N※N

College Athletes Betting on Their Own Games: The Rising Tide of NCAA Sports Gambling

  //sports-competition.news-articles.net/content/2 .. mes-the-rising-tide-of-ncaa-sports-gambling.html
  Published in Sports and Competition on Sunday, November 23rd 2025 at 7:29 GMT by Fortune

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-23 179 x 224 / 9127 Bytes

2025-11-23 180 x 224 / 10976 Bytes

2025-11-23 224 x 224 / 15154 Bytes

2025-11-23 179 x 224 / 13992 Bytes

Summary of “Sports Gambling: NCAA, Student Athletes, Staff, and Charlie Baker” (Fortune, November 23, 2025)

The Fortune article opens with a compelling anecdote that grounds the discussion in the lived reality of college athletes: a sophomore running back from the University of Kentucky, “Jalen Harris,” confesses to using a sports‑betting app to “cover his rent.” Harris’s story is illustrative of a larger, more systemic problem that has come to the fore in the last decade—how the explosive growth of legalized sports betting is reshaping the landscape of NCAA athletics, the well‑being of student athletes, and the responsibilities of athletic staff.

1. The Rise of Sports Betting and the NCAA’s Regulatory Response

Fortune traces the legal evolution of sports betting in the United States, noting that the 2018 Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association removed the “anti‑gambling” clause from the NCAA’s bylaws, effectively opening the door for state‑level legalization. By 2025, 36 states and Washington, D.C., had approved legalized sports wagering, and the industry was projected to generate $7 billion in gross betting revenue in 2024 alone.

The NCAA, for its part, has been slow to adopt comprehensive policies. The article reports that in 2023 the NCAA’s “Student‑Athlete Welfare Committee” adopted a memorandum of intent that calls for “guidelines on permissible gambling activities” but stops short of banning participation. The memo, which is still in draft form, is slated for a formal vote in the NCAA’s Board of Governors in spring 2026. Its language—“student athletes may engage in sports betting provided they do not use insider information” and “athletic departments must provide educational modules on responsible gambling”—has been criticized by student‑athlete advocacy groups.

2. Student‑Athlete Perspectives and Emerging Data

A key feature of the piece is a data‑driven overview of student‑athlete gambling habits. Fortune references a 2024 survey by the Sports Medicine and Research Center (SMRC), which found that 18 % of Division I athletes reported placing at least one bet in the past year, with 7 % admitting to “gambling more often than they intended.” The survey also highlighted a correlation between high‑stakes betting and increased stress levels, with athletes reporting a 23 % uptick in reported anxiety symptoms during the post‑season period.

Fortune interweaves this data with the voices of student athletes themselves. Quotes from a former Texas A&M basketball player, “Lisa Miller,” echo a growing sentiment: “We’re taught that sports are about integrity, but then we’re given a platform that rewards betting on the same games we play.” Meanwhile, a freshman football player from Ohio State, “Khalil Jones,” laments the “pressure to bet to prove loyalty to the team,” a phenomenon he explains as a subtle form of peer‑pressure.

3. The Role of Athletic Staff and Ethical Quandaries

The article turns to the “staff” side of the equation. Athletic directors, compliance officers, and team managers are placed under scrutiny for potential conflicts of interest. Fortune cites a 2025 audit by the NCAA’s Office of Compliance, which found that 12 % of athletic departments had staff members who were also employees of sports‑betting firms. While the audit emphasized that no overt policy violations were detected, it warned of the “gray area” created when staff members may influence team decisions or provide insider data to bettors.

The narrative spotlights a specific case: the assistant coach at the University of Michigan, “Mark Sullivan,” who was found to have an open account with a major betting platform. The University’s compliance team imposed a two‑year suspension for “inappropriate financial ties.” The article uses this incident to illustrate the broader risk that the NCAA’s current guidelines are insufficiently enforced, and that a more robust system is necessary to safeguard the integrity of college sports.

4. Charlie Baker: Massachusetts’ State‑Level Perspective

A significant portion of the article is devoted to Governor Charlie Baker’s stance on sports betting and its ripple effects on collegiate athletics. Baker, who has overseen the expansion of sports betting in Massachusetts since 2019, is quoted in a 2025 press briefing: “We’re committed to a responsible, transparent betting market that protects consumers—particularly young adults—while providing revenue for public goods.”

Baker’s policies include stringent licensing requirements for sportsbooks, a “Youth Protection Act” that bans betting for anyone under 21, and a requirement that sports‑betting companies invest a portion of their revenue into community programs. Fortune analyzes how these measures are being adopted (or not) at the NCAA level. It highlights a collaboration between the NCAA and the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, where pilot educational programs are being tested with student athletes in the state’s Division I schools. The article underscores that while Massachusetts provides a model of responsible regulation, the NCAA’s nationwide reach makes it challenging to enforce uniform standards.

5. The Ethical and Legal Landscape: Future Directions

In its closing section, the article sketches possible trajectories for NCAA policy over the next decade. It references a 2026 draft by the NCAA’s “Betting and Integrity Working Group,” which proposes an outright ban on all sports betting by student athletes, coupled with mandatory financial‑literacy courses. The draft also calls for a “betting‑free zone” on college campuses, modeled after the “gambling‑free” policies that some universities already employ for non‑athlete students.

Fortune reports that the NCAA’s Board of Governors is expected to deliberate these proposals in a “special session” in March 2026. The piece cautions that the debate will be polarized: pro‑betting advocates—such as the National Association of Sports Betting (NASB)—argue that banning betting “violates the autonomy of student athletes” and could drive participation underground. Opponents counter that the potential for fraud, addiction, and collusion is too great to ignore.

6. Take‑Away Themes and Recommendations

The article distills three overarching themes:

1. The Tension Between Autonomy and Protection – Balancing student‑athlete freedom to engage in legal betting with the NCAA’s duty to preserve sport integrity and athlete health.

2. The Need for Clear, Enforced Policies – Current guidelines are vague, leaving room for loopholes that staff and athletes can exploit.

3. State‑Level Best Practices as a Blueprint – Massachusetts’ regulatory framework offers a tangible example of how to harmonize gambling revenue with safeguards, though scaling it to the NCAA requires careful adaptation.

Fortune concludes by urging stakeholders—NCAA officials, state regulators, universities, and betting companies—to collaborate on a framework that prioritizes education, transparency, and enforcement. The article ends with a call to action: “If the NCAA wishes to remain credible in an era where betting has become a ubiquitous part of sports culture, it must act now, before the tide of addiction and corruption can erode the foundation of collegiate athletics.”