A costly gamble

Of all the topics in sports this week to write on, the one that came way too close to materializing in this column was the return of Mark Sanchez. In true Sanchez fashion, when Nick Foles was knocked out of the game by Texans linebacker Whitney Mercilus, he mustered a halfway decent performance en route to a 31-21 victory. It was a heady flashback to a bygone era, when the Jets ponied up to the tune of 58.25 million dollars over five years, an exorbitant sum of money for the apotheosis of mediocrity. Surely talking heads will debate his resurgence throughout the coming week -- need I add to the cacophony?

A piece on Sanchez would have been cheap satire, which is why I have awarded this slot instead to the NFL for the second straight week. Sanchez is a semi-washed-up playboy; the NFL is Bush the younger's "Mission Accomplished" speech incarnate.

On Oct. 24, the NFL -- along with four other sports leagues -- finally received a favorable verdict: an injunction, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Michael Shipp, against "sponsoring, operating, advertising, promoting, licensing or authorizing a lottery, sweepstakes or other betting, gambling or wagering scheme based, directly or indirectly (through the use of geographical references or otherwise), on one or more competitive games in which amateur or professional athletes participate, or are intended to participate, or on one or more performances of such athletes in such games." Suffice it to say that Judge Shipp doesn't have the lay of the land.

This past summer, the NFL became the first major sports league to foray into sponsoring fantasy sports, a latecomer to the cash cow popularized by ESPN and Yahoo and CBS, when it established pay-to-enter leagues in 43 states. Although mostly legal under federal law, participation in fantasy leagues can constitute a misdemeanor in some states; riskier formats can violate both state and federal law. Their legality can be dubious, but the NFL has never shied away from profit, as befits its non-profit status.

While it has embraced online gambling, the NFL has continued, however, to resist its old-fashioned counterpart. Hence Judge Shipp's decision. The underpinning of the NFL's case against traditional gambling is a vague notion called "irreparable harm," which is not defined, either by the NFL or anyone else. This is what the NFL asserted in its brief, and what Judge Shipp subsequently reaffirmed. Still, we might infer what "irreparable harm" means -- substantial financial loss for the league and missing out on profits, for example -- and, in fact, its subjective definition is intentional. The difference between online and offline gambling, however, is another matter altogether.

Its reluctance to define "irreparable harm" is strategic. By abstaining, the NFL has more leeway in court to couch its argument in legalese. The NFL has caved to the allure of fantasy sports, tantamount to online gambling. By contrast, it has an adversarial relationship with offline gambling, which is rooted in no more than misconceptions and a lack of foresight.

Since the NFL is winning in court, if it wanted to, it could have its name plastered on gambling parlors across the country and open up yet another revenue stream. This would not eradicate illegal betting, but it would at least monetize all legal betting. There would be a disincentive to being sanctioned by the NFL, but if a parlor wanted to run a legal operation, it would have to abide. Either a parlor bears the NFL logo, or else it forfeits its legality.

One would think that the NFL would readily exchange legal fees for additional revenue. Apparently not.