Why is Point Shaving in College Sports Illegal?

by Ugh

I posted this on TiO almost three years ago but thought I'd bring it up here because of ESPN's 30 for 30 film on a point shaving scandal in college basketball from the late 1970s (and involving Henry Hill of Goodfellas fame no less).  So I thought I'd again ask:  why is point shaving illegal in college sports?  Or more specifically, why are point-shaving players subject to criminal penalties for that act?

First, gambling on sports is generally illegal in the United States outside of Nevada.  But I get the feeling even if it wasn't legal in Nevada, point shaving would still be against the law (although maybe not).  And, it seems points shaving is against federal law - is that really necessary to protect gamblers and casinos in Nevada? 

Even if we're worried about gamblers/casinos in Nevada, what duty does, say, a college basketball player have to those interests?  Is he (and it's generally a he) obligated to always go out and play to the best of his ability, lest the point spread be inaccurate?

Or, more generally, what duty does that college basketball player have to anyone at all, especially in the context where it's point shaving and not out and out losing?  This seems especially relevant to the amateurism debate, since supposedly the college players are in this to "get an education" and thus whether or not they play well enough to cover a point spread should be irrelevant.  That is, I can see the players have some duty to try to win the game, but whether they win by more or less than the spread shouldn't really matter to the college providing the scholarship - and they are supposedly not employees, after all.  I can see a stronger argument for making point shaving illegal in professional sports as a kind of fraud upon the employer.  

Perhaps the players owe a duty to the people who bought tickets?  But again, if they're winning just winning by less, why should anyone watching care (unless they have money on the game, of course)?  I mean, does anyone come away from a game where your team was favored by 20 but only won by 10 somehow horribly disappointed?  Indeed, it may have been a much more interesting game.

The only theory I see is that the players are engaged in a conspiracy to defraud casinos with sports books in Nevada.  But even then that assumes the individuals paying the players to shave points are placing their bets in Nevada, as opposed to with the local bookie.  Further, the casinos set the spread (and the spread is not always the same in every casino), and no one is compelling them to offer sports betting.  

But outside of defrauding casinos, is there any compelling reason to make point shaving a criminal offense?

Update:  Here is the Federal point shaving statute.  It is extremely broad, applying to basically any sporting event (professional or amatuer) publicly announced in advance.  

Comments

[bobbyp]

So, you'll have to find another reasonable personage to look at.

Hey, you refuse to engage...not my problem, but when you wade in here and try to pass off "not in my experience" the historically well known and rather easily documented animus of "libertarianism" to organized labor...well, expect to get called out.

Thanks.

[Ugh]

So it seems the two arguments for college point shaving illegality are:

(i) they are getting paid to lie and cheat; and (ii) it is for college sports' own protection to keep them from being corrupted by the gambling industry.

In (i), unclear to me who is being cheated and lied to and why that justifies a potential 5 year prison sentence.

In (ii), it seems that there are ample safeguards for colleges and the NCAA to ensure the integrity of their games (e.g., pulling scholarships and expelling students).

And nothing, it seems, justifies the federal statute applying to any sporting event publicly announced in advance (or, at least not these days).

[liberal japonicus]

How do you find the history of a federal statute like this? Is there some reference that lets you see when it was introduced, how it was altered or changed, who it applied to?

[Ugh]

LJ - RIA or CCH probably has something you can purchase. E.g., my paper copy of the Internal Revenue Code published by RIA has the history of the various provisions going back decades (and their subscription online research service has the same thing for the IRC).

Free online resources I'm not sure about, however.

[Ugh]

To go into a little more detail. If you go to the site linked in the post, there is a tab called "notes." There you will see that this section of the Code was "added" by Public Law 88-316 in 1964. If there was a committee or conference report that accompanied that law, there might be a description of why it was added to the Code. Unfortunately, the Library of Congress' Thomas online database only goes back to the 93rd Congress, so someone looking for legislative history may need to actually set foot in a library.

There may also be a predecessor statute one top of that which has its own legislative history.

[Ugh]

Some discussion of gambling/sports here and here.

[Ugh]

One of those explains what is being protected:

Corruption, in any of the foregoing forms, robs sport of its essential feature of uncertainty of the outcome and accelerates its spin into the forum of entertainment, and thus it no longer is sport. Corruption gnaws away at the fundamental foundations of sport and therefore of sporting integrity. It becomes essential to protect that integrity to ensure that sport is free from any corrupt influence that might cast doubt over the authenticity and unpredictability of the sporting result....A difference between sport and entertainment is the unpredictability of sporting outcomes versus the planned and executed event that provides entertainment. Corruption attempts to alter this equation and make sport more of an entertainment event with a greater certainty of outcome.

I would say that errs in treating sports somehow distinct from entertainment - I would say the latter includes the former. I would also say that point shaving, as opposed to out and out match fixing, doesn't rob sport of its uncertainty (indeed, it actually makes it more uncertain if the shaver is on the team that's favored).

[Countme-In]

I get the concept that point-shavers ought not be subject to five years at hard labor.

But this I don't get:

"I would also say that point shaving, as opposed to out and out match fixing, doesn't rob sport of its uncertainty (indeed, it actually makes it more uncertain if the shaver is on the team that's favored)."

Other than maybe a Dad deliberately point-shaving the "e" off of the end of "Horse" in a game of basketball Horse with his seven-year old in the driveway so that the kid doesn't lose 500 matches in a row and give up on life altogether, this is just not how competitive sports work, amateur, professional, or even in so-called recreational leagues where there is an element of "just for fun" entertainment involved.

Maybe we should introduce a new end-of-season award into sports (Best Point-Shaver Of The Year Award) to the player who deliberately cheats and thus keeps the contestants and the fans on the edge of their seats.

Believe me, regardless of the score in any sporting event, especially among the contestants, there is more than enough uncertainty involved. ANYTHING can happen, and probably will without some clever boots and his bookie messing with eventualities.

In 1960, after Bill Mazeroski hit the Series-ending (4-3 Pirates over Yankees) home run off of a Yankee Ralph Terry hanging curve ball, the great Yankee veteran Mickey Mantle sat in front of his locker and wept and sobbed like a man over the loss.

(And then closed every bar, tavern, and liquor store in the Pittsburgh area.)

If Bill Mazeroski had approached Mickey a few days later and explained to him "you know, Mick, I have to tell you that on my previous at bat I deliberately struck out because I was earning a few extra bucks on the spread and besides, the closer the game, the more entertaining it was when I hit that dinger to win it, don't you think?" Mickey would have turned Maz into a grease spot.

Just like in insider trading and stock market manipulation, to my mind, don't mess with the f&cking numbers.

It's all we've got.

Else nothing is neither real and on the up and up, nor fun.

The fun of sports is that it's serious business.

[Countme-In]

As far as sports being entertainment, yes, but no, but yes.

Bill Veeck and his bread and circuses. Start at the 2:35 mark for the Eddie Gaedel gambit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNLmPNelDK4

Yeah, I think it was entertaining that Veeck told the midget Gaedel that a sharpshooter with a high-powered rifle was in the stands and that if Gaedel dared swing at a pitch, Veeck would give the order to shoot him.

Gaedel believed him and walked.

More entertaining would have been if Gaedel HAD swung at a pitch and blooped a single into the outfield, only to be assassinated as he led off first base.

Veeck should run the Food Channel.

[Ugh]

Count - I gotcha. I guess all I'm really is that I find the case for criminal sanctions (in any form) for college point shaving wanting - especially for the athlete.

[Marty]

Ugh, as a final note, its clear we disagree. I understand your points, I agree wth all of the counts 3:37, plus a few other things like gamblers are people too. I will also add that point shaving is a bit of a misnomer, the shavers don't really care if the points get shaved so much that a team loses, I haven't ever heard of shaving to lose by more, only to keep the game with the spread. So it can, stuff happens end up changing the outcome. Intentionally and unintentionally.

[PaulB]

It's perhaps worth mentioning that here in England, where we have a quite different attitude to betting on sports, point shaving would still be illegal under the Gambling Act.

Perhaps the closest analogy here would be "spot fixing" at cricket. And three Pakistani cricketers were gaoled a while back for conspiring to bowl deliberate no-balls (a "no-ball" at cricket is roughly equivalent to a "ball" at baseball, but much less common). There was no evidence of the trial of anyone actually being adversely affected by the conspiracy, but the likely victims would have been (probably illegal) bookmakers in India. (Legal background here)