LA proposal to raise taxes on sportsbooks and give money to D1 athletic programs
- Thread starter cyatheart
- Start date
Now this is one of the best ideas I’ve seen. And, let’s develop a sports betting app that you can use within the stadium. Block the traditional online gambling sites on the WiFi, kill the cell signal (not that it was ever great) and setup a private network that you can only use CyBet to wager in the stadium. That would easily fund the program.
I guess in a weird way, funding NIL with gambling might make the most sense of anything. The two are kind of driving one another. Hope the athletes are ok with the angry tweets when people lose money betting on them…
Good way to avoid angry tweets is to avoid twitter. Life lessons for their future.
Don't think there is any chance UNI gets half what Iowa and Iowa St would get if this were ever to happen. The North Carolina senate proposal has it over 10x the first year of what g5 and fcs would receive.
Senate budget mandates UNC, NC State play in-state teams, doubles sports betting tax
UNC and NC State would be required to play more in-state games in basketball under the budget proposal released by Senate Republicans.
www.wral.com
Tax the living F from gambling institutions. They don't care. They just squeeze more from their short term investors(gamblers), adjust accordingly, and make a profit.
The gambling economic formula,.....you give me $1, I'll give you back $.92 every day all day for all time.
Only an imbecile could bankrupt a casino operation.
The gambling economic formula,.....you give me $1, I'll give you back $.92 every day all day for all time.
Only an imbecile could bankrupt a casino operation.
Last year's tax revenue just for sports wagering in Iowa (at 6.75%) was $14.3M. In comparison, the overall gaming tax revenue was $331M.
A 20% rate on sports wagering would make that number $42.4M.
There are already appropriations from the sports wagering fund to things like gambling treatment and related services. A House study bill that would have had additional appropriations from the fund to several other entities appears to have died in committee this year.
A 20% rate on sports wagering would make that number $42.4M.
There are already appropriations from the sports wagering fund to things like gambling treatment and related services. A House study bill that would have had additional appropriations from the fund to several other entities appears to have died in committee this year.
I mean it's taxes on sports betting. Not sure how it gets much more direct than that?
Please seek mental health therapy.Tax the living F from gambling institutions. They don't care. They just squeeze more from their short term investors(gamblers), adjust accordingly, and make a profit.
The gambling economic formula,.....you give me $1, I'll give you back $.92 every day all day for all time.
Only an imbecile could bankrupt a casino operation.
Have mixed feelings about using sport betting tax to fund NIL. Those monies will directly line the pockets of a few athletes. Versus the $20M could be used to essentially reduce tuition for 30k students by $667 annually (or full instate tuition for 1700 students). Or fund ISU instructor salaries or invest in research/academic programming.
I FULLY understand the pedestal that athletics have been placed as marketing arms of universities. But maybe their role has been over emphasized.
A hundred years later the University of Chicago is still an elite college, even after dropping their Big10 membership.
I FULLY understand the pedestal that athletics have been placed as marketing arms of universities. But maybe their role has been over emphasized.
A hundred years later the University of Chicago is still an elite college, even after dropping their Big10 membership.
This is a legit question, I'm not trying to pick a fight or argue the point. I've seen this posted a couple of times here in this thread. What is the actual dollar amount of damage what would be done to the economy? I'm just looking for something concrete since this seems to be a point made a lot, without any actual numbers to back it up.
This just seems a bit outlandish to me. We are talking about 14 or so football games a year. Add an out of towner staying an extra day or two and we are talking about 30ish days a year (If Iowa and ISU don't ever have home games the same weekend.) out of 365. And basketball, at least for ISU, seems to me could still be a popular thing.
So, as I said, this seems to be an exaggeration, they aren't going to close the schools because the sports teams no longer compete at the top level. So some actual numbers would be nice to see to clear things up.
Where does it end though. If Cali does this, Then Iowa, then everyone else will do it and we will be back to being lower than everyone but now athletes will be getting 20 million a year to play. It has to stop somewhere. Not sure how they can stop it but at some point someone is going to have to take a stand that it's not worth it. Guessing teams like Arizona and Arizona State who are broke and costing the universities money will eventually pull the plug first.
The estimate (as of five years ago) was $9M per home football game to the local economy. Not to the university or the athletic department -- just local/area businesses.
If ISU drops to a G6-equivalent level, figure the attendance gets cut in half. Apply that across the board (half the hotel rooms, half the food/bev, etc.), and it's a $27M-$30M hit just from football season.
Raising the tax rate to casino levels or "market price" with other states seems like a total no-brainer. These are out of state companies essentially just leeching money out of Iowa. There's no benefit to taxing them low.
Arguing about what to do with the money... well money is fungible so it's kind of silly to argue. They could stick $25M into the ADs right now if they wanted. This just looks like a vote-winner to make it appear to be a "tax the man behind the tree" that also looks like a "user fee" since sports and sports.
Arguing about what to do with the money... well money is fungible so it's kind of silly to argue. They could stick $25M into the ADs right now if they wanted. This just looks like a vote-winner to make it appear to be a "tax the man behind the tree" that also looks like a "user fee" since sports and sports.
But that's the Ames economy. Could the university/Ames gain some of that back through other initiatives? Bring back VEISHEA and other celebrations. Maybe Iowa State & Ames should pursue adding a Medical School to serve the western half of the state. And it's not like ISU would get rid of football, just reduce expenses. There are quite a few G5 programs that have attendance between 20k-30k per game. And most don't have the enrollment/living alumni base of Iowa State.
The Ames economy could suffer, but those same fans would spend their FB/MBB spending in their hometown economies or within the state of Iowa. Or instead of donating to the Athletic Department would give to hometown charities or ISU Foundation. So not sure there would be a concensus by state legislators to have a sports betting tax fund NIL or Athletic Departments.
I realize not being a P4 school sounds catastrophic, but what if 30-40 P4 & G5 school Presidents structured an Athletic Department model where total budget was significantly less than the $100M plus that Iowa State and other Big 12 and ACC schools currently spend. I am sure there are a lot of solid Football coaches who would jump at $500k to coach at a 2nd tier of college football. Its not like Lance Leipold was a 2nd rate FB coach at UW-Whitewater and is so much better of a coach at KU. Could there be a FB expense cap of $10-15M or MBB cap at $5M?
The other looming cost for a lot of schools is building their next FB or MBB facility. Trice & Hilton are both over 50 years old. Can they last 75 years? In today's dollars, it would probably cost over $500M to build the next Hilton Coliseum. Would the next Trice cost $750M-$1B?
