The Massachusetts Gaming Commission has activated a new exclusion policy targeting sports bettors who harass athletes, with support from major leagues and operators but questions remain about enforcement and appeal rights
Sports bettors in Massachusetts who cross the line from criticism to harassment now face a new, concrete risk: being banned from every licensed sportsbook and casino in the state. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) has launched the "Bet on Respect" initiative, a regulatory tool that empowers leagues, teams, and venues to report abusive behavior tied to sports betting—whether it happens online or in person. This marks a significant escalation in how regulators are willing to police the intersection of gambling and athlete safety.
The New Exclusion Rule
Under the new policy, any individual accused of harassing athletes, coaches, or officials in connection with a wager can be placed on the state's involuntary exclusion list. This list, governed by regulation 205 CMR 152, already covers those whose presence is deemed a threat to public trust or the integrity of gaming. Now, it explicitly targets those who direct abuse at sports figures because of betting outcomes. The MGC has set up a dedicated reporting portal, allowing leagues, players’ associations, college programs, and sports venues to submit evidence of harassment directly to the regulator.
Once a report is filed, the MGC’s Investigations and Enforcement Bureau (IEB) reviews the evidence. The IEB can investigate further, dismiss the claim, or move to exclude the individual. Those placed on the exclusion list are notified by mail and have 30 days to appeal. The process is administrative, not criminal, meaning exclusion can be enforced even if no criminal charges are filed.
Industry and League Backing
The "Bet on Respect" initiative has drawn public support from a broad coalition of Massachusetts’ professional teams, including the Boston Bruins, Boston Celtics, Boston Red Sox, New England Patriots, New England Revolution, and Boston Legacy FC, as well as the NCAA. Major sportsbook operators—Bally Bet, BetMGM, Caesars Entertainment, DraftKings, FanDuel, Fanatics Betting and Gaming, Penn Entertainment, and others—have also endorsed the policy. FanDuel, for example, reiterated its zero-tolerance stance on abusive conduct and pledged ongoing cooperation with regulators and leagues.
Backing from both leagues and operators signals a rare alignment of interests: protecting athletes from targeted abuse while preserving the integrity of sports betting markets. However, the practical impact will depend on how aggressively teams and venues use the reporting portal and how rigorously the MGC investigates and enforces exclusions.
Evidence of the Problem
The MGC cited a recent NCAA study showing that 51% of Division 1 men’s basketball players reported online abuse related to their athletic performance, with nearly half of those incidents directly tied to gambling. The regulator argues that unchecked harassment not only harms athletes but also undermines public confidence in regulated sports betting. The NCAA’s findings have been described by former Louisiana Gaming Control Board chairman Ronnie Jones as “incredibly disturbing,” and he emphasized that administrative exclusion is often a more effective deterrent than criminal prosecution, since bettors fear losing access to wagering more than facing a fine.
Other states have begun to follow suit. In 2024, West Virginia and Louisiana enacted laws empowering their gaming regulators to ban sports bettors who harass or threaten athletes. The Massachusetts approach, however, is notable for its direct reporting mechanism and the explicit involvement of both professional and collegiate sports organizations.
Enforcement and Player Impact
For Massachusetts bettors, the consequences are immediate and far-reaching. Being placed on the exclusion list means losing access to all licensed casinos and sports betting platforms statewide. The process is not automatic—evidence must be reviewed, and there is a right to appeal—but the threshold for exclusion is administrative, not criminal. This lowers the bar for enforcement and could result in more frequent bans than traditional legal action.
Operators are expected to enforce the exclusion list across both retail and online channels. The MGC’s move also puts pressure on other states to clarify their own policies as athlete harassment tied to betting continues to draw national attention. The effectiveness of the initiative will ultimately depend on the willingness of leagues and venues to report abuse and the MGC’s capacity to investigate and act on those reports.
In the context of U.S. gambling regulation, an involuntary exclusion list is a formal roster of individuals barred from entering licensed casinos or betting platforms. Unlike voluntary self-exclusion, which is initiated by the player, involuntary exclusion is imposed by the regulator based on evidence of misconduct or risk to the integrity of gaming. Placement on the list is a serious administrative sanction, often with no expiration, and can be appealed but not easily reversed. For bettors, this means that abusive behavior tied to gambling can now result in a statewide ban, regardless of whether criminal charges are filed.
