I saw an advertisement recently that troubled me a bit, but I couldn’t put my finger on why. The ad, from the West Virginia Lottery, starts with a shot of the New River Gorge Bridge and quickly cuts to a group of people rafting who soon interact with animated characters that I presume are part of some lottery games. The point of the ad is to show off the state’s new digital lottery and gaming platform, iPlay. 

A press release from West Virginia Lottery touting the release of iPlay emphasizes the ability to “participate completely from the comfort of their homes.” Included with the rollout of the new app and web platform is a loyalty program, dubbed PlayOn, that rewards customers who repeatedly play the lottery games. 

Perhaps the troubled feeling I had about this ad could be more accurately described as uneasiness. One of the thoughts that came to my mind: should we throw incentives and rewards at repeat lottery and scratch players? I recalled feeling sympathetic in the past to the argument that lotteries are a regressive form of taxation, in that it’s often the poorest people who play (and pay) the most. A study from The Economist found that low-income people spend more than 30 times their income on lotteries compared to wealthier households. 

Some would say that even though it’s a regressive tax, it’s not that concerning since gambling is voluntary. No one is forced to play the lottery. However, the predatory capabilities of the lottery and similar games, and — worse, I think —  encouraging repeat playings, waters down that argument. Winning the lottery, as slim of a chance as it is, is often viewed as a ticket out of poverty for many who don’t have a lot of other options.  And once someone starts gambling, their odds of becoming addicted increase.

I’ve come to realize that my uneasiness toward gambling has been in the back of my mind for some time because of the pervasiveness of sports betting, particularly online betting. I took a few years away from paying much attention to sports, but over the last year I’ve gotten more engaged. It’s impossible not to notice the proliferation of commercials for sports betting platforms like DraftKings or FanDuel. Sports betting analytics have even wormed their way into the commentating and on the screen while you watch the game, not to mention the logos that are on jerseys and courts now. You can even bet on location at some stadiums. Driving to the grocery store, I see a billboard with High School Musical star Vanessa Hudgens promising me “free” money if I sign up for BetMGM.

West Virginia was ahead of the curve when it came to legalizing sports betting. The state Legislature passed a bill in March 2018, months before the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision that overturned a decades-long ban on legal sports betting for almost every state in the country.

Now, six years after the sports betting ban was overturned, 20% of people say they have placed a bet in the last year, and we’re starting to see some data regarding its effects. One study this year found that in states with online sports betting, there’s been an increase in betting activity, higher credit card balances and a reduction in savings. Specifically, the researchers found that for every $1 bet placed, households experience a $2 reduction in investments — money they would have otherwise been saved or invested. Another study found that sports betting has led to an increase in bankruptcies and auto loan delinquencies. Other researchers suggest that the uptick in online sports betting has led to a rise in domestic violence. Anecdotal data from problem gambling support centers indicates that more people are calling in for support, and the callers are younger than in the past.

Research on online sports gambling is still an emerging field, and this data could change. And of course, correlation is not causation. But I believe there’s enough there for our policymakers in West Virginia — where sports and online gambling has grown at an unprecedented rate — to devote more funding to research, prevention and support services for people impacted by problem gambling. 

I recognize that one interpretation of this piece is that I’m moralizing. Another might be that I’m getting old, cranky and prefer the way things used to be. I’m trying my hardest not to be that way. I think gambling should be legal. I am pretty sure sports gambling should be legal. If for no other reason then it’s going to happen whether it’s legal or not, and I’d rather people owe their banks money than a bookie. I can’t help but wonder if we moved too fast, if the rate in which this hobby has grown is going to have dangerous and disastrous impacts for people in our state, where families already face some of the highest poverty rates in the nation. 

Problem gambling and financial harm aside, it’s important to get this right so that sports aren’t ruined for the athletes and viewers. We have already seen one NBA player banned for life for this year for intentionally playing badly to help bettors. A college basketball player is under investigation for something similar. Athletes now receive hate tweets and death threats for underperforming and ruining bettor’s parlays, costing them real money. 

We have to figure out a way to protect people and sports from the predatory nature of betting. Starting with restrictions on advertising is a start. I’ll be sorry to see you go, Vanessa Hudgens.