Massachusetts Creates an Exclusion List for Bettors Who Harass Athletes

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission will use its existing exclusion powers to bar bettors found to have harassed or threatened athletes from every licensed sportsbook and casino in the state. Leagues, players' unions, colleges, venues and athletes themselves can report incidents to a new portal, and the commission's enforcement bureau can subpoena operators to identify anonymous accounts.

• The commission announced its Bet on Respect initiative on 31 August and has set up an Athlete Harassment Submission Portal and a reporting address, with the programme now being promoted across the state
• Reports go to the Sports Wagering Division, which builds a case file, working with operators to identify online harassers, and refers it to the Investigations and Enforcement Bureau
• The bureau applies the criteria in regulation 205 CMR 152.03: a knowing pattern of conduct causing substantial emotional distress, or a credible threat of injury made in connection with sports wagering
• A bettor placed on the list is notified by post, has 30 days to appeal, and is then excluded from all licensed sports wagering and casino properties with immediate effect
• The commission cites NCAA research that 51% of Division I men's basketball players have faced online abuse about their performance, 46% of it tied to gambling

A Regulator Turns Its Exclusion Powers on the Customers, Not the Operators

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission has launched a programme it calls Bet on Respect, using state law and its own regulation, 205 CMR 152, to exclude bettors who harass athletes, according to the commission's release and programme page. The release is dated 31 August and the programme has been rolled out with a video featuring commissioners and players from the Boston Bruins, Celtics, Red Sox and New England Revolution.

"Good-natured cheering and jeering are acceptable and even expected at sporting events, but sports wagering is an activity for adults, and adults should know better than to cross the line into harassment," said Jordan Maynard, the commission's chair. "Athletes, officials, and others associated with games being wagered on deserve to be free of intimidation during and surrounding competition. While this tool will be impactful, we hope its use will be limited as patrons will know right from wrong."

Anyone can report an incident, by email or through the new portal, but the commission has specifically invited leagues, players' associations, college athletics programmes and sports venues to do so. The Sports Wagering Division collects the evidence and, where the harassment took place online, works with sportsbook operators to identify the account behind it. The file then goes to the Investigations and Enforcement Bureau.

The Test Is Written to Catch Threats, Not Insults

The bureau has three options: investigate further, including using subpoena powers to gather evidence or identify the perpetrator; decide the incident does not meet the criteria; or begin the exclusion process. The criteria, drawn from 205 CMR 152.03, require either a wilful and malicious pattern of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress, or an expressed intent to injure a person or property that would be a crime if carried out and was made in circumstances that could reasonably cause fear.

An excluded patron receives a letter by first-class mail and has 30 days to appeal. Once that period passes or an appeal is decided, the name goes on the exclusion list, which is provided to every sports wagering operator and casino in Massachusetts and takes immediate effect. The commission notes that the NCAA's research found 51% of Division I men's basketball players had faced online abuse about their performance, and that 46% of those athletes reported the abuse as directly tied to gambling.

The programme sits alongside the commission's other recent work on bettor conduct: it was the FanDuel proxy-betting case involving Bill Simmons that put Massachusetts's rules on who may place a bet in the news last week. The state's regulatory profile is on the iGaming Times country page.

Massachusetts Has Found a Lever That Does Not Require a New Law

Other states have talked about athlete harassment and mostly asked operators to do something about it. Massachusetts has done something operators cannot: it has attached a state-wide consequence to the behaviour, using an exclusion regime that already existed for cheats and problem gamblers. The subpoena power is what makes it work, because the harasser is usually anonymous on social media and identifiable only through a betting account. That is also the programme's limit. A bettor who harasses without ever having wagered in Massachusetts is beyond its reach.

Operators Get a Compliance Duty and a Reputational Gift at the Same Time

Sportsbooks will now be asked to match social-media accounts to customers, which is investigative work they have not had to do before and which raises data questions the release does not address. In exchange they get something they have wanted: a regulator, rather than the operator, telling a customer he can no longer bet. The programme lets the books say they are on the athletes' side without having to police their own customers, and the leagues, whose relationship with the industry is visibly strained by prediction markets, get a regulator willing to act.

The Numbers Say the Problem Is College Sport, Where the Bets Are Smallest

The NCAA figures the commission cites are about student athletes, who cannot be paid by the books and who receive the abuse when a parlay leg fails. Massachusetts already bans betting on in-state college teams, so the programme will mostly catch harassment of professionals and of college players elsewhere. The test of whether it is more than a campaign will be the first name on the list, and how long it takes to get there.

Massachusetts has made harassing an athlete a matter of betting privileges rather than manners. If the list stays short, that will be because the message landed, not because the tool was weak.