Legalizing online bets may happen sooner than later

I’m not positive if March Madness means the NCAA Tournament, or a description of the U.S. government’s continued anti-Internet betting attitude.

One is here to stay, but the other could be on the way out. And it’s not the NCAA Tournament that’s losing popularity.

Could it be politicians are finally realizing how antiquated and inadequate the 1961 Wire Act really is? This is the nebulous law the federal government stakes its argument on. That telephone - and thus online - sports wagering is illegal. They make this case in between filling out their office pool brackets.

I’m not so sure Alexander Graham Bell wasn’t shouting to his assistant Watson that he wanted to get a bet down on the Sioux against Custer when he invented the telephone in 1876. There’s certainly no truth that Watson then phoned back asking if he should parlay that wager with the Battle of the Little Big Horn going under two hours.

There finally could be cause for optimism heading into the tournament. No, not about Southeast Louisiana upsetting Oklahoma State. Momentum seems to be gathering about legalizing Internet betting. Imagine that, Big Brother letting people do what they want with their own money. Wow, what a radical concept.

Antigua got things going in the right direction winning a gaming decision from the World Trade Organization by successfully arguing that the U.S. government severely hurt and affected their business by its restrictive attitude toward online wagering, thus discriminating against foreign companies.

The U.S., of course, is appealing the decision. They may have trouble winning the appeal, considering $80-380 billion is wagered illegally, according to a study by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, which was appointed by then President Clinton.

It’s not just the WTO decision, though, that leaves hope from the masses. Tax revenue, the tremendous growth and popularity explosion of online poker and the British Parliament are all factors, too, in assailing the Wire Act of 1961, or was that 1861?

Realizing, at long last how big Internet wagering has become, and that the industry keeps growing, some state lawmakers are proposing legislation that raises revenue by allowing online betting.

North Dakota, for instance, appears willing to challenge the Wire Act by proposing to allow Internet poker sites to operate inside the state. These sites would be regulated by North Dakota’s state attorney general’s office. The House voted 50-44, just eight days ago, in favor of the resolution that would put this question to a vote in the June ballot.

That would break down a barrier. So if online poker becomes legalized in the U.S., can sports betting be far behind?

Politicians in Illinois and Georgia have proposed bills that would allow for lottery tickets to be sold online. Again we ask if lottery tickets, why not sports betting? With sports betting you at least have a realistic expectation of winning, unless you bet on Notre Dame basketball.

The British are doing their part. The Brits are incredulous about the U.S. government’s puritan attitude regarding legalized sports wagering. Great Britain has maybe the world’s best sports betting regulatory system.

A number of big British companies, however, haven’t been taking Internet bets from Americans. They don’t want the hassle of upsetting the U.S. government. British bookmakers don’t specialize in American football and basketball anyways.

But now the Brits are changing their attitude, recognizing how foolish it is not to take advantage of such a large market that primarily does most of its wagering with offshore bookies. British lawmakers are expected to allow 137 land-based casinos in the United Kingdom to take online wagers from American citizens. There’s not much worry about getting paid when you’re betting at William Hill or Ladbroke’s.

Now on to the basketball tournament. By the way, anyone seen Rick Neuheisel’s tournament bracket? I heard he does well in office pools.