Introduction
Sports betting has moved from the background of sports culture to the center of the college athletics experience. Since the Supreme Court opened the door for states to legalize sports wagering in Murphy v. NCAA, betting has become easier, faster, and more connected to individual player performance. A fan no longer has to bet only on whether a team wins or loses. They can bet on a player's points, rebounds, passing yards, strikeouts, or smaller moments inside a game.
That change has created a new legal problem for college sports. Student-athletes are not professional employees with long-term contracts, unions, or the same power as major leagues, but they are now exposed to many of the same gambling pressures that surround professional sports. The legal question is no longer simply whether sports betting should be allowed. The better question is how states, schools, the NCAA, and sportsbooks should protect college athletes from harassment, insider-information pressure, and punishment systems that may fail to separate corruption from gambling addiction.
This article argues that legalized sports betting has created a gap between regulation and athlete protection. If college sports betting is going to remain legal, lawmakers should treat athlete protection as part of gambling regulation, not as an optional sports-policy issue.
The Legal Door That Opened Sports Betting
For many years, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, known as PASPA, largely prevented states from authorizing sports betting. That changed in 2018, when the Supreme Court decided Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. The Court held that PASPA violated the anti-commandeering principle because Congress could not simply order states to keep their own sports-betting bans in place. After Murphy, states gained the practical ability to legalize and regulate sports betting for themselves.
The decision did not force states to legalize gambling. Instead, it created a state-by-state system where lawmakers could decide whether to authorize betting, how to license sportsbooks, and what kinds of bets should be allowed. Mobile apps and advertising then made betting feel normal, and college games became part of the same commercial ecosystem as professional sports. This matters because the current problem is not only an NCAA problem. State governments authorized the market, sportsbooks built the platforms, and regulators approved many betting products.
NCAA Rules and the College Athlete Problem
The NCAA has long treated sports wagering as a threat to competition integrity. Its public position is that sports betting can affect eligibility, finances, mental health, and future opportunities for student-athletes. The NCAA also states that it monitors thousands of competitions, provides sports-betting education, and supports limits on college prop bets. This strict approach makes sense because college athletes may have access to information that bettors want, such as injuries, playing time, or team strategy.
Still, the college athlete problem is different from the professional athlete problem. College athletes are often young, financially vulnerable, and surrounded by classmates and fans who may gamble. Some athletes may violate rules because they are trying to gain an unfair advantage, but others may be struggling with addiction, peer pressure, or confusion about how broad the rules are. A system that treats every betting issue only as a threat to integrity can miss the student-welfare side of the problem.
This tension is especially clear because nearly everyone around college athletes can often legally bet, while the athletes themselves face severe consequences for conduct that is now socially and commercially normalized. The law created the market, but the athlete often carries the risk.
Prop Bets, Harassment, and Mental Health
The most serious issue is not ordinary betting on which team wins. The more dangerous issue is the rise of prop bets tied to individual player performance. Prop bets place attention on one athlete's statistics rather than the team result. This matters because individual athletes become direct targets when bettors lose money.
Recent NCAA survey data shows how personal the problem has become. In March 2026, the NCAA reported that nearly half of Division I men's basketball players said they had been targeted by fans over betting losses, nearly 60% of surveyed college basketball players said sports betting contributed to unfair public scrutiny, and one in three men's basketball players reported receiving direct blame from fans for betting losses. These numbers make it hard to describe sports betting as harmless entertainment. For athletes, betting can follow them into social media messages, arenas, classrooms, and daily life.
This creates both a legal and ethical problem. If state regulators allow sportsbooks to offer bets on individual college athletes, then regulators are helping create the conditions for harassment. If sportsbooks profit from those bets, they should also have obligations to discourage abuse, suspend customers who threaten athletes, and share reports with schools or leagues when harassment occurs. Some sportsbooks have started moving in this direction. For example, BetMGM announced in 2026 that its terms of service would prohibit customers from harassing athletes, coaches, and other sports personnel, and that confirmed harassment could lead to account suspension.
What the Law Should Do Next
The best legal response is not to ban all sports betting overnight. That would be unrealistic because sports betting is already legal in many states and has become a major source of revenue. A better response is to separate ordinary sports wagering from the types of bets that create the highest risk for college athletes.
First, states should ban individual college prop bets. Betting on a team outcome is different from betting on whether a nineteen-year-old athlete records a specific number of points or yards. Prop bets make individual athletes the center of financial anger and may also create pressure to share inside information. A state can still allow sports betting while deciding that college prop bets are too risky.
Second, states should require sportsbooks to adopt anti-harassment policies as a licensing condition. This would make athlete protection part of gambling regulation itself. A sportsbook that fails to act on credible reports of harassment should face regulatory consequences, not just bad publicity. Third, schools and the NCAA should treat some gambling violations through a health-and-compliance lens rather than only a punishment lens. Athletes who manipulate competition should face serious consequences, but athletes dealing with addiction or misunderstanding may need treatment, education, and proportionate discipline.
Conclusion
Sports betting is now part of modern sports, but college athletes should not be treated as collateral damage in that expansion. The legalization of sports wagering after Murphy v. NCAA gave states the power to regulate the industry, and that power should come with responsibility. If lawmakers allow sportsbooks to profit from college games, they should also require safeguards that protect the athletes who make those games possible.
The real issue is balance. Sports betting may increase fan engagement and state revenue, but college athletes are still students. They should not have to accept harassment, threats, or pressure for inside information as the cost of playing a sport. A stronger legal framework would ban individual college prop bets, require sportsbooks to police harassment, and treat gambling addiction as a real student-athlete welfare issue. Protecting the integrity of college sports means more than protecting the scoreboard. It also means protecting the people on the court, field, and bench.
Sources
- Murphy v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 584 U.S. 453 (2018).
- Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, Draw the Line Against Sports Betting Abuse and Harassment, NCAA (Mar. 6, 2026), https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2026/3/6/sports-betting.aspx (last visited May 27, 2026).
- Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, Division I Student-Athletes Express Concerns About Sports Betting's Impact on College Basketball, NCAA (Mar. 25, 2026), https://www.ncaa.org/news/2026/3/25/media-center-division-i-student-athletes-express-concerns-about-sports-bettings-impact-on-college-basketball.aspx (last visited May 27, 2026).
- Rory Carroll, BetMGM Bans Harassment of Athletes in New Policy, Reuters (Feb. 2, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/sports/betmgm-bans-harassment-athletes-new-policy-2026-02-02/ (last visited May 27, 2026).