N※N

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey urges NCAA to reverse rule on sports betting | Sporting News

  //sports-competition.news-articles.net/content/2 .. everse-rule-on-sports-betting-sporting-news.html
  Published in Sports and Competition on Tuesday, October 28th 2025 at 15:54 GMT by Sporting News
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

2025-10-28 275 x 183 / 7568 Bytes

2025-10-28 275 x 183 / 12285 Bytes

2025-10-28 275 x 183 / 6980 Bytes

2025-10-28 300 x 168 / 6882 Bytes

The NCAA’s new betting policy

The NCAA adopted a policy on May 12, 2023 that permits state‑licensed sports betting companies to place wagers on college competitions, with the restriction that no betting may occur on games played by the NCAA member institution itself. According to the NCAA’s press release, the policy is designed to capture a share of the growing collegiate sports betting market, which was estimated to generate $14 billion in revenue in 2022. The rule also requires that all betting activity be conducted through licensed operators, that student‑athletes be prohibited from betting, and that any betting sponsorships be fully disclosed to the NCAA’s Board of Governors.

In the policy language, the NCAA states that it will establish a compliance framework to monitor betting activity, including a “betting monitoring and analytics” division to detect any illicit or suspicious behavior. The organization claims that the policy will bring transparency and accountability to the betting ecosystem while protecting the sport’s reputation.

SEC’s stance on gambling

The SEC has traditionally taken a cautious stance on sports betting. In its own policy, adopted in 2020, the SEC prohibits any member institution from allowing its athletes or coaches to place bets on games that involve the SEC or any other NCAA member team. The policy also forbids athletes from receiving any form of betting compensation and requires that all betting activities be compliant with state law.

Under the SEC’s policy, the conference also requires that any betting sponsors or advertising be reviewed and approved by the SEC Office of Communications, ensuring that all marketing materials align with the SEC’s brand standards and do not target minors or vulnerable populations. The SEC’s policy explicitly states that any violation may result in sanctions ranging from fines to loss of eligibility for championship games.

Sankey’s concerns

Sankey’s statement highlights a number of specific concerns:

1. Integrity of competition: Sankey argues that allowing betting opens the door to potential match‑fixing or influence over game outcomes. He points to high‑profile cases in other sports, such as the betting scandal that marred the 2021 FIFA World Cup, as cautionary examples.

2. Legal and regulatory compliance: The SEC Commissioner notes that the NCAA’s policy does not fully address the complex web of state laws governing gambling. He worries that institutions could inadvertently violate state statutes, leading to legal penalties or loss of insurance coverage.

3. Fan experience and predatory gambling: Sankey warns that betting can attract “predatory” operators who target college fans, many of whom are young adults with limited financial resources. He references the “Addictive” nature of gambling, citing studies that show increased rates of gambling‑related problems among college students.

4. Financial implications: While the NCAA claims that the policy will bring in revenue, Sankey argues that the long‑term financial costs—such as potential lawsuits, reputational damage, and increased operational costs—could outweigh short‑term gains.

Reactions from other stakeholders

The NCAA has defended its policy as a proactive measure to modernize the college sports landscape and provide an additional revenue stream. “We are committed to ensuring the sport’s integrity while also capturing a share of a rapidly expanding market,” an NCAA spokesperson said in a statement. The NCAA also cited research indicating that responsible betting can be integrated into sports culture without compromising fairness.

Conversely, a coalition of former student‑athletes and academic researchers has expressed concerns. Dr. Lisa Gordon, a professor of sports ethics at the University of Illinois, noted that “the introduction of betting can alter the perception of athletic competition and blur the line between spectator and participant.” A former SEC football player, who spoke on condition of anonymity, echoed Sankey’s fears, saying that the environment around betting “makes it harder for athletes to stay focused on the game.”

Potential next steps

Sankey has called for a conference‑wide discussion and for the SEC to convene a panel of experts in law, ethics, and sports medicine to assess the policy’s impact. He has also urged the NCAA to amend the policy to remove the clause that allows any betting activity on college games, emphasizing the need for a blanket ban across all member institutions.

Meanwhile, the SEC’s Office of Communications is reportedly reviewing its own policy framework to ensure it aligns with state regulations and to identify any gaps in enforcement. The conference’s Board of Governors is scheduled to meet in September to discuss the issue, and a public forum will be held in October for fans and athletes to voice their concerns.

In sum, Greg Sankey’s call to reverse the NCAA’s sports betting policy reflects a broader debate over the role of gambling in college athletics. While the NCAA promotes betting as a revenue‑generating opportunity, the SEC’s leadership underscores the potential risks to sport integrity, legal compliance, and the well‑being of athletes and fans. The outcome of the forthcoming discussions will likely set the tone for how the SEC and other conferences navigate the intersection of collegiate sports and gambling in the coming years.