figures and organizations have weighed in, highlighting the broader societal impact. Heather Lyke, the Director of Athletics at the University of Pittsburgh, expressed her view to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that legal wagering on college sports could have a "detrimental impact on student-athletes."

Mental health has become a central part of the conversation. The NCAA itself has pointed to the negative mental health effects that the pervasive sports betting culture can have on student-athletes. With the expansion of legalized betting, there has been a well-documented increase in online harassment aimed at college athletes by disgruntled bettors. In Ohio, this issue prompted regulators to ban individual player "prop bets" after athletes reported receiving threats. Many believe that allowing athletes to participate directly in the betting ecosystem could amplify this pressure.

Ultimately, the discussion over permitting student-athletes to bet on professional sports involves balancing competing values: modernizing rules for a new era versus upholding a long-standing duty of care. It forces stakeholders to consider whether a more focused enforcement strategy is worth the potential risks to athlete well-being, game integrity, and the culture of college sports. As the NCAA weighs its options, the decision will undoubtedly have a lasting impact on the future of collegiate athletics.

As several leagues eye expansion, is there such a thing as too many teams?

As leagues are increasingly run and evaluated as businesses, there is a constant quest for future growth. Adding teams has been a reliable tactic in the past to generate that growth. Team expansion is likely to create more fans, resulting in increased ticket sales, more viewers for media rights, and additional sponsorship opportunities. Maybe that’s why the NBA is talking about Las Vegas and Seattle, MLB is considering Salt Lake City and Nashville, the NFL is pushing Europe, and rumors abound about the NHL in several cities.

The US already leads the world in the size of its professional leagues. Looking at the top 15 teams (by revenue), every North American league has more teams than any other market. This is driven by an ideal combination of sporting passion and a large population with a high disposable income. Let’s first take a look at the factors limiting expansion.

Talent Dilution

Some purists question whether leagues can draw on enough professional-level talent to sustain a higher number of teams. There are numerous examples of expansion teams that struggled to find their way for several years. But that’s more an issue of individual team records than overall league strength. It’s led to relocations, but has never led to a long-term problem for a league. The truth is that most fans are drawn to professional sports for many reasons and aren’t generally astute judges of overall talent levels. Fans are more attracted by excitement than quality. As long as there are stars, compelling stories, and dramatic games, fans will stick around.

Revenue Dilution

While existing owners get a short-term benefit from expansion fees, letting new teams in means splitting the long-term revenue pie among more owners. At this point, there are fewer gaps in the top metro regions where a team is not already in place

As you move further down this list, there’s a question of whether a new team would be able to generate enough incremental fans to justify more splits in the pie.

Season Logistics

Scheduling and travel get more complicated as the league geography expands. Playoff logistics get more complicated as well. Each of the leagues has widened playoff eligibility over the years to put a higher percentage of teams in the playoffs. This was intended to generate more fan interest and revenue as there are more teams in the playoff hunt during the regular season, and the playoff series include more games. If the leagues get even larger, they’d have to face one of two scenarios: either accept that a lower percentage of teams would make the playoffs or expand the playoffs even more. The first scenario creates a more lame duck regular season for teams with no postseason hopes, the second scenario would lengthen seasons that already seem stretched to their limit (e.g., World Series in November, NBA Championships in June).

Does that mean that league sizes are near their maximum? Not necessarily. Against these constraining forces is a greater force: the drive for more revenues. After the few remaining US gaps get filled in on the table above, the most likely long-term outcome is international expansion. Markets outside the US hold the largest untapped source of fans to make the economics work. 

There is also justification for letting overseas teams in on less than a full share of the US-based revenues, at least initially. It will take years of fan development and a lot of organizational creativity, but that is where strategic expansion can bring the highest reward. The NBA is arguably the nearest global opportunity with a strong infrastructure of established leagues in almost every region of the world, and a growing talent pool and fanbase. It’s a “build or buy” situation for the NBA to determine whether to partner or compete with the existing leagues. Adam Silver has already signaled early negotiations with the EuroLeague on that front. It is possible to imagine a 70+ team league extending over North America, Europe, and Asia. If that seems fantastical, remember that there are over 300 Division 1 teams in college basketball. The NCAA’s combination of league championships, autobids, and invitations keeps teams in the hunt for a long part of their seasons and owns the US sports viewership in the month of March. Figuring out the logistics will take work and new models, but money has a way of inspiring both those things. 

19- The Savannah Bananas (who we’ve written about here) have inked a deal with truTV to broadcast 19 of their games, bringing their TikTok-famous antics and fast-paced "Banana Ball" to a national audience. This means their traveling show, which already sells out major league stadiums, is about to get a massive new stage, proving that sometimes the best business plan is to be delightfully weird.

$15 Million- Just when you thought the pickleball craze couldn't get any crazier, its main organizing body, the United Pickleball Association, just raised another $15 million in funding. With revenues soaring to $70 million, pickleball is officially graduating from a backyard BBQ activity to a serious professional sport with some serious cash behind it.

$4 Billion- While you were busy screaming at your team on TV, Disney was busy counting the cash, closing its upfront ad sales with nearly $4 billion committed just for sports. Advertisers are lining up to get a piece of the action, with "Monday Night Football," college football, and the NBA leading the charge in securing those sweet, sweet ad dollars.

Do you have a topic you want us to cover, a survey question you'd like us to ask, or any news you'd like to share? Let us know at [email protected].