When it comes to hit pieces on the sports betting industry, Rolling Stone just hit the jackpot.
On Sunday, the rock n’ roll magazine’s website published an article titled, “There’s Now a Casino in Everyone’s Pocket. For Some Young Men, It’s A Near-Fatal Gamble.”
It’s co-bylined by Paul Solotaroff and Eli Senor, and it’s horribly one-sided and filled with half-truths and outright lies.
And while I can ramble on about the one-sidedness, I don’t even have to. We’ve been here many times before. I’ll give you the TL;DR: Rolling Stone found seven problem gamblers and declared it a national emergency.
But it’s the lies, man. Outright lies. It’s absurd this article exists. It should be immediately taken offline and edited. It’s abysmal. A high school editor would’ve flagged it.
Let’s take a peek, eh?
Lie no. 1
The authors state the following: “Eight years ago, Americans placed around $5 billion in sports bets. Last year, that number zoomed to nearly $150 billion; by 2028, we’ll have bet — and lost — a trillion dollars since 2018.”
Um, nope.
Here, the authors are conflating handle with revenue. To date, since the fall of PASPA, total regulated handle is nearly $500 billion, according to InGame Intel.
And total revenue, i.e., total amount bettors have lost? A little less than $48 billion.
So, sure, total post-PASPA handle could be a trillion dollars by 2028, with total losses coming in at around a “whopping” $100 billion. Not a trillion.
And I put “whopping” in quotes because, according to a study from the Siena College Research Institute and St. Bonaventure University’s Jandoli School of Communication, some 22% of Americans have an online sportsbook account. That’s about 75 million people.
Which means that by 2028, each of those people will have lost, on average, $1,333 over the 10 years post-PASPA. Another way to put that: Each person with an online sportsbook account will lose, on average, $133 a year betting on sports.
Clutch those pearls.
Now obviously, there are going to be people that lose more, some of whom will lose a lot more. And the authors interviewed (checks notes) seven of them, provided to the authors by Harry Levant, who is vehemently anti-online sports betting as it currently exists.
But yes. Seven people. Out of the 75 million with an account. My calculator gives me an error message when I try to turn that into a percentage.
Lie no. 2
Well, let’s get to Levant, who is quoted in the piece as follows: “Every addictive product has regulations. Why is this the only one without them?”
The authors saw fit to let this quote stand entirely unchecked.
When it comes to regulations (deep breath) … every operator must obtain state-by-state licensing involving extensive background checks and fees often running into the millions. They’re subject to regular audits, must maintain minimum capital requirements, use geolocation technology to ensure bets only occur within legal jurisdictions, and comply with strict data security and privacy requirements.
Consumer protections include mandatory age verification (21+ in most states), Know Your Customer (KYC) identity verification, and self-exclusion programs at state and national levels. Users can set deposit limits, take timeouts, implement cooling-off periods, and establish session time and loss limits. Operators must display responsible gaming resources and links to problem gambling hotlines like 1-800-GAMBLER.
Marketing is heavily regulated with prohibitions on targeting minors, restrictions on where and how operators can advertise, mandatory responsible gaming messaging, restrictions on offering credit, and limits on bonus structures.
Betting itself faces restrictions: Certain prop bets are banned (especially those involving college athletes), limitations exist on in-game betting options, and some events are prohibited entirely.
Financial regulations include anti-money laundering compliance, suspicious activity report requirements, transaction monitoring, tax reporting, and hold time requirements on deposits.
But sure, Harry. No regulations whatsoever. (Readers, at this point, feel free to scream into a pillow.)
Lie no. 3
Talking about underage gambling, the authors write: “ … underage boys pressed their parents to open accounts, often linked to dad’s ID and banking info, critics claim. Or they surreptitiously opened accounts without their parents’ knowledge, as teens have done with verboten vices since the dawn of time.”
OK, first the lie: If you’re not of age, you can’t open an account. You need a social security number. A driver’s license. Often a picture. Is it possible that some enterprising 14-year-old can figure out a way around this? I guess it’s possible, but come on: It ain’t happening, as anyone who has tried to sign up for a regulated online sportsbook can attest.
Then there’s the bit where the underage boys “pressed their parents to open accounts.” That is not, in any way, shape, or form, an online sportsbook problem. That’s a parental problem. Some parents buy booze for their teenagers. Some parents let their kids bet on sports. It’s a parent problem (or choice), not a sportsbook (or Budweiser) problem.
Lie no. 4
Does Rolling Stone employee fact checkers? I’m guessing not. Here’s another verbatim line: “Last year, a study by the National Council on Problem Gambling found that betting on campus had surged to 75 percent.”
OK, nope. Not true.
For starters, I can’t find the NCPG study that claims this, but let’s assume it exists. I did, however, find a site run by the The Maryland Center of Excellence on Problem Gambling, which notes 75% of college students gambled in the past year. But per their words: “Lotteries, card games, pools (including raffles, charitable small stakes gambling), sports betting, and games of skill (e.g., bowling, basketball, pool, golf, backgammon, darts) are the most frequently chosen gambling activities by college students.”
So, yes. Some 75% of college students have gambled in the past year. This includes buying a Mega Millions ticket and throwing a buck down on a game of darts. This is unreal.
Do you have time for some half-truths?
Half-truth no. 1
The authors state: “Among states that have legalized sports-bet apps, bankruptcies are up by 30,000 a year, per a USC-UCLA study still in progress. A second study, from Northwestern, found that eight percent of the households in legal-gambling states were wagering on SBOs — and that every dollar spent on those apps cost households double in net-worth losses.”
And yes, these studies exist.
They’re also in the process of being put out to pasture, as the authors failed to include this study from Seton Hall, which fully debunks the above studies.
Half truth no. 2
The authors quote Matt Gaskell, the clinical lead for the NHS Northern Gambling Service in England, who claims there are “an estimated one to two suicides a day in England” as a result of sports betting. Again, the authors let this quote stand without fact checking. And it took me all of 0.2 seconds to find this, direct from the UK government website: “Two quantitative studies (of moderate and high quality) reported that deaths from suicide were significantly higher among adults with gambling disorder or problems compared to the general adult population.”
OK, point taken. People with gambling problems have a higher rate of suicide. But up to two a day? That’s not a fact, that’s a guess.
Half-truth, lie, something
Another quote from Levant: “Then they tracked and used their customers’ data to determine which of them preferred making constant, nonstop bets — and pushed those bets their way.”
Here, Levant is talking about live-betting, and how FanDuel, DraftKings, and other sportsbooks tracked data and pushed bets.
Is it true? Maybe. Who knows. But it’s presented as fact. Lazy reporting at best.
Look, nobody is saying problem gambling doesn’t exist. It does. And it’s serious. The seven people profiled in this article are suffering, and their stories deserve to be told — with accuracy and care.
But here’s the thing: When you lie about the numbers, ignore the regulations that actually exist, conflate different types of gambling to juice your stats, and present guesses as facts, you’re not helping problem gamblers. You’re undermining the legitimate conversation we should be having about responsible gambling and how to better identify and help those in need.
Rolling Stone had an opportunity to shine a light on a real issue. Instead, it published sensationalized garbage that any halfway decent editor should have sent back for a complete rewrite. This isn’t journalism. It’s activism dressed up as reporting, and it’s insulting to readers who deserve the truth.
Do better, Rolling Stone.
