Forbidden Games?

In a New York court, the state is seeking to ban fantasy league companies like FanDuel and DraftKings because they are a form of gambling.  Other states are lining up to do the same.  The industry is trying to make the argument that the fantasy sport leagues are games of skill while the states attempt to argue it is a game of chance and therefore, gambling.  Such companies have the approval of most major sports leagues and with an ever growing customer base, the industry represents billions of dollars in annual revenue.  Outcomes are hard to predict but what is certain is that the case will not end in New York.

In full disclosure and as a sports fan, I have an issue with companies like FanDuel and DraftKings because it has nothing to do with fandom.  One could say it is the anti-thesis of fandom so I’m working up a feeling of schadenfreude on the hopes that such companies are indeed banned.  These leagues are creating followers who are adherents not to a particular team or sport but to players and outcomes for the purpose of making money.  All of the noble qualities that sport possesses and the life lessons it teaches are thrown out the window with fantasy sports.  But, I digress. 

I heard a story on National Public Radio about the case and heard from one of the more successful fantasy sports players – he was able to quit his job as an accountant to do fantasy sports full time.  He said his job has nothing to do with gambling because of the skill involved.  He mentioned that about 90% of all earnings on FanDuel are earned by just over 1% of the players.  The fact that skill weighs so heavily in who wins and who loses makes it an “obvious game of skill by any definition” and therefore, not gambling.

First, it would seem that there is a distinction in some minds, partly in how the New York Attorney General’s office has defined it, between games of chance and games of skill.  This distinction, to some, seems to define what is and what is not gambling.  Gambling can certainly be both.  Take poker for instance.  A reasonable person would agree that there are good poker players and bad ones.  That same person would also agree that poker, while chances of winning can be enhanced by the skill of the player, is also a game that depends on how the cards fall.  No matter how good you are, if you get bad cards, you are not going to win.  Both of these scenarios make poker both a game of chance and a game of skill.  However, nearly all people would see poker for money as gambling. 

Secondly, each person who plays with FanDuel or DraftKings pays money up front to take part in the fantasy leagues.  The industry says that the money paid out initially by participants is simply money paid to play.  As DraftKings lawyer John Kiernan said, it is not a wager or bet and the participants are not risking anything of any real value.  If money paid to participate is not anything of “true value”, I’m not sure what is.  It certainly seems like a wager to me.  Commercials for such companies promise the chance of winning hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Is that not the whole idea of a wager – money paid in hopes of winning more? 

When you take part in a fantasy league, you are betting that the players you have chosen will play well enough for you to “win” your league – and by doing so, you will also win money.  Such endeavors are both games of skill and games of chance: much like poker.  And by any definition, the fantasy sports players are gambling.  Now, this is not an article damning gambling.  I don’t like it and don’t partake but it is a person’s choice to lose all that money.  However, I also find the practice of fantasy sports a little annoying so if the law can come down on the corporations earning billions off of this, I would not be devastated.  

Terrorism and Indecisiveness

Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, France, Mali.  Terrorists like the Islamic State have been busy over the last weeks and months.  In their wake is a string of shattered cities and devastated lives.  For the western democracies, it needs to be a time to not just hunker down or lash out but to re-evaluate.  France’s intelligence network’s failure to pick up on the events that shattered its capital is more than that – it is a sign that things are evolving and adapting.  The West must do the same.

Gandhi was once asked whether his approach to conflict resolution would have adequately dealt with Hitler.  He said yes but it would have taken much longer.  Europe and the United States do not have time if recent attacks across three continents in the last month or so are any indication.  French President Francois Holland is increasing the militarily targeting of the Islamic State but he is also seeking to change how the French do business in-country by changing police procedures and tactics against suspected terrorists. 

M. Holland’s attempt to change the constitution to meet new security needs have faced opposition from both sides of the political spectrum.  However, he clearly sees the need for a change and he is trying to adapt to a new reality.  By all accounts, French intelligence was taken off guard by the events of 13 November.  Whether the French leader will be able to impose his will or not remains to be seen but a requirement to be on the qui vive has gripped parts of the French population. 

Regarding President Obama, he presented the most confounding reaction to the events of the last month or so.  My observations are not unique.  Many have been dismayed over the near blasé approach to the events and how the United States should respond.  The president, who days before Beirut and Paris, said that the Islamic State was contained, maintained that a change in philosophy or approach to the terrorists is not required.  The present modus operandi was sufficient and it was important not to over-react.  Yes, an over-reaction would not be prudent but certainly a re-evaluation is necessary because American intelligence proved to be as unaware as its French counterparts.  His comments from Ankara would suggest that is also not necessary.  However, there is push back. 

Former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Morell suggested with Charlie Rose that the president’s response needs to be on the same level as if the target was not Paris but New York City.  Combat veteran and Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HA) has criticized the president for failing to grasp the core element of dealing with the terrorists by refusing to use the word.  Last week, when a bi-partisan measure in Congress sought to make a seemingly common sense improvement in the screening process for incoming Syrians, the president responded by mocking Congressional Republicans as being scared of little old ladies and orphans.  This was in the face of reports suggesting that at least one of the Paris attackers entered Europe posing as a refugee. 

It is a nasty world out there and it will not improve any time soon.  It is not just international groups like al-Qaeda or ISIS but also regional groups like the Mourabitounes, the West African terrorist group that attacked the Radisson hotel in Bamako, Mali.  The rise of these groups would be a difficult challenge for any president but our commander in chief needs get into a locked room with military and terrorist experts and consider a new way of doing things.  The West was surprised by the Parisian attacks.  We need to find out why and contemplate a new approach.  The enemy already has.