How ESPN Will Use Chris Berman in Its Super Bowl Coverage
In a post–Jontay Porter world, where the NBA is doubling down on its embrace of betting, it’s possible people aren’t looking in the right place for the next shoe to drop. Many professionals in sports betting believe referees represent a bigger risk for illicit gambling on contests.
The NBA is less than two decades removed from the Tim Donaghy incident, arguably the biggest refereeing scandal in pro sports history. An FBI probe showed he’d bet tens of thousands of dollars on NBA games across multiple seasons, including those he officiated.
Many current officials knew and worked with Donaghy. And while the sports betting industry has shifted toward legalization and regulation in the years since, the disgrace is still too fresh for complacency.
“In professional sports, there’s a really obvious weak point,” says Ken Barkley, a professional sports bettor who previously hosted Audacy’s You Better You Bet podcast. “Who would be most influenced by a potentially life-changing sum of money which would be offered? And does that person have an impact on the outcome of the game? The referee is in a really unique situation, because he has a dramatic outcome on the game, and he doesn’t make very much money versus LeBron James—or even versus the worst player in a game.”
Sources in multiple departments of the NBA league office tasked with monitoring, investigating, and preventing gambling impropriety acknowledge there is some risk. Meanwhile, conversations with industry professionals reveal a sports betting landscape that is wildly different from the Donaghy era, but still vulnerable. Some tell Front Office Sports another scandal is possible or even likely in the current market.
Things look a lot different now than they did in 2007, when the Donaghy scandal first came to light, thanks in large part to the “Pedowitz Report”—the league-ordered independent review of the incident and its officiating program.
The report provided the impetus for more robust gambling integrity, as the league beefed up its legal and basketball operations departments and strengthened the referee grading program.
Since the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act was overturned in 2018, the NBA built partnerships with major operators like FanDuel and DraftKings and gambling integrity monitoring companies like Sportradar and IC360, major formalities that mean less room for error.
A ref couldn’t simply use a burner phone and a fake name to set up a gambling account, for instance; these systems are easily complex enough to detect these and similar attempts at concealment (league sources declined to go into specifics on such programs, understandably to avoid giving away their playbook). Programs like these played a key role in identifying Porter’s wrongdoing.
Referees also currently face a partial list of restrictions, according to multiple league sources, such as betting on any sport, entering casinos during the season, playing in NBA fantasy leagues, and associating with professional gamblers or any person involved in illegal gambling.
Sports gambling professionals tell FOS they believe the NBA’s efforts are valid but not airtight.
Professionals believe a “running” scheme like Donaghy’s, one that specifically covered many games over any period of time, would be impossible to pull off today.
The sports gambling world can be broken into three categories: The legal market includes oddsmakers and retail sportsbooks; the gray market consists of offshore books and “pay per head” exchanges, which provide data for individuals to run independent books; and the black market is made up of unregulated Asian markets and bookies.
The legal and illegal markets inform one another. Online tools known as “odds screens” aid in this market interconnectivity, displaying live lines around the world, including from gray or black market books; legal sportsbooks use them to adjust their lines, while professional gamblers use them to pinpoint the best odds.
NBA sources again declined to provide specific details to protect their secrecy. But any unusual trends, even on unregulated markets, would likely show up before long using similar tools—at which point the league could begin to unravel the thread using its depth of data.
The real risks are found in carefully planned one-off bets that don’t follow any pattern. And the regulated space might be most ripe for exploitation.
“You will read all the time about customers betting a large amount of money, like on Twitter, publicly reported stuff,” Barkley says. “I think a lot of people are like, ‘Wow, really? MGM or DraftKings or FanDuel, they took a million dollars on the Super Bowl?’ The reason why those bets are allowed to exist is they are typically either high-roller casino customers, or these are VIP accounts because they lose a lot.”
High-rollers, also known as “whales,” are a huge asset to sportsbooks, who cater to them and allow them virtually unlimited betting power. But pro bettors, who are often banned or severely limited in betting power by regulated operators, turn to amenable whales as a workaround. Theoretically, a corrupt ref, player, or coach could do the same.
“There are a lot of professional sports bettors who try to gain access to these accounts and use them and bet a lot of money,” Barkley continues. “This is not something new, and this is something that’s not stoppable. Because as long as you have VIPs, you will have people that will try to get those accounts.”
Even as they’re confident in the efficacy of their programs, NBA sources concede this is a challenging area to police. Large bets hit the market all the time, and tracing each is impossible. Even if privileged information is suspected, confirming it came via a breach of league rules is equally difficult.
One source gave an example of a player who tells his girlfriend about an injury; she then tells her parents, one of whom tells a brother, who knows a sports gambler and passes the information on. Privileged info still got out without breaking NBA rules.
Similar risks exist in unregulated markets, particularly overseas.
“If you found the right person, and they knew the right person, they could get into accounts in Asia for NBA, and you could probably exercise it to the tune of high six figures,” says Drew Dinsick, a longtime sports handicapper and betting analyst for NBC Sports. “If it was a playoff game, probably seven figures. And you could probably do it invisibly. It would be one-off. It wouldn’t be regular.”
Both NBA sources and professional gamblers agree that stopping these approaches entirely is impossible. The true dissuasions, rather, are the risks involved and whether the ultimate reward would be worth it.
“The deterrent isn’t that it can’t be done,” says Adam Bjorn, COO of Plannatech, a company that provides data insights to leading integrity agency IC360 (an NBA partner). Bjorn would know; Plannatech is centrally involved in efforts to monitor for issues like these around the sports landscape.
“The deterrent is now [more] eyes on it,” he continues. “There’s people looking. So as a referee or a player, you’ve got a lot more fear or caution, because you know they’re looking.”
Getting past the NBA’s monitoring programs and resources—from background checks and financial disclosures to years of call trends—is a tall task. Hiding suspicious behavior or intentionally “thrown” calls from peers and management would present its own set of logistical hurdles: Postgame reviews with fellow crew-mates and supervisors happen after every NBA game. One slipup and the whole thing could come crashing down.
And then there are the consequences. Donaghy went from the top of his profession to prison. He’s remained a pariah known for his dishonesty ever since. But when you make only between $150,000 and $500,000 annually, one of these schemes could be tempting to a bad actor.
“There are always going to be desperate people, not even just in sports or betting,” Barkley says. “There will always be desperate people who are looking for a way out … maybe they owe money, get mixed up with the wrong people—it happens all the time. And their ability to be influenced, you’re not ever going to get rid of that.”
Bjorn says the league has to remain vigilant: “It’s just about doing more. And more putting the fear of god into people who hold positions of respect, whether it’s a player or a ref. To be fearful of, ‘They’re watching. There’s no way I could get away with this.’”
