The common denominator in the NBA’s recent string of gambling scandals has been the types of bets involved. Jontay Porter was banned from the NBA for life for manipulating prop bets, which are bets based on his individual statistics. Terry Rozier is currently being investigated for the similar infractions. Like Porter, Rozier has been accused of removing himself from a game early in order to help pre-informed bettors win “under” bets on his individual numbers. The offseason investigation into Malik Beasley was raised in part because of suspicious betting activity around his statistics in a Jan. 2024 game, though he wound up hitting the over on the affected number (rebounds). That investigation did not find wrongdoing, but it did not definitively clear him either.
It makes sense why these would be the bets likeliest to lead to our first wave of major controversies in the post-legalization era of sports betting. Rigging the outcome of an NBA game, on the surface, appears so difficult to accomplish that trying to influence players in that manner would be impractical. How many players even have the ball enough to singlehandedly ensure a loss for their team? The ones who do are so wealthy and so famous that it would seem almost impossible to convince them to try it. When the 1919 White Sox threw the World Series, eight players were ultimately banned from the sport. If eight players couldn’t keep quiet in 1919, what are the odds that they could in 2025, when information and rumors travel much faster?
But a prop bet? Theoretically, at least, those are far easier to manipulate. All it takes is one player’s buy-in. If that player removes himself from a game, not even the team can say with absolute certainty how incapacitated that player really is. How can anyone tell the difference between an off night and and intentionally bad night? To be frank, this was the likeliest first wave of scandals because bad actors could plausibly believe they’d get away with it, and at least a few of them have tried and since failed.
The Porter case is an example of successful enforcement. The investigation into Porter began in March of 2024. He was banned by the end of April. The hope is that such enforcement eventually proves to be a deterrent, that seeing a player get banned for life and plead guilty to a crime would scare other potentially vulnerable players out of trying to engage in this sort of illicit activity. In Beasley’s case, the mere stink of an investigation was a punishment in itself. He was set to sign a three-year, $42 million contract with the Detroit Pistons before his investigation began. He hasn’t been found guilty. He also hasn’t signed with a team. The mere hint of scandal cost him a lot of money.
What’s so disturbing about the Rozier case in particular is that, unlike Porter, Rozier should not have been financially vulnerable. He was not a two-way player. Spotrac estimates that upon the conclusion of his current contract, he will have earned over $160 million in the NBA. It’s hard to believe a player that has made that much would be willing to risk it all in a scheme like this, but if the charges against him prove accurate, it will be proof that even a successful NBA player can be pulled into this world.
And if that’s the case, it’s hard to come to any conclusion besides the need for serious reform to the entire practice of prop betting. This is a complex issue for us to cover. We here at CBS Sports, like many outlets, have business relationships with sportsbooks. So does the NBA. Though that hasn’t stopped commissioner Adam Silver from suggesting reform in this area. As recently as Tuesday, he did so on The Pat McAfee Show.
“We’ve asked some of our partners to pull back some of the prop bets, especially when they’re on two-way players, guys who don’t have the same stake in the competition, where it’s too easy to manipulate something, which seems otherwise small and inconsequential to the overall score,” Silver said. “We’re trying to put in place — learning as we go and working with the betting companies — some additional control to prevent some of that manipulation.”
What exactly could reform like this look like? That’s hard to say. More extreme measures, like the outright banning of prop bets or same-game parlays, is likely off of the table short of legislation at the federal level. The solution here is going to have to be something that’s smaller in scale, a change or changes that would make it harder for bettors to attempt to manipulate the system in illegal ways. So let’s attempt to find such a solution. Here are three possibilities:
Minute minimum for prop bets
A standard prop bet is live the moment a player steps on the floor. This can work both in favor of the bettor or against them. If your player gets hurt 43 seconds into a game, as James Harden did in Game 1 of the 2021 Eastern Conference semifinals? You’re out of luck. But if you’re vigilant, there also opportunities to abuse the system on bets like these. Take Klay Thompson’s 2022 return after missing two full seasons. Draymond Green got hurt a few nights earlier in Dallas. However, he wanted to be on the floor for Thompson’s return, so he started, played seven seconds, committed a foul and then left the game. He wouldn’t return for another two months. Under bets still would have cashed.
Both the Rozier and Porter cases involved a player removing himself from a game early, essentially locking in an under before it was at risk. In theory, the books could address this by introducing a minutes minimum for any prop bet. Essentially, they could say that if a player plays fewer than, say, 20 minutes in a game, all prop bets placed on that player would be voided.
This accomplishes a few things. First, it effectively removes low-minute players from the betting pool. While odds could theoretically be offered, it’s rare that someone knows going into a game that the last man on the bench is going to receive significant playing time. Second, it puts a bit more of a spotlight on players who might be considering doing something illegal. It’s one thing to pull yourself out of a game to lock in a bet. It’s another to remain on the court, in full view, forced to feel the fear of potentially getting caught not trying. Even if the authorities don’t catch on, your coaches will at the next film session.
Beyond the matter of integrity, it’s a layer of protection for bettors. It’s demoralizing to bet on a player only to watch him and your money exit the game a few minutes in. Removing that possibility prevents at least that sort of bad experience from ruining a bettor’s night and potentially makes them a bit likelier to become a returning customer. In the grand scheme of things, the books would probably void as many winning bets as losers. Sure. they’d lose the vig. Books look for volume, after all. But you could argue from a pure business perspective that improving the customer experience in this way would lead to more long-term retention.
Qualifications for who’s eligible
After the Porter scandal, the NBA asked its partner sportsbooks to stop offering the “under” on prop bets involving two-way players. This was a step, but perhaps not a big enough one. After all, there are other vulnerable parties in the NBA. A rookie earning the minimum is making substantially more than his two-way counterpart, but substantially less than most of his NBA peers. Therefore, one could argue that only certain players should even be eligible for prop bets.
Figuring out who would reach that bar would be difficult. Say, for instance, you wanted to draw the line at starters. There are a number of problems there. Rozier, for instance, started the game he is being accused of removing himself from. If that was the criteria, it would almost have to exist in concert with a minutes-minimum. That would be pretty restricting for bettors. Already, only five players start games. And then there are the logistics of making a bet. We don’t technically know who will start a game until 30 minutes before tipoff. Would betting have to be restricted until then?
Rozier also nixes the idea of any salary-based qualifiers. If he was willing to participate in a con like this despite his massive career earnings, the notion that wealthy players wouldn’t participate couldn’t be treated as a given. Anything based on merit, like points per game average or All-Star selections, is probably too restricting. There isn’t an obvious solution here. There might need to be some formula agreed upon by all of the involved parties.
Even the NBA thinks bettors shouldn’t be able to freely wager on two-way players. If that’s the case, it stands to reason that other players should be considered higher-risk as well. Figuring out who qualifies would be extremely difficult, but perhaps necessary in order to maintain the integrity of the industry.
Limiting prop bet offerings
Two pitchers for the Cleveland Guardians, Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz, are under investigation for suspicion betting activity on individual pitches that they made. Every pitcher, even the best ones, throws the occasional ball. If there is a way for bettors to profit off of that fact, you can bet (well, not literally, but figuratively) that they’re trying do so.
The suggestion here is that the smaller the sample, the more vulnerable a bet is to malfeasance. It’s theoretically easier for a player to throw away a single play than it is a whole quarter, a whole quarter than a whole game, and a game than a season. Yet NBA games, like MLB games, are filled with tiny micro-events that bettors can put money on.
Lines themselves are also extremely fungible. Many books aren’t just offering a single, fixed line. They’ll allow you to bet at almost any feasible line you want for altered prices. You could even argue that offering certain types of bets is a bridge too far. Maybe someone who averages 1.5 assists per game shouldn’t have an assists prop offered. At that point, whether or not they reach it is almost random.
The point is that the array of available prop bets now is so vast that it is potentially a bit too easy to sneak in some illegal activity on some of the less notable ones. Books are capable of flagging unusual activity, but these schemes are going to grow more sophisticated with time. Anyone considering engaging in one moving forward is going to learn from the Porter and Rozier cases and adjust moving forward. It therefore might make sense to limit the tools at their disposal. The more prominent a bet, the harder it seems like it would be to get away with rigging it. Whether that means cutting down on these minor, in-game betting opportunities or limiting the pregame options beyond a certain threshold, the market might just be too big to perfectly regulate anymore.
Add Comment