Go straight to the content.
The ongoing National Council of Legislators from Gaming States conference in Boston is currently abuzz with discussions on whether Massachusetts will legalize sports betting by the end of the month.
During his opening address at the conference and in a subsequent interview with Play MA, Massachusetts state Rep. Jerald Parisella, who is part of the conference committee responsible for reconciling the disparities in sports wagering between the House and Senate proposals, discussed the ongoing endeavor on Friday.
Parisella expressed that his constituents frequently inquire about the progress of legalizing sports betting. He emphasized the importance of establishing a legalized and regulated market, as it is already being practiced. He remains optimistic about accomplishing this goal before the session concludes.
Conference committee update
On June 9, the conference committee responsible for H 3993 conducted a single official meeting. Parisella mentioned that informal conversations between the parties have taken place multiple times over the course of the past month.
Parisella mentioned that there has been extensive back-and-forth communication and proposal sharing. The suggestion was made to alter certain aspects, with the agreement to accept certain changes in return. Currently, there is a significant amount of negotiation and compromise taking place, resembling a horse-trading scenario.
The MA sports betting conference committee comprises three representatives from each legislative chamber.
- Rep. Aaron Michlewitz, chairperson
- Sen. Michael Rodrigues, chairperson
- Sen. Eric Lesser
- Rep. Parisella
- Sen. Patrick O’Connor
- Rep. David Muradian
“Mike Rodrigues is someone I really appreciate,” Parisella expressed. “Working alongside him has been positive as he is a great individual. However, we are currently working on reconciling our policy disparities.”
Parisella acknowledged that certain negotiations could encompass matters beyond sports betting. In the event that the Senate is to compromise on a matter like permitting college wagering, it may require the House to offer something desired by the Senate in the budget or economic development legislation.
Coincidentally, Parisella and Lesser both hold the positions of co-chairs in the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, which is currently dedicated to crafting an economic development bill. Simultaneously, Michlewitz presides over the Ways and Means Committee, responsible for shaping the budget.
Parisella stated that there are numerous bills awaiting approval in both chambers, and each chamber is eager to accomplish them, making it a possibility. He acknowledged that there is always a flurry of activity towards the end of a session, possibly at a more significant scale. However, his sole focus remains on sports betting legislation.
Main MA sports betting issues
Parisella highlighted that the conference committee’s major areas of focus include determining whether to permit betting on college sports and establishing the appropriate tax rate.
The House bill allows betting on college games but prohibits proposition bets involving college athletes. In contrast, the Senate bill completely bans betting on college sports. Additionally, the Senate has imposed a high tax rate of 35% on mobile bets and 20% on bets placed in person. On the other hand, the House has implemented a tiered tax structure, with a 15% tax rate for online bets and a 12.5% tax rate for bets made in person.
Parisella expressed his viewpoint regarding the authorization of college betting.
In my view, transparency is paramount. By legalizing betting on college sports, we can effectively monitor any suspicious activities that may arise from unusual betting patterns. For instance, if there is a sudden surge in wagers on Boston College, going from a thousand dollars a week to a million dollars, we can investigate whether there is any foul play involved. This approach becomes particularly relevant considering the past incidents of sports shaving scandals associated with Boston College. Hence, having this information openly available enables us to capture and address such occurrences effectively.
The banning of sports betting advertising during sporting events is another concern raised by the Senate proposal. Parisella acknowledges the Senate’s emphasis on safeguarding consumers but believes that implementing an advertising ban could pose constitutional and practical challenges.
Parisella said that she believes the objective is commendable. “Both bills have set the age limit for betting at 21, so we are making an effort to avoid targeting individuals below that age. However, the challenge lies in finding an effective way to achieve this goal without violating the constitution.”
Parisella fails to comprehend how the state could possibly intervene in preventing advertisements from being broadcasted in other states within the commonwealth. The Massachusetts Broadcasters Association’s counsel echoed the same viewpoint to Play MA.
Parisella expressed confusion about the logistics of advertising on NESN, the New England Sports Network owned by the Red Sox, which broadcasts Bruins and Red Sox games. They questioned whether an advertisement could be shown in Rhode Island and New Hampshire but not in Massachusetts. Additionally, they pondered how advertisements during nationally televised football games would be handled in Massachusetts. Parisella raised multiple concerns regarding these advertising issues.
End of July or bust
By the end of the month, the conference committee responsible for sports betting must generate a conference report. Subsequently, each chamber will be required to cast their vote of either “yes” or “no” on the report before July 31.
According to Parisella, starting from July 31, any member of the Legislature can raise objections to considering legislation in order to hinder its passage. It is highly likely that a bill pertaining to gambling would face at least one objection.
Parisella expressed optimism about completing the task ahead of schedule, stating, “We must accomplish it prior to that, and I have great hope. Our team is constantly meeting and generating viable solutions.”
Parisella believes that lawmakers will prioritize discussing sports betting during the final three weeks, despite having many other pressing priorities at the end of the session.
Parisella stated that he engages in conversations with individuals associated with Spectrum and various other groups, who have expressed their belief that Massachusetts has the potential to become a thriving sports betting market. Given the state’s love for sports, Parisella is determined to do everything possible to facilitate the legalization of sports betting. Despite numerous ongoing activities, Parisella’s primary objective is to fulfill the desires of his constituents by successfully implementing sports betting legislation. Consequently, Parisella is committed to putting forth tremendous effort to ensure this goal is accomplished.
More focus on Massachusetts sports betting
At the conference, prior to Parisella’s address, Commissioner Bradford Hill of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission delivered welcoming remarks.
Hill, a previous member of the Massachusetts House who supported the sports betting legislation in the previous year, expressed confidence in the MGC’s ability to promptly establish regulations. However, he refrained from offering a specific timeframe until the final legislation was reviewed.
On Friday, Jason Robins, the CEO of DraftKings, delivered a keynote luncheon address. DraftKings, the sportsbook operator, is headquartered in Boston.
Related Articles
