The MLB Players Union Says the League Balked at Banning Player Props

Answering three members of Congress, the MLBPA said it proposed a joint lobbying effort against in-game performance props and event contracts, and that Major League Baseball would not join it.

• Major League Baseball Players Association general counsel Jeffrey Perconte wrote to lawmakers on 24 August, answering a 10 August letter from Senator Richard Blumenthal and Representatives Paul Tonko and Valerie Foushee
• The union said it proposed that it and Major League Baseball lobby jointly to ban proposition bets and event contracts based on in-game individual performance, and disclosed that the league "balked" at the proposals, though it described negotiations as ongoing
• The MLBPA also told Congress it is open to banning personalised VIP marketing arrangements between players and sportsbooks
• The exchange follows reporting that FanDuel sent a personalised video greeting from Philadelphia Phillies player Bryce Harper to a VIP customer with a gambling addiction, who subsequently sued the operator; Harper has said he did not know how the video would be used
• It lands as prediction markets certify contracts on individual player participation, which the union's proposal would reach directly

The Union Went Further Than the League Would

The correspondence began on 10 August, when Blumenthal, Tonko and Foushee wrote to both Major League Baseball and the players association asking them to prohibit promotional deals with betting operators and to end policies permitting personalised player content in sportsbook promotions. The lawmakers argued that existing rules restrict only the direct promotion of betting using player likenesses, and do not reach personalised content produced for promotional purposes. They set a response date of 24 August.

Perconte's reply, written on that date in his capacity as general counsel, says the association welcomes dialogue with lawmakers on its sports betting policy and on measures to promote the safety and wellbeing of its members and the public. On VIP marketing the union signalled it is prepared to accept a ban.

The disclosure that matters is about the league. According to the letter, the MLBPA proposed that the union and Major League Baseball engage in a joint lobbying effort to ban proposition bets and event contracts based on in-game performance, and the league balked. The union characterised negotiations as still open rather than concluded. Major League Baseball has not commented publicly on the account.

The background is a specific incident. FanDuel is reported to have used a personalised Cameo-style video greeting from Bryce Harper to target a VIP customer who had a gambling addiction, in November 2024. The customer later sued the sportsbook. Harper has said he did not know how FanDuel intended to use the video or anything about the customer's circumstances. The allegations against the operator have not been tested.

Naming Event Contracts Is the Part the Exchanges Should Read Twice

Player prop restrictions are not new, and several states have moved on college props already. What is new is that a major players union has asked for in-game performance event contracts to be covered by the same prohibition it wants for props. That is a deliberate closing of the gap the prediction market venues have been operating in: a contract on whether a named player takes a snap, or records a hit, is functionally a player prop, and the argument that it is a federally regulated derivative rather than a wager has been the whole basis of the sector's defence. A union asking Congress to ban both at once treats the distinction as irrelevant, and it does so from the strongest possible position, because the people whose performance is being traded are its members. Polymarket has just self-certified contracts on individual NFL player participation, and the sealed compliance analysis behind that filing would now be answering a rather harder question.

A League Refusing a Player-Safety Ask Is an Unusual Place to Stand

The commercial logic of the league's position is not mysterious. In-game markets drive engagement, engagement drives the value of official data and sponsorship, and a prop ban would reduce the worth of exactly the rights that leagues have spent five years monetising. But the optics of declining a union proposal framed around player welfare are poor, and they are worse in a year in which regulators have been examining whether props on individuals should exist at all and the NBA and its players union have explored the same restrictions after a betting scandal. The league's exposure here is that the account is now on the congressional record, written by the general counsel of the counterparty, and it has not been contradicted.

The Split Is What Makes This Legislatively Useful

A united league and union asking Congress for something is a lobbying position. A union telling Congress that the league refused is evidence. It gives Blumenthal, Tonko and Foushee a documented disagreement between the two bodies that supposedly self-regulate this activity, which is precisely the finding that supports a legislative rather than voluntary remedy. Whether that remedy arrives is another matter, given how little federal sports betting legislation has moved, but the sector has just lost the ability to argue that the sports themselves are handling it.

The union asked for the ban and named event contracts inside it. The refusal is now the story, and it is on paper.