The common denominator in NBA recent thread gamble scandals were types of bets. Jontay Porter has been suspended. NBA for life for manipulating bets based on his individual statistics. Terry Rozier is currently being investigated for similar violations. Like Porter, Rozier is accused of exiting the game early to help advance bettors win at “under” bets. according to his individual numbers. Off-season investigation Malik Beasley was raised partially because of suspicious rates activity surrounding his in-game stats in January 2024, although he ended up throwing an over for the corresponding number (rebounds). The investigation did not reveal any wrongdoing, but did not completely exonerate him.
It's clear why these bets are most likely to lead to our first wave of serious controversy in the post-legalized sports betting era. At first glance, rigging the outcome of an NBA game seems so difficult that attempting to influence players in this way would be impractical. How many players have enough ball to single-handedly ensure their team's defeat? Those who do it are so rich and so famous that it seems almost impossible to convince them to try it. When the 1919 White Sox made the World Series, eight players were ultimately suspended from the sport. If eight players couldn't keep quiet in 1919, what are the odds they could in 2025, when information and rumors spread much faster?
But betting on support? At least in theory, they are much easier to manipulate. All it takes is one player to buy in. If that player is eliminated from the game, not even the team can say with absolute certainty how incapacitated he really is. How can you tell the difference between a bad night and an intentionally bad night? To be fair, this was the most likely first wave of scandals because the attackers could plausibly believe they could get away with it, and at least some of them tried but have since failed.
The Porter case is an example of successful enforcement. The investigation into Porter began in March 2024. At the end of April he was banned. It is hoped that such enforcement will ultimately prove to be a deterrent, that a player's lifetime ban and pleading guilty to a crime will discourage other potentially vulnerable players from attempting to engage in this type of illegal activity. In Beasley's case, even the smell of the investigation was a punishment in itself. He was scheduled to sign a three-year contract worth $42 million with the club. Detroit Pistons before his investigation began. He was not found guilty. He also did not sign with the team. Just the hint of scandal cost him a lot of money.
What's particularly troubling about Rozier's case is that, unlike Porter, Rozier was not supposed to be financially vulnerable. He wasn't a two-way player. Spotrac estimates he will earn more than $160 million in the NBA after his current contract. It's hard to believe that a player who made so much money would be willing to risk everything for such a scheme, but if the allegations against him turn out to be true, it will be proof that even a successful NBA player can be dragged into this world.
And if this is so, it is difficult to come to any conclusion other than the need for serious reform of the entire practice of betting on money. This is a complex issue that we have to cover. At CBS Sports, like many other agencies, we have a business relationship with bookmakers. So does the NBA. That hasn't stopped Commissioner Adam Silver from proposing reform in this area, though. As recently as Tuesday, he did so on The Pat McAfee Show.
“We've asked some of our partners to walk away from some bets, especially when they're betting on two-way players, guys who don't have the same bet in a competition where it's all too easy to manipulate something that otherwise seems small and inconsequential to the overall outcome,” Silver said. “We're trying to put in place – learning as we go and working with betting companies – some additional controls to prevent some of this manipulation.”
What exactly would such a reform look like? It's hard to say. More extreme measures, such as outright bans on stock betting or parlays on the same game, likely won't be discussed unless legislation is passed at the federal level. The solution here would have to be something smaller in scale, a change or changes that would make it more difficult for players to try to manipulate the system in illegal ways. So, let's try to find such a solution. Here are three possibilities:
Minimum minutes for betting on stocks
The standard bet is activated the moment the player steps on the floor. This can work both in favor of the player and against him. If your player gets injured 43 seconds into the game, how James Harden did in Game 1 of the 2021 Eastern Conference Semifinals? You're out of luck. But if you are careful, it is possible to abuse the system by placing bets like these. Take Klay Thompson Returning in 2022 after missing two full seasons. Draymond Green injured a few nights earlier in Dallas. However, he wanted to be on the floor when Thompson returned, so he started, played seven seconds, fouled and then left the game. He won't be back for another two months. The bets would have cashed out anyway.
In both Rozier's and Porter's cases, the player exited the game early, essentially blocking the under before it was in jeopardy. In theory, books could solve this problem by introducing a minimum minutes for any bet. Essentially, they could say that if a player plays less than, say, 20 minutes in a game, all bets placed on that player will be void.
This achieves several goals. First, it effectively removes players with low minutes from the betting pool. While chances can theoretically be offered, it's rare for anyone to know going into a game that the last man on the bench will get significant playing time. Secondly, it draws more attention to players who may be thinking about doing something illegal. It's one thing to leave the game to lock in a bet. It's another thing to remain on the court, in full view, forced to feel the fear that he might get caught for not trying. Even if the authorities don't understand, your coaches will understand it at the next film show.
In addition to fairness, this is a level of protection for players. It's demoralizing to place a bet on a player only to see him and your money out of the game a few minutes later. Eliminating this possibility prevents at least this kind of bad experience from ruining a player's night, and potentially increases the likelihood of them becoming a repeat customer. In the grand scheme of things, books are likely to void as many winning bets as losing bets. Certainly. they will lose the vig. After all, books need volume. But from a purely business perspective, you could argue that improving the customer experience in this way will lead to longer-term retention.
Qualifications for those eligible
After the Porter scandal, the NBA asked his partner bookmakers stop offering “under” in bets on two-way players. It was a step, but perhaps not big enough. After all, there are other vulnerabilities in the NBA. A rookie making the minimum earns significantly more than his two-way counterpart, but substantially less than most of his NBA peers. Therefore, it can be argued that only certain players should be eligible to participate in bets.
Finding out who will reach this bar will be difficult. Let's say, for example, you wanted to draw a line first. There are a number of problems there. Rozier, for example, started a game that he is accused of leaving. If this were a criterion, it would almost have to exist in conjunction with a minimum minutes. This will be quite limiting for players. Already, only five players are starting the games. And then there are the logistics of betting. Technically we don't know who will start until 30 minutes before kickoff. Will rates have to be capped until then?
Rozier also rejects the idea of any qualifying competition based on salary. If he were willing to participate in such a scam, despite his huge career earnings, the idea that wealthy players would not participate could not be taken for granted. Anything based on merit, like average points per game or All-Star selection, is probably too limiting. There is no obvious solution here. There may need to be some kind of formula agreed upon by all parties involved.
Even the NBA believes that players should not be able to freely bet on two-way players. If this is the case, then it makes sense that other players should also be considered at high risk. Finding out who qualifies will be extremely difficult, but may be necessary to maintain the integrity of the industry.
Limiting bid offers
The two Cleveland Guardians pitchers are Emmanuel Claeys and Luis Ortiz. are under investigation for suspicion of betting on individual programs they made. Every pitcher, even the best, throws the ball from time to time. If players have the opportunity to capitalize on this fact, you can bet (well, not literally, but figuratively) that they are trying to do so.
It is assumed that the smaller the sample, the more vulnerable the rate to malfeasance. In theory, it is easier for a player to give up one game than an entire quarter, an entire quarter than an entire game, and a game than a season. However, NBA games such as Major League Baseball The games are filled with tiny micro-events that players can bet money on.
The lines themselves are also extremely interchangeable. Many books don't just offer one fixed line. They will allow you to bet on almost any suitable line at modified prices. You could even argue that offering certain types of bets is going too far. Perhaps someone who averages 1.5 assists per game shouldn't be offered help. At this point, whether they achieve it or not is almost random.
The fact is that the range of available bets is now so vast that it is potentially all too easy for illegal activity to creep in on some of the less visible ones. Books can signal unusual activity, but over time these patterns will become more sophisticated. Anyone considering moving forward should learn from the Porter and Rozier cases and adjust moving forward. So it may make sense to limit the tools at their disposal. The more visible the bet, the more difficult it will be to avoid punishment for rigging it. Whether that means cutting those minor in-game betting opportunities or limiting pre-game options beyond a certain threshold, the market may be too large to be perfectly regulated any further.
