Last updated: December 13, 2024
The SAFE Bet Act, proposed by US lawmakers, aims to shift control of sports betting from states to federal authorities, calling for national standards and tighter regulations. While the bill faces strong opposition, it includes provisions for advertising restrictions, self-exclusion programs, and affordability checks for high-stakes bettors.
Two Congressmen in the United States, Senator Richard Blumenthal, and Representative Paul Tonko, have come forward to support federal regulation of sports betting. This is a reaction to the state sovereignty form of regulating sports betting that started after the passing of the PASPA Act in 2018. The two reasons are that the federal government should be in charge of the industry and not individual states.
Their proposal is called the Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet Act (SAFE Bet Act), which banned all sports betting in the United States of America and rescinded permission granted to the states and betting operators to operate sports betting with consent from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
Currently, 38 states have opted to legalize sports betting, and many of the states have included gambling taxes in their budgets. This makes the SAFE Bet Act a compilation that will not be well received by many as it interferes with existing state legislation. If approved, the decision-making power regarding which applicants could proceed to conduct sports betting services would be under the U.S. Attorney General’s office.
Although the provisions of the SAFE Bet Act are still hypothetical, the call for federalization has stirred up discussions about the future of sports betting in the U.S.
This continues to attract controversy through the Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet Act (SAFE Bet Act) by Senators Richard Blumenthal and representatives Paul Tonko in federal regulation of sports betting. According to the proposal, all new fresh sports betting licenses will expire after three years and centralize the power within the federal government.
Another bill proponent was Blumenthal, who gave a rather harsh talk on the state regulations, claiming that they are faint-hearted and half-baked. That is why we need a national standard – not only to ban gambling but also to regain the ability to control an industry that has grown out of control.
However, the idea found a vast opponent in the American Gaming Association (AGA), which reacted harshly. Representing the AGA, Chris Cylke insisted federal regulation would work in reverse and negate all the years of work accomplished by the states; the proposed act was, in effect, a ‘slap in the face.’
Despite its radical nature, the SAFE Bet Act incorporates specific measures already debated within the industry, such as restrictions on gambling advertisements between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. and banning misleading phrases like “risk-free” or “no sweat bets.” While critical of the bill’s larger scope, Cylke acknowledged that some aspects align with principles championed by the AGA.
The ongoing debate underscores the complexity of regulating sports betting in the U.S., as lawmakers and industry leaders clash over the need for federal oversight versus state autonomy.
Among several beneficial changes, elements of consumer protection lingering in the Sharing Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet Act (SAFE Bet Act) include proposals developed by U.S. lawmakers Senator Richard Blumenthal and Representative Paul Tonko. One important clause of the bill has been to repeal some literal promos in gambling ads, such as ‘risk-free’ or ‘no sweat bets’.
A much broader element of the legislation is developing the national self-exclusion program. This would enable players to self-exclude themselves from all gambling activities online or at any physical casino, thus making it one of the most comprehensive Self-exclusion policies available in the market.
Further, the bill also includes affordability checks that would mean background verification of anybody who gambles over $1,000 for 24 hours. These checks are intended to ensure that the individuals who bet big can foot the bill for the betting activities they carry out, which makes them quite different from similar regulations existing in Europe and Australia.
Although the SAFE Bet Act has serious challenges and most points are quite unlikely to pass the Senate in its current state, some of the provisions are compatible with worldwide tendencies toward consumer protection in the gambling business.
