I've bet on single game football for years. Bookmakers do not spend a lot of time creating lines on the CFL as comparatively few bet it . At times there is a good line to jump on. But like all gambllng discipline is key. but it does have the ability to draw an audience.
But CFL with its low pay is susceptible to forms of "fixing"
Fixings??? That is the NFL you must be confused with. The CFL has never had game fiascos like Fail Mary betwen Seattle/Green Bay game in '12 with the refs couldn't decide if a last second TD was a touchdown or not. The Vikings/Saints with the botched PI robbing the Saints a chance to play in the Superbowl.
Well though I am for far greater sports betting, equal rules for physical sports books as for online platforms, and for the CFL to have at least two sponsors or none so as to eliminate all that comes with hitching your wagon to only one horse as some of our elder geezers here might recall from back in the day , I am dead-set against in-game betting at the venue itself.
The potential for hijinks, given the propositions at hand, is vast along with existing fraud along such lines well before online betting. Oh sure it's being done already - that does not make it right and the fallout post-pandemic is yet to come here in the US given what has happened in widespread sports betting and daily fantasy games, and been buttoned up, already.
When a sports book, for example, returns bets due voluntarily after an extremely bad beat at the hands of horrible officiating, well now what could go wrong the next time including when they don't (without government involvement given now that all eyes have the footage and it's no longer buried, which no doubt would come and ruin it for ALL)?
Now as far as betting on propositions before the games, sure by all means.
Now one cannot stop folks easily from betting during the games anyway, but to endorse it as a league or team, well now no already given all the history at hand with regards to sports and betting not limited to the fraud that was the norm in top-flight boxing, horse racing, and the like.
If you have gaming partners, have at least TWO given all the risk, financial or otherwise, that can (and, in my opinion, will) come from the fallout from any given situation be it financial, alleged corruption, political scandal, and so forth with any given such business in the gaming industry (i.e. Anybody remember the Draftkings/Fan Duel scandal in 2015 when they were not regulated? Such of course came as laughable and no shock to those of us who know well that unregulated gambling leads to many bad places even without the goons of yore).
No doubt these are established firms who are pros for years now and run a great game with much experience in Las Vegas well before widespread legal betting, but that reality does not insulate any given firm with the widened prospects for hijinks that come with sports betting on steroids as is at hand now and only very early in the game after some impacts from the pandemic.
And it's also voluntary taxation much as the lottery or extra taxes on tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, et cetera - I agree it's better for most as successful programmes are in place for any of those who will let the fun and games get the better of them.
Partnership industry doesn't work this way - any partner who wants to come on will want category exclusivity. You just need to do a reasonable investigation of your partner before signing anything; and really, if somehow if they suddenly went out of business that'd be the end of that exclusivity.
Well that's a great point and the business reality no doubt. Consider the following distinctions for the matter of sports betting and a gaming sponsor:
Why not throw it open to all interests and if there are ample, pick two? Why is doing so less in the interest of the CFL as it might be for sake of the partners? If there are few takers, it's the same difference as you express and as is the common business reality. If there are many such as say for media rights for some leagues, well what is the problem here? The more the merrier. And there is a lot of skin in the game from international interests for a piece of the betting handle. These could be those interests already heavily involved with action on the NHL for example.
Experienced gamblers are a picky lot, and there are certain books we will not deal with as well. Hitch yourself to only one book and you are out that reliable action. Hitch yourself to two, and you get more of that existing revenue too. Those bets will be made with or without you.
A gaming sponsor is not the same as any given other sponsor for any given product or service like cellular service or beer or whisky or hardware.
The key difference is that the spoils of the sponsorship and promotion they offer are directly tied to the action on the field as is also the shared risk.
And I would argue for sake of a gaming partner, the CFL would have far more to lose when something goes wrong in having only one partner and that could be beyond its even indirect control.
Aside Though Related
When folks cite the NFL as a successful example in these discussions of legal sports betting, I remind them that exclusivity of sponsorship is not fraught with perils. Bob Kraft and Jerry Jones owned stakes in Draft Kings, for example, in 2015 when they and FanDuel exploited a loophole in the law to offer unregulated gambling and as was not surprising, got caught with their hands in fraud or the high potential for it at the very least.
Team owners having direct stakes, if still the case in the example for the NFL I am not sure, in any given sports betting outfit also would be heavily problematic should that be the one sponsor chosen as the single league sponsor.
The day of reckoning likely is coming for the NFL in these regards and in my opinion likely was only forestalled due to the adverse economic impact on betting action during this pandemic.
There is no good reason for the CFL to not mitigate the inherent risk of having only one gaming sponsor, unlike as for other products and services, in these regards.
Since single-game betting would require transparency with injury reports and the distribution of legitimate gameday depth charts, Farhan Lalji asked the teams if they would be supportive. Eight of nine teams said yes if single-game betting meant an increase in league revenue.