Producing and Promoting the Sports Gambling Industry since the 2018 United States Supreme Court Ruling: A Review of Organizational Action through Suspense Theory

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-133
Author(s):  
John A Fortunato

Sports gambling is a way for people to experience the emotions caused by suspense.  Suspense is predicated and enhanced along the dimensions of outcome uncertainty and a rooting interest in the outcome.  Suspense for a sporting event is increased through gambling by creating outcome uncertainty and a rooting interest beyond the result of an actual game.  The 2018 United States Supreme Court ruling that permits states to legalize wagering on sports games altered the sports gambling industry by giving more people the ability to bet on games.  Several states are facilitating sports betting by allowing wagering through online and mobile platforms.  Beyond what is legally permitted, sports gambling participation is influenced by how the activity is promoted.  State governments, sports leagues and teams, sports gambling operators, and media companies are all in position to capitalize economically on an increase in sports gambling, therefore, their actions in producing and promoting the sports gambling industry since the Supreme Court ruling are in need of study.  The alignment of organizational action with suspense theory lends insight into what is actually occurring in the sports gambling industry and can serve to better anticipate future industry developments.

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 34-40
Author(s):  
Shane Landers

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Thus, “Congress may not simply ‘commandee[r] the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.’” In Murphy v. NCAA, the United States Supreme Court held that a federal law that prevents States from legalizing sports gambling “violates the anticommandeering rule.” The Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy reemphasizes a fundamental principle of dual sovereignty—Congress is prohibited from “issu[ing] direct orders to the governments of the States.”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document