Wednesday, January 29, 2003
|
Wednesday, January 29, 2003 |
|
Super Bowl's over, so count your winnings
By MONROE
ROARK All right, how did everyone do on their Super Bowl bets? It's no secret that, for millions of people around the world, the action on the field during pro football's biggest game is secondary to the action elsewhere. Because of legal issues in various jurisdictions, there's no way anyone can accurately say how much money changed hands Sunday as a result of the game, although it is obviously in the billions of dollars. Sports bookmakers have capitalized on this obsession for years, to the point that Super Bowl could be as big in Las Vegas as it is in the host city. And with betting sites all over the Internet, many of which are based outside the United States, citizens in every state can legally (for now) enjoy a wager, or several, on the games of their choice. In case you are unfamiliar with this territory, you don't have to bet on the score of the game. For the Super Bowl, there is a line on just about everything, from the over-under (based on how many total points will be scored during the game) to who scores first and how (it was Oakland with a field goal) or even who wins the pregame coin toss (this year it was Tampa Bay). Oddsmaker Danny Sheridan has even taken a look 12 months down the road, listing every NFL team's odds against winning next year's Super Bowl. At present, the Philadelphia Eagles stand as the 5-to-1 favorites, while the Houston Texans will entire their second season in existence at 2 gazillion to 1. Although I am not a sports gambler, I was amused last week, as I am sure many other people were, at the news that a tourism advertisement for the city of Las Vegas was not allowed to air during the game, apparently at the behest of the National Football League. Professional sports leagues take, in my view, a curious public stance with regard to gambling, seeming to ignore its obvious effect on the popularity of the games themselves and each leagues' very livelihood. There have been numerous episodes over the years involving players whose own gambling experiences led to varying degrees of notoriety. Green Bay Packers running back Paul Hornung was suspended by the NFL in the 1960s for an entire season, for instance, and sports fans to this day are continually living with the "will he or won't he" saga of Pete Rose's possible gambling admissions so that he can enter baseball's Hall of Fame. Given the strange reverence with which pro leagues treat their games where gambling is concerned, the rejection of the Las Vegas ad reminded of a couple of issues that stand out in my mind. First of all, gambling has a huge effect on the revenue of the leagues simply because many people go to the games and watch them on television solely due to the bets they have riding on those games. This is most apparent in the NFL, where the point spreads for each week's games are printed in nearly every major newspaper in the country. Of almost equal importance is the publication each team's injured list, which goes into great detail as to a player's status (probable, doubtful, out, etc.) for an upcoming game. Ironically, the league claims to put this list out each week so that underground information will not be generated by gamblers, all it has done is make it easier for bettors to get the info they need. So the NFL acts much like many municipalities do when they legalize the lottery, which is nothing more than a state-sanctioned numbers racket, but only allow participation in their own game. It is the height of hypocrisy to establish a state lottery but deny anyone the right to organize his own privately-run lottery. The only thing the states care about is the revenue that comes into their coffers. The same goes for the NFL, which takes a public stance frowning on sports gambling while privately enjoying the incredible popularity it gains from these off-the-field activities. But an even bigger reason to laugh at pro sports' holier-than-thou attitude is evidenced by looking at who legitimately sponsors sports in America. This is easy to do at Super Bowl time, because the commercials have become as big as the game itself. Advertisers paid up to $2.2 million for a single 30-second spot in Sunday's big game, according to published reports. For several years, USA Today has tracked each commercial and how well, or poorly, the public responds to it. This year, out of 55 commercials listed in Monday's edition of that newspaper, Anheuser-Busch ran 11. That's more than $20 million in a single game. It's no surprise to even the casual sports fan that the alcohol industry is the biggest sponsor of professional sports in the United States. But it makes one laugh, or cry, to see how hypocritical the leagues can be regarding their drug policies when they are subsidized by the most common drug of all, turning a blind eye so that their wrath can be directed as the people who place bets on their sacred games. There is no argument that gambling has been a scourge of countless American families. But has it been any more destructive than alcohol? And can professional sports teams justify giving second, third, and tenth chances to players with criminal records and substance abuse problems while treating gamblers as the worst kinds of scum? What an interesting set of priorities. [Monroe Roark's Web address is www.mroark.com.]
|
||