Atlantic City to take advantage of sports betting
The US Supreme Court is set to hear New Jersey’s arguments against the sports-betting ban and Atlantic City would take advantage once the ban gets lifted.
US.- Last June, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear New Jersey’s challenge to the federal sports betting ban and the industry is expectant of what may happens after they hear the state’s arguments in the coming months. The decision, which is expected to be taken in 2018, is set to benefit Atlantic City straight away, as casino properties in the city are ready to add sports betting to their online gaming offer.
According to Mayor Don Guardian, it will be “an easy addition” as the city already enjoys online internet gaming and said: “We will be able to attract sports fans from all over the world, inviting them to spend a few nights in Atlantic City to watch amazing sporting events like the Super Bowl, the Kentucky Derby and so much more. If sports betting is approved, Atlantic City will continue to be a leader in this industry.”
“This area has been talking about it for years, so there is going to be no debate if we should have it. The casinos are already scouting out where the sports books will be located,” said president and CEO of the American Gaming Association Geoff Freeman, who also believes the city is in one of the best positions in the country to quickly add sports betting in case it becomes legal nationwide.
The US Supreme Court will hear New Jersey’s case against a 1992 federal law that restricts sports betting to Nevada and three other states, as the state claims the federal law violates the Constitution as it prevents states from repealing their own laws. According to Lisa Soronen, executive director of the State and Local Legal Center, the decision to even hear the state’s challenge is already seen as positive for the law being overturned: “Usually when the Supreme Court takes the case, there is an 80 percent overturn rate,” she said and explained the ruling could have a long-term impact on the states rights versus federal rights debate.
