In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down a federal ban on commercial sports betting. In 2019, Colorado voters passed Proposition DD by a slim margin, and sports betting in the state officially began in May 2020.
In the span of a few years, an entire industry was legalized, and a whole world of possibility had rather suddenly appeared. The boom times began. In 2022, sports gambling generated $7.5 billion in revenue, a mind-boggling 75% increase over 2021.
Seen in this light, it is almost understandable why, back in 2020, the University of Colorado signed a partnership with the Denver-based sports betting firm PointsBet. A radical shift was underway. An entirely new marketplace was opening up, and the possibilities surely must have seemed endless.
According to a New York Times report from last year, CU was one of just eight universities to have inked a deal with a sports betting company.
For $1.6 million, the university agreed to promote the gambling company on campus and at sporting events. CU also stood to make $30 every time someone signed up for PointsBet with a special promotional code.
The deal was controversial from the start, even as it put CU in league with college sports powerhouses that had penned similar agreements, like Michigan State University and Louisiana State University. Still, it was surprising to learn late last month, and with three years left on the contract, that CU and PointsBet had agreed it was “mutually beneficial” to end their partnership.
The news couldn’t have come soon enough. Especially considering the stakes at hand.
To start, sports betting in and of itself is a form of gambling. There are no two ways around it. And for some, gambling can “stimulate the brain’s reward system much like drugs or alcohol can, leading to addiction,” according to the Mayo Clinic. It may be legal, but it can, and does, ruin lives.
If anything, sports betting and its sudden omnipresence (it has been legalized in 36 states, and commercials and advertisements now flood our television and computer screens) has exacerbated the pitfalls of gambling by bringing it to the masses and putting it on our smartphones (which we already have the compulsion to overuse).
Put simply, sports betting, like casino gambling of old, can be financially crushing. And like drinking, sports betting is a casual weekend activity for many who participate. But for some, the compulsion can be ruinous.
But despite this ugly potential, we voters chose to legalize sports betting. Which means, for the time being, it is here to stay.
Still, just because something is legal doesn’t mean we can’t put up guardrails and do our best to protect people from financial devastation.
This brings us back to CU and PointsBet.
In exchange for $1.6 million, CU agreed to a bevy of advertisements at Buffs sporting events. A review of the contract by Sports Illustrated highlighted just how ubiquitous PointsBet would be at Folsom Field and in broadcasts of games.
Lest we forget, advertising does work. And for young students, the ubiquity of PointsBet must have been something of an endorsement (which it literally was) from an institution they are very likely to trust.
Most CU students are, of course, adults. And they are smart and capable of making their own decisions. But it is hard to imagine a world in which a cozy relationship between a university and a gambling company doesn’t have the potential to harm some young students.
Especially considering the fact that CU had a strong incentive to get students signed up and gambling. The deal provided CU with $30 every time someone signed up for PointsBet using a special CU-affiliated promotional code. According to the school, only $1,830 was made from this portion of the deal, and it was discontinued in January. But while it didn’t earn the school much money, it’s hard to see this particular program as anything other than an attempt to entice students into gambling.
For its part, even though the partnership has ended, CU stands by PointsBet. In an email, CU’s director of communications, Steve Hurlbert, explained that the partnership created job opportunities and potential work experience for CU graduates in a variety of fields. The deal also included philanthropic opportunities for Scripps Family Leadership and Career Development Program, which aims to prepare student-athletes for life after sports.
“CU Athletics is always committed to working with responsible corporate sponsors who conduct business ethically and are the best at what they do. A big focus was making sure the partnership fit that ethos and included a heavy focus on responsible gaming,” Hurlbert said.
Additionally, Hurlbert explained that CU Athletics and PointsBet worked together to create an exclusion list that prevented “student-athletes, Athletics staff, faculty closely tied to the program, and donors” from placing bets, which the NCAA prohibits. CU “also incorporated signage at Folsom Field during games that promoted resources for problem gambling.”
To be clear, CU did end this partnership (or at least agree to its termination). And the school certainly did not set out to exploit students or get them hooked on a gambling app. It didn’t break any laws. It didn’t do anything other schools across the country weren’t also doing.
But it’s hard not to wonder who exactly thought it would be a good idea.
College sports are changing. Legal rulings on sports betting and name, image and likeness policies are upending decades of tradition and flooding the industry with money — and altering who has it.
The sports betting industry’s creep onto college campuses — and its future expulsion — will not be the last big shift in college athletics. But it should be a learning opportunity. There is money to be made. There are deals to be struck. But a university is, first and foremost, an institution of education. And it is responsible for the students enrolled therein.
Approaching this new world and these potential changes with caution — and with an eye on the well-being and safety of students — should be at the heart of every deal CU makes.
Gary Garrison for the Editorial Board