The term “player props” references actionable proposition wagers that sportsbooks make available to members. Members place bets regarding individual player performances which do not necessarily relate to the final win/loss outcome of a game or event. Examples of player props include the following:
- Over/Under on how many yards an NFL or NCAAF quarterback will throw for in a game.
- Y/N outcome on whether or not an NBA or NCAAB player will receive a technical foul during a game.
- Over/Under on how many walks an MLB or NCAA DI starting pitcher will throw in a game.
- Y/N outcome on whether or not an MLS player will receive a yellow or red card in a game.
As the list of examples shows, players (and refs) have varying degrees of personal control over these betting outcomes. This opens the floodgates to a variety of potential problems regarding sport, league, team, and player integrity. However, the brightest spotlight is currently shining on athlete abuse at the hands of disgruntled gamblers who lose wagers on player props. In response to widespread reports of athlete harassment, National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) President Charlie Baker has been pushing for lawmakers to remove college prop betting since the first quarter of 2024. The NCAA’s stance has led more than a dozen U.S. states (13 to be exact) to ban college player props. Surprisingly, gambling industry proponent New Jersey is the latest to strongly consider a move away from college player props which infers a sense of how damaging the product can be.
There is a high expectation that other states will follow suit and restrict what legal gambling operators can market to U.S. residents on the NCAA front. However, speculation abounds as to whether or not it’s enough. After all, many young athletes will leave the embrace of their collegiate programs and enter the big leagues where they will once again be exposed to the risks associated with player prop betting. Consequently, America must ask; should there be a call to ban player props outright from all amateur, collegiate, and professional sports? Should lawmakers demand that U.S. operators remove this option from their platforms? There’s a mental health case to be made for both sides of the discussion.
How Player Props Contribute to Gambling Problems in Sports and Whether or Not They Should be Banned from the Regulated Market
A. CASE TO OUTRIGHT BAN PLAYER PROPS
I. Leads to Player Harassment from Angry Gamblers
As discussed in the introduction, the strongest argument in favor of an blanketed ban is the abuse being levied against athletes. Even if threats don’t manifest as physical altercations there is a direct and palpable mental health toll. In a recent statistical analysis regarding this abuse, it was found that one student-athlete received more than 1,400 abusive messages in under 2 weeks. If that doesn’t weigh heavy on one’s mind, body, and soul, what will? The same report unveiled that sexual abuse, racism and homophobia/transphobia were among the most common harassment categories. Unsurprisingly (unfortunately) female athletes received the brunt of abuse, garnering 59% more hateful messages than their male counterparts. You can reference further statistics here, but take note that abuse related to player props piles on to the mental health issues that elite athletes already experience to greater degrees than the general population.
2. May Compromise Player Integrity
Like with anyone, sometimes good athletes do bad things. So when one of them has a relative financial concern or struggles with their behavioral health they may make an unethical decision. If an opportunity presents itself to alter their own performance for the sake of a large payday on the gambling market, they may take it. Look no further than the recent player prop scandal that caused Toronto Raptors’ Jontay Porter to receive a lifetime ban from the NBA as proof of concept. By removing player props from sports betting platforms, a major threat to player and sport integrity is also mitigated.
3. Adds Another Layer of Predatory Practices Against Players
i) Baiting the Vulnerable: Athletes are more predisposed to developing problem gambling behavior when compared to the general public. This vulnerability places an athlete gambler in a precarious position from predatory forces that wait for them to slip-up when it comes to their habit. Nefarious bookies and stakeholders from the criminal underworld are known to prey on players who find themselves in gambling debt. For instance, they offer to cover losses if an indebted player helps them cover the spread (etc.) on the next game the player is involved in. We understand that this sounds like something from a Hollywood gangster film, but as testimony from former mob boss, Michael Franzese, indicates, art imitates life in the underbelly of sports betting:
ii) Risk of Coercion: There has been speculation that the NBA’s Jontay Porter was somehow the victim of coercion by members of the underworld. Considering the ramifications of speaking out against such types, the public may never know the true story. In either case, stories about collegiate/professional athlete coercion are not relegated solely to works of fiction. For as long as player props are permitted, there is a risk of athletes being threatened if they don’t miss a free throw or incur themselves an uncharacteristic penalty during a game.
B. CASE TO KEEP PLAYER PROPS
“With the prop ban, you remove a tool from the legal market that could be used to root out other issues like harassment […] A ban does not affect the illegal market.” (Scott Ward, SBA Lobbyist)
Critics of a blanketed ban, such as Scott Ward from the Sports Betting Alliance (SBA), state that removing player props from the legal U.S. market could backfire because the unregulated market will continue to offer actionable betting lines on players. There is truth to this, and it must also be noted that the unregulated market has major influence over the U.S. sports betting populous. Illegal operators collected 89% of all American wagers on the 2024 NFL Super Bowl. By keeping player props in the legal market, operators and regulators alike could theoretically better monitor for abusive behavior (directed at athletes) coming from sportsbook membership bases. The same could be said regarding the monitoring for gambling addiction among members. If this monitoring is successful, both criminal and mental health interventions could be initiated where appropriate.
In theory there is a sound argument to be made in support of allowing player props to persist in the legal sports betting market. In theory. But this rationale doesn’t align with regulations in sports betting marketing. U.S. regulators have banned the use of certain semantics such as “FREE BET” or “RISK FREE” in legal operator marketing communications in order to protect consumer interests. Meanwhile, unregulated operators continue to use those same expressions in their advertising. Why do regulators draw the line here? If the rationale for allowing player props is that the unregulated market will do it anyway, so it’s better for the regulated market to persist for the sake of monitoring and intervention, why not revert the laws on sports betting advertising too? It’s all very problematic.
Ultimately, the case for allowing player props boils down to whether or not operators and regulators will invest in the resources required to monitor for issues and to promptly initiate effective interventions when members are flagged. If player props continue to be a fixture in the legal market, operators and regulators must allocate a significant portion of gambling handle (operators) and tax revenue (regulators) towards investment in AI monitoring systems and better behavioral health support for compromised gamblers in addition to impacted athletes. Until this occurs, lawmakers can and should look closely at shuttering player props on the legal sports betting market. Which side will be the first to take action in the next U.S. state where a player prop ban is proposed?
Has sports betting had a negative impact on the mental wellbeing of yourself or your athletes? Reach out to Kindbridge Behavioral Health today to discuss custom programs and solutions.
Concerned Athletes, Athletic Organizations, and Institutions
CALL +1 (877) 426-4258
OR
Email [email protected]
