Americans Increasingly See Legal Sports Betting as a Bad Thing For Society and Sports (pewresearch.org)
- Reference: 0179639252
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/10/03/0918249/americans-increasingly-see-legal-sports-betting-as-a-bad-thing-for-society-and-sports
- Source link: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/02/americans-increasingly-see-legal-sports-betting-as-a-bad-thing-for-society-and-sports/
> Public awareness of legal sports betting has grown in recent years -- and [1]so has the perception that it is a bad thing for society and sports , according to a new Pew Research Center survey. Today, 43% of U.S. adults say the fact that sports betting is now legal in much of the country is a bad thing for society. That's up from 34% in 2022. And 40% of adults now say it's a bad thing for sports, up from 33%.
>
> Despite these increasingly critical views of legal sports betting, many Americans continue to say it has neither a bad nor good impact on society and on sports. Fewer than one-in-five see positive impacts. Meanwhile, the share of Americans who have bet money on sports in the past year has not changed much since 2022.
>
> Today, 22% of adults say they've personally bet money on sports in the past year. That's a slight uptick from 19% three years ago. This figure includes betting in any of three ways:
> 1. With friends or family, such as in a private betting pool, fantasy league or casual bet
> 2. Online with a betting app, sportsbook or casino
> 3. In person at a casino, racetrack or betting kiosk
Further reading : [2]Filipinos Are Addicted to Online Gambling. So Is Their Government .
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/02/americans-increasingly-see-legal-sports-betting-as-a-bad-thing-for-society-and-sports/
[2] https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/10/01/1755259/filipinos-are-addicted-to-online-gambling-so-is-their-government
All gambling is bad (Score:2)
Really, really bad and stupid too
Unfortunately, it's been a part of human society for thousands of years
Along with war and religion, it appears that people have some serious, structural problems baked in
OMG, something is legal? (Score:2, Funny)
OMG, we haven't made something illegal yet? Surely we must strive for a society where everything not prohibited is compulsory. Thankfully, California is leading the way, and Scott Wiener is our hero.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm
Sports book was illegal outside of Vegas and maybe Atlantic City for the longest time. It only recently became legal.
No shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Always a bad idea, esp for college level players.
Gambling owns sports these days (Score:5, Insightful)
It used to be that, once a year, you'd enter a football pool with coworkers. Now, every televised sporting event bombards you with gambling ads, and the leagues are in cahoots. The sports are taking backseat to the gambling and have lost what little majesty they had left. I no longer watch any sports on TV, go to games, or follow teams.
This is in addition to all the horrible harms of gambling addiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Gambling ads are now so pervasive that I wonder how people recovering from compulsive gambling manage. They're all over traditional TV, streaming TV, the Internet, radio ads, magazine ads, etc... Even supposedly "ad free" streaming services like to slip in an ad or two at the start of a show. Either you quickly learn to resist temptation or you are screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
> It used to be that, once a year, you'd enter a football pool with coworkers.
The big problem with sports betting is that it's easy to access. March Madness pools are once a year. Football pools are only during the season. These pools generally deal with relatively small amounts. Casino gambling is year round, but it requires driving to the casino. Sports betting is something that can be done from one's couch, and so the inhibitions that prevent gambling addiction for pools and casinos don't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
The stock market and derivatives can actually drive real economic activity. Gambling does not. Not really sure about forex, it's weird.
A benefit of wider knowledge about addiction (Score:3)
Society is much MUCH more aware of the psychology and physiology of addiction in 2025 than it was even in the 1990s. That's why we're seeing a steady reduction in alcohol consumption and why a big chunk of Gen Z is radicalizing against the porn industry.
Regardless of your opinion on gambling, porn, drinking, drugs, etc. for "people who can handle it," a lot of people simply can't. They have addiction-sensitive personalities and are more aware of that.
The vice industries don't want speed bumps and regulation on their business models, especially with younger people. That's literally how they recruit the next generation of customers, and society needs to clamp down HARD on marketing, software development, etc. meant to entice younger people to vice industries.
Re: (Score:2)
Harnessing our dopamine and other reward systems to "useful" or at least non destructive endeavors is definitely a challenge of the modern world.
Traditional vice industries are one thing, but practically any hobby , if not monitored and constrained is the same. Fashion, gardening, reading, all entertainment, eating, travel, working out etc. The opportunity for distraction and addiction are so so many now.
Putting it in always available apps with frictionless microtransactions further "weaponises" the thing
Inevitable Corruption (Score:2)
If money or power can be had it will get corrupted. So it is with business, politics and sports betting.
In baseball, when you can bet on individual pitches it's too easy for the pitcher or umpire to fix the outcome.
Sports betting also devalues the game. People can no longer enjoy it.
How did this become legalized? No one asked me (Score:3)
To me the big problem is not gambling, but LOW FRICTION gambling, where anyone can get themselves into trouble from their phone. How on Earth did this ill-thought-out legalization happen with no input from voters? The U.S. went from a nation where legal gambling was only allowed in Nevada and a few, scattered "Riverboats." Then large casinos on Native American reservations sprung up, but again, only PHYSICAL gambling venues you had to drive to. After illegal on-line betting exploded, it didn't take long for states to legalize on-line betting with a big TV advertising presence. IHMO, this happened too fast with no guard-rails, no evaluation period, and no option for review. Where were state regulators looking out for the public good?
Re: (Score:2)
Lobbying. The answer is lobbying.
Re: (Score:3)
> How on Earth did this ill-thought-out legalization happen with no input from voters?
Lots of shit gets voted on without any input from voters. Lately we've seen even when voters want something; the governments will find a way to ruin it. I mean there's lots of laws in my state I don't remember getting asked about; but the representatives do what they do.
> The U.S. went from a nation where legal gambling was only allowed in Nevada and a few, scattered "Riverboats."
We went through a phase where gambling was largely unregulated and slowly made illegal. Nevada didn't allow gambling until the 30's. In fact in the 1850's, San Francisco had overtaken New Orleans as the gambling capital of the world; but the
Same could be said for most kinds of gambling (Score:2)
They all exploit human weakness - addiction, stupidity, superstition. Doesn't matter if the bet is on a horse, the spin of a wheel or roll of dice. I think sports do suffer from it, as it harms and corrupts the sport by association.
I'm sure betting firms would proclaim it's "harmless fun" and that they promote sports through sponsorship and advertising. In which case let's put legally enforceable limits on this "harmless fun" and ban sponsorship entirely and instead levy these industries - a 5 or 10% tax
If you don't like it... (Score:1)
If you don't like it, don't bet.
Forcing people to bet ILLEGALLY is not reasonable.
If you want took about bad for society, look at alcohol. Go ban that. See what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
It's my money and I should be able to do whatever I want with it.
Re: (Score:2)
It won't be yours for long!
Re: (Score:1)
And giving sports betters control over games is good? Players are throwing games for people's bets, that's healthy? Gambling only drains money from people who are stupid enough to do it, which is usually people that don't have money in the first place. And to what end, redistribution of money?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's not so easy, gambling is addictive:
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxvfy4qQRog
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
you obviously have never met an addict. grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe someday, they'll invent better vices that can consume even MORE people! It's an ongoing struggle.
Re: (Score:2)
> There's no such thing as addictive activities or substances. There is however such a thing as individuals with willpower and individuals without it.
Nonsense, consult any medical journal on the subject.
Some people most definitely deal with addiction better then other but addiction is 100% real. I don't know how you ever got it in your head it wasn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Heard of a guy who believed that, and tried crack to demonstrate that he would not get addicted. He got addicted.
Re: If you don't like it... (Score:1)
Uh huh. I knew a guy who got drunk and jumped out of a window at a party. Banged himself up pretty good and couldn't work for months. I'm sure at the time he must have believed he could fly.
(Spurious) Conclusion: taking a sip of alcohol invariably causes self destructive behavior.
If I don't like it, then you shouldn't bet (Score:1)
> If you don't like it, don't bet.
There's a point of view where if I don't like gambling, then you (and everyone else) should be forcibly prevented from betting. Me abstaining from betting only resolves my conflict-of-interest, but isn't nearly enough to resolve all the possible conflicts of interest (e.g. players and refs).
Your betting affects my game; see the 1919 World Series for an infamous example.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. People are affected by the actions of others. Too fucking bad.
People make decisions everyday that I don't like and affect me negatively. Too fucking bad.
That's life.
People don't want the responsibility (Score:2)
> People make decisions everyday that I don't like and affect me negatively. Too fucking bad.
And back in the real world, when a dad gambles away the family money and the kids end up on welfare, we can't criminally prosecute him for social parasitism (the one criminal law from the USSR that sounds great IMHO).
When parents become dysfunctional addicts, society picks up the tab for them and their kids. When dysfunctional addicts in general cause problems, society picks up the tab.
If people want that "real freedo
Re: (Score:2)
Dad can piss all the money away on alcohol too. Totally legal.
Dad can piss all the money away on tobacco too. Totally legal.
Dad can piss on the money away chasing other women. Totally legal.
Dad can piss all the money away on any number of things. Totally legal.
Oh, look! Dad has freedom! Dad's freedom can negatively impact someone else. We better eliminate that freedom!
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that Dad couldn't legally bet on sports book for most of the United States' history, it wouldn't be a big ask to go back to that. It really wouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but the survey is whether people think it's bad. If something negatively impacts you, won't you describe it as 'bad' if you are asked about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what it is, but probably not.
I can make a distinction between "bad" and I simply don't like it.
Child porn. Bad.
Alcohol. I simply don't like it.
Re: (Score:2)
But the alcohol in the 'simply don't like it' has no impact on you. If you say 'DUI', then I think people would say 'bad' easily.
Similarly, if you are partaking of a sport, but that sport is being distorted by gambling, then it's fair to call it out as 'bad', since it has impacts beyond the people actively doing the gambling.
Re: (Score:3)
When there were only a few thousands of us living in caves, losing a few fingers or toes every winter, starving to death before dying of old age, that was also life.
Good thing there were some in those days that weren't angry, bitter, defeated losers like you who decided to do something to try to improve the human condition.
Re: (Score:2)
> Yes. People are affected by the actions of others. Too fucking bad.
> People make decisions everyday that I don't like and affect me negatively. Too fucking bad.
> That's life.
Yes and society is basically a whole bunch of rules about what affecting of others is required, what's allowable and what isn't allowed.
Manners, civil disputes, and criminal law are all about codifying, these rules and making sure people follow them.
Whether sports betting should or shouldn't be allowed isn't any different than deciding car speed limits, building codes, banking regulations, truth on advertising laws, etc
Re: (Score:2)
> If you don't like it, don't bet.
> Forcing people to bet ILLEGALLY is not reasonable.
> If you want took about bad for society, look at alcohol. Go ban that. See what happens.
Prohibition is not the only tool in the arsenal. E.g. banning advertisement can be effective.
There is huge advertisement allowed for betting platforms that drive a lot of bets that IMHO should be much more strictly regulated if not outright banned.
Re: If you don't like it... (Score:1)
Remind me again. Who's for unrestricted free speech and who's against it today?
Re: (Score:2)
> Remind me again. Who's for unrestricted free speech and who's against it today?
Regardless of "who", free speech has never been completely unrestricted and never will be. No right is absolute.
Said that, the First Amendment does pose limitations. An outright blanket ban would be unconstitutional, but other forms of more tailored regulation are allowed.
As example, misleading advertisement can be banned and time and placement exposing protected demographics like children to the advertisement can be banned.
You don't need reminding, you need a lesson (Score:2)
Assuming there are only two sides; neither is for unrestricted free speech.
Not by their own words, and certainly not by their actions.
Re: If you don't like it... (Score:5, Informative)
The guy who threatens to pull broadcast licenses because his feelings get hurt?
Re: (Score:2)
Why stop there? Why not legalize all grifting. Commercial gambling is always just middle-men preying on people who are bad at math. Even if you are "good" and you win, you're just taking money from people who aren't.
The only reason we give state sponsored gambling a pass is because schools benefit from people participating. It's a voluntary additional tax.
The question isn't why shouldn't people be free to gamble, it's why should commercial enterprise be allowed to exist that preys on it?
Re: (Score:1)
Why stop there? Why not legalize all grifting.M/EM>
BR? Have you not seen who is in the White House? He's the biggest grifter we have. He routinely pardons people convicted of financial crimes as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Sports betting on its own isn't necessarily a grift. People making a bet against their coworkers between their favorite teams that are about to face off is just something fans do. Office pools etc. are perfectly normal, and there really isn't a middleman there.
The large sports book sites ARE middlemen and they do skim enough off the top where maybe they should be viewed with some skepticism. But the core of what people are doing - or are TRYING to do - doesn't necessarily fall under the umbrella of grift
Re: (Score:2)
And this is really all about the sites. An office pool isn't really treated as illegal even when it is, because it's small enough scale to hopefully stay harmless.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually things DID change: the addiction problems in BC got a lot worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Exploitation is not something we as a society should encourage with a legal framework. Not every business venture is valid.