Athletes and Gambling: Who Cares?

If you haven't already heard, Charles Barkley on Wednesday announced that he has lost over $10 million in gambling over the years. What makes this announcement more disturbing than the $10 million lost is that Barkley doesn't think he has a gambling problem because he has enough money to cover his losses. In an interview with ESPN, Barkley made the following statements:

"It's not a problem. If you're a drug addict or an alcoholic, those are problems. I gamble for too much money. As long as I can continue to do it I don't think it's a problem. Do I think it's a bad habit? Yes, I think it's a bad habit. Am I going to continue to do it? Yes, I'm going to continue to do it. When I gamble I should be playing $1,000 a hand instead of $20,000 a hand, because if I played for $1,000 a hand I probably could lose $50,000 to $100,000 a hand instead of millions of dollars. And I've got to reach a happy medium because I've told all of the people in my life that first and foremost it's my money. I like to gamble and I'm not going to quit. I've just got to get it under control."

When I read this, my first reaction was that this has got to be a joke! Why would he announce this to the media? But this is hardly any laughing matter. This is a really unfortunate and very sad situation. By going on national television and making this announcement, Barkley is obviously pleading for help. My second reaction was that gambling among athletes is most likely much more prevalent and extensive than we think.

Barkley told ESPN that the "thrill of competition" has a lot to do with his desire to wager. On the one hand, that just sounds like an excuse or justification to keep gambling, because there's no true element of competition in gambling. Competition entails having some control over the ultimate outcome, as opposed to gambling whereby the house determines your fate (and it's weighed heavily in favor of the house). On the other hand, it's understandable why athletes are drawn to gambling. They view gambling as just another game that they can control (i.e. that they can "beat the house").

John Daly just went public in his autobiography to be released Monday that he has lost $50 to $60 million over the past 12 years. It's highly unlikely that Barkley and some of the other athletes who have gone public with their gambling problems are the only athletes losing millions (by way of both legal and illegal gambling). Professional athletes fit the ideal profile upon which bookies and casinos love to sink their teeth into (especially retired athletes because they have a lot more free time): high net worth, competitive and a feeling of invincibleness.

Barkley's and Daly's announcements got me thinking, where's the public outrage over gambling among professional athletes? For one thing, it's a much bigger and more serious societal problem and concern than steroid use, and it's detrimental to the health and well-being of the athlete as well. And as far as the "cheating" aspect, wouldn't athletes who gamble have a greater tendency to bet on the sport in which they play? Maybe they should be required periodically to take a lie detector test in which they are asked, "Do you or have you bet on the sport in which you play?" If they test positive, then maybe that should lead to further investigation by the league.

Congress, don't get any ideas....

Posted in: