SBA exclusive: Prediction market engagement ‘would be a mistake’

Whether Chicago or from a general sense, how does your role as Chairman come into play with disagreements involving the SBA? 

I always view my role, regardless of what my title is, as helping the companies develop a national strategy, and have the best face and presence in the political arenas we operate in. We hadn’t focused on municipalities until now, but most of our focus is in the state legislature.

My goal is to give the best advice possible to companies and make sure we're presenting ourselves in a way that legislators and regulators can trust everything we say. Nothing is more important to me than gaining the trust of the people we're advocating to. There are no shortcuts in this business.  

Having brought in Joe Maloney as President & CEO in December, what type of impact has he had up to this point on the SBA’s strategy and execution? 

It's been transformative. Joe has brought to us an ability to engage on all levels. Social media, the press, just overall raising the standard of what we're doing. For so many years, we've been preoccupied with opening new markets and that's critical, but I think we needed to have someone with his background who could then talk about the other issues that come about because of illegal markets.

We've relied on the AGA in the past, but the AGA is a huge tent organization, and their primary focus is not going to be the online legal world. Joe allows us to have more of a presence in what I believe to be a very important area in public discourse. I think he makes the SBA more of a full-fledged or five-tool organization that can do almost anything.  

Are there certain standards an operator is required to meet before joining the SBA, or does it relate closer to companies you represent? 

It all really came out of the New York joint bid process, where members of the SBA with the exception of Fanatics (which we added) were all members of our joint bid. What we're really looking for is a national operator that's interested in expanding the footprint of legal online gaming in the US. We're not going to be everything for everyone – our goal is not to be a trade association with vendors, suppliers or, at times, DFS-plus companies.

Our goal is really focused on companies that are in the legal online sports betting and iGaming markets, and helping to expand that footprint while focusing on legalization that falls under a favorable tax and responsible gaming regime. I think we would consider having a Hard Rock or someone like that in the SBA. It would be interesting. At least with respect to the SBA, we’ve always put the online product ahead of the brick and mortar.

Is the Alliance involved with prediction markets expansion, given multiple SBA operators have begun offering event contract trading?

We've kept the SBA focused – and intentionally so – on the issues in online sports betting and online casino gaming. We've allowed others to fight the prediction battles. I understand it's an issue, but there's no point in me getting into it. We have members who are engaged in it, members who are thinking about what to do and we have a member that's very opposed to it.

It would be a mistake for the SBA to engage in this. There are enough groups doing that today. It always reminds me of Game of Thrones. We have these White Walkers coming to take over and threatening the future of legal gaming in the US. I want the SBA to be focused on protecting online gaming in a responsible, safe and entertaining way. Not getting caught up in the Game of Thrones rhetoric of who's doing what in the industry. 

Would it then be fair to say that even if SBA operators launch prediction market offerings, it doesn’t equate to SBA advocation?

That's absolutely correct.

As someone who helped grow sports betting in the US pre- and post-PASPA, how does that era compare to the current growth of prediction markets?

The difference is when we were doing DFS, it was grounded in state law and in a game of skill, and what defines skill games state-by-state. And that definition does differ. Their argument is that we fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC, a federal law, and therefore there is no role for the states.

I don't want to opine one way or the other, whether that's right or wrong, but that's a different argument to what we have. This is all about federal versus state power, and whether this was incorporated into something that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of a federal agency.