- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
- Messages
- 63,398
SOURCE
A study group from the Committee on Public Policy met to discuss two bills that have been sitting on their desk for months. Stakeholders from across the industry presented testimony, including a representative for the professional sports leagues.
The hearing was mostly educational and surface-level, but a back-and-forth with NBA counsel Dan Spillane spawned a few disagreeable moments.
The land of integrity feesThe Hoosier State holds a special place in the dialogue surrounding expanded Sports Betting. It was in the Indiana statehouse that league representatives first asked for their contentious integrity fee.
Here’s the language that appeared in H 1325 back in January:
A sports wagering operator shall remit to a sports governing body that has provided notice to the commission under section 2 of this chapter an integrity fee of one percent (1%) of the amount wagered on the sports governing body’s sporting events.
Indiana was first, but this request traveled from state to state in lobbyists’ briefcases. Just about every legislative body that’s considered a Sports Betting bill is familiar with this language.
It’s language the leagues came to regret. As lawmakers wondered aloud on multiple occasions, shouldn’t leagues already be monitoring the integrity of their games? Sports Betting, after all, has been legal in Nevada and other jurisdictions for decades.
In the time since that bill appeared, the NBA has tried to pivot from the ill-chosen moniker to a straight-up royalty. It also since reduced its ask from a full 1 percent down to one quarter of a percent of all wagers.
Meanwhile, Commissioner Adam Silver continues to refer to the integrity fee by its original name in public conversation.
Spillane faces the firing squadSpillane often draws the unenviable task of fighting for these fees, and he returned to Indianapolis will face legislative questioning.
After Spillane presented his pitch, the committee became hung up on the included fees.
A study group from the Committee on Public Policy met to discuss two bills that have been sitting on their desk for months. Stakeholders from across the industry presented testimony, including a representative for the professional sports leagues.
The hearing was mostly educational and surface-level, but a back-and-forth with NBA counsel Dan Spillane spawned a few disagreeable moments.
The land of integrity feesThe Hoosier State holds a special place in the dialogue surrounding expanded Sports Betting. It was in the Indiana statehouse that league representatives first asked for their contentious integrity fee.
Here’s the language that appeared in H 1325 back in January:
A sports wagering operator shall remit to a sports governing body that has provided notice to the commission under section 2 of this chapter an integrity fee of one percent (1%) of the amount wagered on the sports governing body’s sporting events.
Indiana was first, but this request traveled from state to state in lobbyists’ briefcases. Just about every legislative body that’s considered a Sports Betting bill is familiar with this language.
It’s language the leagues came to regret. As lawmakers wondered aloud on multiple occasions, shouldn’t leagues already be monitoring the integrity of their games? Sports Betting, after all, has been legal in Nevada and other jurisdictions for decades.
In the time since that bill appeared, the NBA has tried to pivot from the ill-chosen moniker to a straight-up royalty. It also since reduced its ask from a full 1 percent down to one quarter of a percent of all wagers.
Meanwhile, Commissioner Adam Silver continues to refer to the integrity fee by its original name in public conversation.
Spillane faces the firing squadSpillane often draws the unenviable task of fighting for these fees, and he returned to Indianapolis will face legislative questioning.
After Spillane presented his pitch, the committee became hung up on the included fees.
