Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association has opened a door that has remained closed for more than a quarter century, allowing states to begin legalizing sports gaming. State lawmakers' excitement in seeking a new way to generate revenue is palpable through the more than 25 different bills that have been introduced to legalize sports betting since the May 2018 Supreme Court decision. In addition to the interest shown by state lawmakers, Senators Orrin Hatch and Charles Schumer introduced a federal sports gambling bill. The desire to generate revenue for states via a source other than new taxes is understandable; however, there has been a rush in many states to implement sports wagering schemes that either provide maximum benefit to the state, while trying to be first in the region offering sports betting, and seemingly neglecting wholesale objectives such as recapturing money from sports betting's vast $150 billion black market. The regulation of sports betting is a complicated topic often involving state, tribal, and federal governments. This Article discusses the challenges of regulating sports betting at the state, tribal, and federal levels, before identifying and suggesting best practices for regulation in the space and reviewing possible alternative schemes for regulation.

Legalized sports gambling has become one of the hottest topics in state legislatures ever since the US Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Murphy v National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n allowed states to begin legalizing the activity. As states began to offer sports wagering, gambling became front and center in the news and the Trump administration's Justice Department took the opportunity to rewrite a 2011 Office of Legal Counsel opinion, expanding the scope of the most prominent federal anti-gambling statute. The re-interpretation of the scope of the Wire Act reversed the Department of Justice's position that the statute only applied to interstate sports wagering, and instead incorporated all forms of interstate wagering. The new interpretation is exceptional because it follows years of failed legislative attempts to re-write the statute. The executive branch used this interpretation to circumvent the legislature and expand the scope of the statute. The nature of the Wire Act's targeted activities is one of many questions surrounding a statute that was applied for decades with few questions. The rise of the Internet has brought on many more questions regarding the scope of the Wire Act--questions that have become prescient in an era of expanded legal gambling. This Article analyzes the most significant questions regarding the application of the Wire Act and suggests that contrary to the Department of Justice's 2018 opinion, the statute is intended to apply to a very small group of activities.

Purpose of Review The review examines the sports gambling landscape in Canada, with a particular focus on Ontario, 2 years since the launch of regulated single-game sports wagering. Recent Findings Extensive academic attention has been given to the legalization of sports wagering in the USA; however, much less consideration has been given to the emergence of legalized sports betting in Canada. Summary Two years into legalized single-game wagering, the market in Canada is beginning to take shape. Ontario set out on a unique experiment allowing former gray market operators to enter the regulated market; no other province has elected to forego its monopoly and allow private entities to compete. Canada’s new market was accompanied by an influx of sports gambling commercials evoking concern and criticism from consumer advocates, addiction experts, and the broader public. Also, it has been argued that the advancement and utility of responsible gambling programming have not kept pace with the sports gambling surge. Legislation for tighter gambling advertising has been introduced. While there has been an influx of advertising and concerns regarding the need for more attention to be devoted to responsible gambling, Ontario’s experiment in allowing former gray market operators to enter the regulated market seems to be at least an early success. It is expected that regulatory attention and public health concerns will persist as the Canadian sports gambling market evolves.

Brain enhancing drugs including modafinil (Provigil), methylphenidate (Ritalin), and dextroamphetamine (Adderall) were developed to treat sleep problems, attention deficit disorders (ADD), memory deficiencies, and other cognitive maladies. 1 Methylphenidate's efficacy is supported by double-blind placebo-controlled trials in the treatment of ADDs, narcolepsy and depression in the elderly. 2 Dextroamphetamine has been found effective in the treatment of ADD and chronic fatigue. 3 Diagnoses of ADD and attention deficit with hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are rising. 4 The potential athletic performance benefits from the treatment of ADHD with stimulant medications include 'a subjective sense of euphoria, improved concentration, increased aggression and decreased pain'. A 2010 review of the use of neuroenhancers among otherwise healthy individuals did not find positive effects of methylphenidate. 7 Nevertheless, there has been increased attention on the number of therapeutic use exemptions granted for drugs among Major League Baseball (MLB) players, with 112 of the 113 therapeutic use exemptions granted in 2014 for players with ADD. 8 We contend that drugs that influence cognition have at least some potential to enhance sports performance. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and athletes.

Despite centuries of genocidal assimilation and forced removal, Indigenous communities in the United States have persevered and even thrived. A key driver of economic success for many tribes is gambling. While states objected, perhaps out of greed, the Supreme Court held that, as sovereign governments, gaming operations on tribal land were largely beyond the reach of state governments and law enforcement. The Supreme Court's Cabazon decision furthered a congressional push to develop a negotiated solution to recognize Indigenous communities' rights as sovereigns while balancing states' desire to limit the volume of gambling taking place within their borders. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was the congressionally agreed upon balance. While the statute undoubtedly stripped tribal sovereignty, few statutes have developed an economic framework so powerful for lifting up hundreds of communities. The legacy of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is an industry that has $40 billion in annual revenue and has developed an expertise that is sought around the world. Now, the tribal gaming industry faces extinction. While commercial operators have spent the last two decades preparing for the move from brickand-mortar to online gaming, tribal gaming is hamstrung by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's requirement that all gaming take place on \"Indian lands.\" Federally recognized gaming tribes now face a choice between access and sovereignty. Some tribes around the country have chosen access, often giving up some sovereignty protected by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Other tribes have placed sovereignty above market access and chosen to sit out online gambling while commercial operators move into the market. The choice now facing many tribes is one that they never should have been forced to make. This Article argues that, while Congress 's inaction and failure to modernize the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act has put Native American communities around the country at significant risk, it is not too late to implement changes to modernize the Act. This Article posits that, with a stroke of the pen, Congress could permit communities on Indian land to compact for online gaming under the Act and ease the process by which tribes acquire land that can be used for gaming operations. Congress also has the power to amend the statute to incentivize state cooperation with tribal nations to negotiate gaming compacts, a key tool within the statute that was struck down in 1996. Congressional inaction raises the prospect of a bleak future for the economic security of many tribes, but unlike some of the looming crises facing the United States, there is still time to rectify the situation before dire consequences spread.

For more than one hundred years, professional baseball has enjoyed a form of exemption from federal antitrust laws. Arising from a statement made by the game's first commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis that organized baseball is a national institution and not labor-and later enshrined into common law by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's adoption of a now-outdated definition of interstate commerce-baseball's antitrust exemption endures as \"an exception, an anomaly and an aberration.\" Relying on an exemption from antitrust law, owners of Major League Baseball have become exceedingly wealthy based on their carte blanche freedom to act in their collective best interests-sometimes to the detriment of players, rival sports leagues, and fans. Even though the original basis for baseball's antitrust exemption has long since faded, courts and Congress, fearing political backlash or perhaps enjoying the perks of aggressive lobbyists seeking to curry favor, have been loath to lift the exemption. This Article calls for reform to the treatment of professional baseball under federal antitrust laws and suggests that baseball, like all other organized sports, be held subject to competitive scrutiny. Drawing on a careful study of baseball history, legal precedent, and public policy, the Article concludes that even if organized baseball is a national institution, much like its historic use of amateur players, unbalanced schedules, and segregated leagues, the time has come to put baseball's historic antitrust exemption behind us.

Legal sports wagering has been rapidly expanding across the United States since 2018. In the wake of the Supreme Court's Murphy decision, more than twenty-five states have legalized sports betting and billions of dollars have followed the cascades of legalization. As the legal market continues to grow, professional sports leagues have been quick to embrace the regulated expansion, but the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has not changed their steadfast opposition. Despite the NCAA's vehement opposition, the organization has seemed to gain little traction in getting states to either wholly exclude wagering on collegiate sports or getting the federal government to preempt these nascent state initiatives. The NCAA's opposition to sports betting expansion is futile. Despite the organization's reluctance to embrace the now mainstream activity, the time has come for the organization to acknowledge the reality of the situation and create an environment that provides a modernized means of protecting college athletes from those who may wish to do them harm for gambling purposes. The expansion of legal sports betting is likely to be a net positive for the integrity of both betting markets and sporting events. As sports bettors begin accessing the legal regulated sports wagering market in larger numbers, illegal products and markets will likely become less attractive alternatives. The time has come for the NCAA, collegiate athletic conferences, and colleges and universities to take the steps necessary to coexist with widespread legal betting markets. This Article provides the necessary framework for collegiate sports organizations to move forward with modernizing sports wagering education and awareness for collegiate athletes through (a) adopting best practices; (b) establishing reporting processes; and (c) creating a necessary system of education that provides additional measures of protection and awareness of the threats brought on by nefarious individuals.

Sports are no longer mere games. In today s money-driven culture, they have cultivated into a lucrative business enterprise where everyone-whether professional or amateur; owner or player; coach or spectator-stands to make significant money. Modern sports have also morphed into a landscape encompassing both the traditional athletic events and the more novel esports and daily fantasy sports (DFS) arenas. Across all these physical, digital, and biological spheres, sports revenues are being measured in terms of billions. It thus stands to reason why taxes have become a progressively critical discussion point within U.S. professional and collegiate sports, the video gaming world, and the newly legalized sports gambling industry. This Article is the first to provide a holistic and modern analysis of the impact of U.S. tax law across the contemporary business of sports and explore a more universal approach to the varying tax issues affecting numerous relevant stakeholders, including franchises, business ventures, universities, athletes, individuals, and federal and state taxing jurisdictions.