En-Faux-Cement: How the New Gambling Policy Shows the NCAA’s Permanent Weakness
- Ryan Magill
- 2 hours ago
- 4 min read
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) made headlines on Wednesday, October 8 when its Division One Administrative Committee boldly announced that D1 college athletes are now permitted to gamble on professional sports.[2] The logic flows from the same argument that has proven to be kryptonite to the college sports’ status quo: the differential treatment between college athletes and non-athletes must be addressed.[3] Yet while the NCAA may be right in determining that sports gambling’s allure is a reality best dealt with by providing an outlet rather than by regulation, what remains to be seen is whether the NCAA learned from its prior mistakes or has permanently succumb to a crippling weariness to commit to its principles.[4]
It's Not About the Issue…
Make no mistake about it: the need for regulation on college athletes’ ability to engage in sports gambling has been very apparent in the wake of numerous high-profile incidents resulting in suspensions and dismissals.[5] With many in the college age-bracket having accounts with popular sports gambling sites like FanDuel or DraftKings or others, the NCAA was likely headed for the same futile litigation song-and-dance trying to defend differential treatment of athletes from non-athletes.[6] Meanwhile, the NCAA stated that the change enables a concerted “focus on protecting the integrity of college games while, at the same time, encouraging healthy habits who choose to engage in betting on professional sports.”[7] Thus, the NCAA’s deregulation seeks to be more beneficial to college athletes by focusing less on pure abstinence and more in favor of open discussion of the risks associated with such behavior.[8]
…It’s About the Principle
However, the NCAA completely botched the last time it made such a dramatic about-face on a core issue: in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Alston decision, the NCAA effectively abandoned its responsibility to its student-athletes by completely renouncing all rules regarding Name, Image, and Likeness compensation.[9] The aftershock of the NCAA’s flawed decision and execution is still being felt to this day, and played no small part in the need for a settlement and creation of an entirely new committee dedicated to tackle the fallout.[10]
It is hard not to see the parallels between the NCAA’s justifications for deregulating NIL in the same decision being made to deregulate gambling on professional sports, which are the two areas of sports law and business that have seen the most dramatic changes.[11] Meanwhile, the NCAA recognized that arguments that worked to treat athletes differently from nonathletes is a losing argument.[12] In both instances of NIL and sports gambling, rather than remaining stoic in the principles behind their rules, the NCAA caved to the pressure and deregulated en masse.[13]
While many individuals have benefited from the NIL era, college sports on the whole seemingly suffered.[14] To think that there is any benefit to allowing college athletes to waste the money they have earned on apps intentionally designed to take advantage of them financially contradicts the NCAA’s mission of protecting its student-athletes, calling into question what will the NCAA abandon next?[15]
RYAN MAGILL (contributing editor) is a 2L from Long Island, New York. He is an avid fan of New York Giants and Philadelphia Waterdogs. At Villanova, he is part of the Sports Law Concentration, Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, and Sports Law Society. After graduating, Ryan hopes to pursue a career in contract negotiation for either a professional sports team or an agency.
Sources:
[1] Photo Source: Frank Gruber, “NCAA Tourney” (Mar. 23, 2008) (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).
[2] See Meghan Durham Wright, DI Administrative Committee adopts proposal to allow student-athletes, staff to bet on pro sports, NCAA, (Oct. 8, 2025) https://www.ncaa.org/news/2025/10/8/media-center-di-administrative-committee-adopts-proposal-to-allow-student-athletes-staff-to-bet-on-pro-sports.aspx (reporting on NCAA’s new gambling guidelines).
[3] See Dennis Dodd, Meet Grant House, the man front and center fighting the NCAA's last gasp to cap athlete compensation, CBS Sports (May 15, 2023) https://www.cbssports.com/general/news/meet-grant-house-the-man-front-and-center-fighting-the-ncaas-last-gasp-to-cap-athlete-compensation/ (explaining Grant House’s basis for suing and inevitably settling with NCAA lies in differential treatment of athletes and nonathletes).
[4] For further discussion on the potential issues with the NCAA’s decision, see infra notes 8 – 14 and accompanying text.
[5] See Wright, supra note 1 (“In September, the NCAA Committee on Infractions released the first infractions cases for former men's basketball student-athletes who bet on their own games and in some cases engaged in game manipulation for sports betting reasons. The enforcement staff is also in the process of alleging similar violations for another 13 student-athletes from six other NCAA schools, with additional investigations ongoing.”)
[6] See id. (reporting that one survey indicated that 67% of college students engage in sports betting on a somewhat regular basis.”)
[7] See id.
[8] See id. (quoting NCAA’s chief medical officer, Dr. Deena Casiero).
[9] See Joshua A. Claybourn and C.J. Donegan, Name, Image, and Likeness: The NCAA and College Sports Landscape One Year After Alston, JacksonKelly, (July 1, 2022) https://www.jacksonkelly.com/the-legal-brief-blog/name-image-and-likeness-the-ncaa-and-college-sports-landscape-one-year-after-alston (exploring how NCAA responded to Alston).
[10] See Kassandra Ramsey, What is the College Sports Commission? What is NIL Go?, The Esquire Coach, (Sept. 3, 2025) https://www.theesquirecoach.com/blog/what-is-the-college-sports-commission-what-is-nil-go (explaining Housesettlement and founding of College Sports Commission).
[11] See Andrew Brandt, Belichick’s messy UNC start, NCAA opens betting, and a Browns QB trade, Sunday 7 (Oct. 12, 2025) https://mysunday7.com/p/belichick-s-messy-unc-start-ncaa-opens-betting-and-a-browns-qb-trade?utm_source=mysunday7.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=belichick-s-messy-unc-start-ncaa-opens-betting-and-a-browns-qb-trade&_bhlid=42bb4b83801e88d60941104e12853ded6d925793&last_resource_guid=Post%3A56511c54-7f39-4042-8c54-b9c1802ade7e (“We are now seeing the convergence of the two areas of sports law and sports business that have changed most dramatically.”)
[12] See Dodd, supra note 2 (showing that NCAA settled with House rather than defend differential treatment of athletes).
[13] See Wright, supra note 1 (demonstrating NCAA deregulating as opposed to enforcing rules for gambling); seeClayborn and Donegan, supra note 8 (demonstrating NCAA deregulating as opposed to enforcing rules for NIL post-Alston).
[14] See Dan Roberts, The NIL Era Is a Wild West. Is Anyone Surprised?, Front Office Sports, (Oct. 12, 2024), https://frontofficesports.com/newsletter/nil-opened-pandoras-box/ (explaining detrimental effects of NIL following NCAA’s deregulation).
[15] See University of Rochester Medical Center, High Stakes, Higher Risks: Can Sports Betting Be Addictive?, URMC(Sep. 5, 2024) https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/publications/health-matters/can-sports-betting-be-addictive (explaining various negative consequences of engaging in sports betting).