L.A. Times takes aim at “bad bet” sports betting bills in explosive editorial

California-based newspaper the Los Angeles Times has waded into the sports betting legalization debate, suggesting that competing propositions are a “bad bet” for the Golden State.

In an editorial published over the weekend, the newspaper slammed the rise in sports betting across the US, claiming it was fuelling gambling addiction among groups including high school students.

The L.A. Times suggested that by allowing sports betting via the competing propositions, the state would fuel its own addiction-based culture.

“If the companies that own betting platforms and the tribes that run casinos have their way, California will be the next state to embrace this foolish scheme,” the L.A. Times wrote.

“Voters should prevent that from happening by rejecting proposition 26 and proposition 27 on the November 8 ballot. These two competing measures would allow sports betting in California, though in different ways, and both would usher in a troubling expansion of gambling,” the newspaper added.

In a deep dive into each proposition, the newspaper took aim at the “pervasiveness” of technology making it easier to gamble and thus become addicted to gambling.

In respect of proposition 26, the tribal-backed initiative, the L.A. Times said that while it avoids the pervasiveness of igaming, allowing sports betting at racetracks would “prop up a cruel industry that has waning public support.”

“Although proposition 26 aligns with California voters’ past support for allowing gambling on tribal land, the measure amounts to a toxic brew of industry interests designed not only to enrich the funders but also to push away their competitors,” the L.A. Times wrote.

The newspaper also suggested that the dissolution of the black market, claimed by some as a by-product of legalization, might not occur, with the Times citing California’s legalization of cannabis as a parallel.

Proposition 27, the operator-backed campaign, also faced flak from the newspaper over claims it would solve homelessness in the state, which is one of the campaign’s key elements.

“Voters are rightfully upset about the huge number of Californians who don’t have a roof over their heads. But don’t be fooled into thinking that proposition 27 is going to solve homelessness,” the newspaper wrote.

“Taxes from sports betting would provide an ongoing source of funding, but the amount may not wind up being a game-changer.

“What’s worse, it’s possible that legalizing an addictive form of gambling could lead more people into penury and needing government services, which would erode how much the state actually nets,” it added.

Californians are due to vote on both competing propositions on November 8, with a furious round of TV, radio, and online campaigning taking place to compete for voters.

The campaigns have become increasingly ugly in nature, with tribal operators slamming out-of-state interests and singling out comments made by DraftKings CEO Jason Robins.

Delivering its concluding assessment, the L.A. Times called on voters to reject both frameworks, suggesting that a new approach was required.

“Sports betting has become more socially accepted in recent years, so some might look at propositions 26 and 27 as indicative of a cultural evolution. Perhaps. But it’s an evolution spurred by greed,” the L.A. Times wrote.

“If California ever decides to embrace sports betting, it should be with a framework that is as evenhanded as possible, and not one that so blatantly picks winners and losers.

“California doesn’t need more gambling or more lawsuits. Propositions 26 and 27 present more risks than benefits, which makes both of them a bad bet. Vote no,” the newspaper concluded.