Senators John Kennedy and Josh Hawley took today’s U.S. congressional hearing on the Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet Act (SAFE Bet Act) in a new direction, focusing on a different agenda. The session, held on December 17, was meant to discuss student-athletes’ protection from harassment by bettors. Ironically, Senators Kennedy and Hawley targeted NCAA chief Charlie Baker during this discussion.
In a notable shift from the expected topic, Louisiana Republican Kennedy brought up concerns about the NCAA allowing “biological males” to compete in female events. This debate gained attention recently after women’s volleyball teams forfeited matches against San Jose State due to a transgender player’s participation. Boise State notably withdrew from a conference semifinal with San Jose State over this issue.
### Urgency for Leadership
The situation is complex for college administrators, coaches, and athletes. Baker explained there is no federal mandate regarding transgender athletes’ participation. However, multiple court decisions support their inclusion. Addressing this, Kennedy asked: “Why not take a leadership stance and ban biological males in women’s games? You might need to ‘buy a spine’ from Amazon.”
In the chaotic turn of events, Kennedy’s tirade on social media highlighted the hearing’s diversion from sports betting to political hostilities concerning NCAA policies on transgender athletes. The discussion, rather than addressing the SAFE Bet Act, turned toward congressional theatrics.
Following Kennedy, Hawley voiced even more intense criticism. Interrupting and speaking over Baker, he questioned the supposed federal law mandating the participation of biological men in women’s sports, a law he claimed does not exist. Hawley emphasized: “This is an indefensible policy.”
### Bullying in Congress
Kennedy and Hawley’s behavior was termed unprofessional, essentially bullying Baker in a setting expected to maintain professional decorum. Chairman Dave Durbin eventually halted the senators’ onslaught. Baker’s composed reaction, maintaining professionalism, contrasted sharply with the senators’ confrontational style.
### A Skewed Hearing on Gambling
Originally, the hearing was set to debate the SAFE Bet Act, which aims to make sports betting a state-controlled affair demanding federal approval. The Act proposes tough advertising rules, seeking to counteract the 2018 Supreme Court decision allowing state-governed sports betting.
The session, skewed from the outset, featured diverse witnesses: three endorsing the bill, one neutral, and one opposed. Key issues like banning college-player prop bets and protecting athletes from bettors’ harassment were discussed.
The American Gaming Association (AGA), notably absent from the proceedings, criticized the lack of industry representation. AGA’s SVP Joe Maloney highlighted this absence, pointing out that it deprived the hearing of critical industry perspectives on consumer protection and responsible gaming.
### Conditional Support for the Bill
Support for the SAFE Bet Act was conditional among its proponents. Both Baker and NFL Players Association member Johnson Bademosi, though supportive, focused on the need to protect college athletes. Bademosi, an ex-NFL player, shared insights on the pressures athletes face from gamblers, advocating for policies that uphold game integrity while ensuring protection for athletes.
### GRIT Act Advocacy
Baker, campaigning against college-player prop bets, suggested federal efforts target illegal markets and address harassment. Meanwhile, Keith Whyte from the National Council for Problem Gambling described the GRIT Act as more fitting federal legislation, aimed at establishing a responsible gambling framework.
### State-Level Expertise
Among the witnesses, former New Jersey regulator Dave Rebuck opposed the SAFE Bet Act, advocating for state-level regulation. Considered a pioneer in regulation, Rebuck asserted the states’ capability over federal oversight, emphasizing New Jersey’s gold-standard regulatory framework.
### Personal Story of Impact
Conversely, Harry Levant, both a contributor to the SAFE Bet Act and a recovering gambling addict, supported the bill. Levant recounted personal struggles with gambling addiction that destroyed his career and family, reinforcing the need for controlled access to gambling.
As the hearing concluded without legislative action, it marked the session’s last meeting, setting the stage for future debates. The discussions, while fractious, underscored the complexity and emotional intensity surrounding sports betting legislation and NCAA policies on transgender athletes.