Here's something that slipped under the radar last week, an excellent column by Tim Dahlberg of the Associated Press. Y'know, I completely forgot that the AP was still around, but I guess writers like Dahlberg are still trying to stay relevant by, well, staying relevant.

Anyway, in the above column, Dahlberg clearly outlines NFL's latest foray into hypocrisy - and this one doesn't even pass the laugh test.

The National Football League, which has very publicly adopted a self-appointed role as the scourge of all things gambling, has now licensed it's logos to appear on scratch-n-lose lottery tickets.

That's right. The NFL, which has aligned itself with anti-gambling organizations as Focus on the Family in the past, is now going to be getting a commission on the sales of NFL-licensed lottery tickets.

But without even cracking a smile, the NFL is still organizing a lobby effort to put a halt to Delaware's plans to allow betting on sports.

See. This is the type of crap that really drives me insane.

But other than Dahlberg, it doesn't seem like anybody in the mass media has noticed this completely indefensible act of hypocrisy by the NFL.

But there is one small bright spot here. As Dahlberg points out, the NFL is so blinded by greed that it doesn't seem to even realize how this latest cash-grab might ultimately dismantle its traditional argument against sports betting.

After all, how can the NFL officially endorse and profit from the form of gambling (the lottery) which traditionally has the most lopsided odds against the player, while maintaining a stance against the one form of gambling that actually manipulates the odds to mimic a 50-50 situation?

Answer: It can't. It is an impossible argument.

In fact, if ever a reporter actually asks Roger Goodell that very question, I suspect Goodell's head would immediately explode. Either that, or he would just pull a Madoff and admit that his secret has been exposed. But it's not going to happen because there isn't a sports reporter in America with the balls or the corporate backing to actually put Goodell on the spot.

Either way, what this whole situation truly reveals is the NFL's underlying motives and their intentions.

It is simple for them. They can be bought. They are all for gambling, as long as they get a piece of the action.

Maybe Barney Frank left sports betting high and dry in his recent legislation, but you can mark my words right now: Sometime in the next 10 years, sports gambling will be legalized in America.

And when it does, the NFL will only stop its opposition once it manages to get a piece of that action too.

Well, it took long enough, but it's finally here.

On Wednesday, we finally saw the introduction of some long-promised online gambling legislation... but it just wasn't the legislation we were expecting.

It was actually much, much more, and not necessarily in a good way.

For the last few months, we've been expecting and waiting for Barney Frank's bill to overturn the much-despised UIGEA, and that's what we were waiting for on Wednesday.

Instead, we were treated to two different pieces of legislation from Barney Frank, as well as a companion piece  by Rep. Jim McDermott.

So, let's go through these bills, shall we? I'll even issue my own arbitrary Pass / Fail judgement for each.

Bill: Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act
Sponsor: Barney Frank

It starts out with a few pages describing how established gambling and online gambling already are in America, and how there is a need for regulation in order to protect customers and children.

OK, good so far.

Then, after some of the usual legalese, we get to the basic outline for a licensing program for operators, which are sufficiently vague enough to probably eliminate most, if not all, current offshore operators.

This is not so good if you are a fan of the offshore companies, but to most Americans, this would probably not be a big issue.

Moving on... hmmmmm... here is a section that outlines...

"(3) COLLECTION OF CUSTOMER TAXES — Appropriate mechanisms to ensure that all taxes relating to Internet gambling from persons engaged in Internet gambling are collected at the time of any payment of any proceeds of Internet gambling."

Does that mean that our winnings will be taxed immediately? That doesn't seem right - unless they plan to issue me a tax credit for my gambling losses too.

I mean, If I lost $100 yesterday and win $50 today, then I shouldn't be taxed on today's winnings, because I'm still below zero.

If I'm reading that correctly, then that is pretty stupid.

Moving on... OK, there is some language to deal with problem gambling, but they seem to be sticking to the brick-and-mortar model, which is missing a big opportunity, in my book.

Whoa! What is this?

‘‘No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as authorizing any licensee to operate an Internet gambling facility that knowingly accepts bets or wagers on sporting events from persons located in the United States in violation of section 3702 of title 28, United States Code, except for fantasy or simulation sports games (as defined in section 5362 of this title).

What? No sports gambling? That is a chickenshit cop-out, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm starting to lose my faith here.

Wait, here is the part where they are suspending the UIGEA buy saying it "shall not apply to any Internet bet or wager occurring pursuant to a license issued by the Secretary under this subchapter."

OK, I'm not sure if this is good or bad.

I guess it's good if they are limiting the UIGEA, but if they expect it now to only be applied to selected companies, then I would think that it would only serve to make the current situation even more convoluted. That's a bad idea if your stated goal is to remove complexity.

Summary: This is a good idea gone very bad. The main benefits of regulation would be to lay a foundation for consumer protection and - yes - taxation.

However, it looks like they are choosing to stick with the horribly outdated land-based model for problem gamblers, which is completely insufficient for the online market and will not appease the anti-gambling crowd. Furthermore, this bill is confusing about it's taxation plan.

Finally, they are still maintaining the longstanding and misguided prohibition of sports gambling.

Bottom line, somebody needs to explain to me how a bill with the two established goals of protecting consumers and eliminating useless prohibition can somehow end up not really effectively protecting consumers while still maintaining a huge measure of prohibition.

Swing. Miss.

Grade: FAIL

----

Bill: Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act
Sponsor: Barney Frank

This one is short and sweet. It requests a delay in the implementation of the UIGEA regulations from December 1, 2009, to December 1, 2010.

Summary: Another cop-out, but at least a minor one. While I think the entire UIGEA should be scrapped, this is the next best thing, I guess.

Grade: PASS

----

Bill: Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2009
Sponsor: Jim McDermott

Right off the bat, this bill gets to the nitty-gritty... the tax.

It looks like Mr. McDermott is asking for two percent of all new monthly deposits, to be paid by the operator. Maybe my math is a bit hazy, but I'm not sure of the difference between a "2% tax on all new monthly deposits", and a simple 2% tax on deposits. Maybe they just want to ensure they get paid each month, rather than yearly. Either way, there it is.

Two percent.

OK, here it gets a bit interesting...

REQUIRED INFORMATION .— For purposes of subsection (a), the information described is set forth below, which information may be modified as appropriate by the Secretary through regulation —

(1) the name, address and TIN of the licensee or other person engaged in the business of accepting any bet or wager,
(2) the name, address and TIN of each person placing a bet or wager with the licensee or other person engaged in the business of accepting any bet or wager during the calendar year,
(3) the gross winnings, gross wagers, and gross losses for the calendar year of each person placing a bet or wager with the licensee or other person engaged in the business of accepting any bet or wager during the year,
(4) the net Internet gambling winnings for each such person for the calendar year,
(5) the amount of tax withheld with respect to each such person for the calendar year,
(6) beginning and end-of-year account balances for each such person for the calendar year, and
(7) amounts deposited and withdrawn by each such person during the calendar year.

So, it looks like the government is going to know exactly how much you gambled last year, as well as how much you won or lost.

Now, a lot of people won't care about that, but some people will definitely find that a bit freaky - especially if they have to list it on their tax forms in front of their spouses. And they WILL have to list it, because it looks like the operators will have to provide the names of their customers as well.

Now, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything specific about what kind of tax will be imposed on winnings.

Either way, that's about it for this legislation.

Summary: Reporting. Reporting. Reporting. The problem seems to stem from the fact that the individual states are each going to be wanting their piece of the pie. This bill is looking for a solution that will allow the state of Iowa to collect revenues when one of its residents bets online anywhere in America.

Therefore, this bill seems to be treating online gambling in the same manner as the purchase of prohibited substances.

I would say that this bill will make it as hard to make a bet online as it is to purchase a gun, but that would be wrong... it'll be much harder to make an online bet.

Another swing and miss. This bill starts with a good idea, but it goes to such extremes that the end result will be that people will end up betting "illegally" simply because it is too much of a hassle to do it online.

Grade: FAIL

There is an old saying, "Be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it."

These pieces of legislation are perfect examples of how a good idea can be corrupted by over-thinking the situation.

The problem is that there is already a working model for online gambling regulation in the UK, and none of the above bills seem to recognize this simple fact.

I also find the exclusion of sports gambling to be, well, a bit shocking in it's short-sighted stupidity.

So, that's it for now. I admit I'm a little disappointed, but I am going to have to evaluate whether these bills still might offer better options than the status quo.

I'll be back with more thoughts later.

Barney Frank is a busy guy, and he looks to get even busier.

As Chairman of the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, Frank is right in the middle of the financial crisis, so he can be forgiven for the repeated delays in his long-promised bill to overturn the much-hated and useless UIGEA.

But the delay may finally be coming to an and.

Frank was speaking today at the Reuters Global Financial Regulation Summit and when asked about his planned bill he said, "We'll be introducing it next week and I plan to move on it."

Things are about to get interesting.

With the economy in tatters and the financial industry being particularly hard-hit, it would seem to make sense to repeal a law that handcuffs financial institutions with ridiculous and unclear enforcement duties.

Furthermore, overturning this bill would please America's allies, such as the UK, who has been complaining about how the UIGEA is contradictory to WTO regulations.

So, this should be a slam-dunk, right?

Not so fast.

As far as I can tell, Frank's planned legislation sounds like a simple overturning of the UIGEA, and does not include any plans for actual regulation of the online gambling industry.

Without regulation, it will be hard for the American government to generate any revenues from opening up the online gambling market again. That lack of regulation will definitely draw some opposition.

Finally, in the last few weeks, you have been able to feel the Republicans starting to get their confidence back after their election loss, and online gambling could easily turn into an issue that they decide to sink their moral and upright teeth into.

In the aftermath of the collapse of the world economy, the general consensus - rightly or wrongly - seems to be that the blame lies with the rampant greed and lack of regulation on Wall Street. This is the kind of atmosphere that breeds a backlash of puritanism in the masses, and that could play into the hands of the Republicans in a debate like this.

In short, I think the hearings could be long and very loud, with lots of calls for a "return to American values" and a lot of bullshit like that.

Either way, I don't think it will be a slam-dunk.

Let's hope I am wrong.

No sooner did Bodog get their domain back, than Calvin Ayre reared his head up out of retirement for an interview.

About a year ago, Ayre retired from Bodog after supposedly handing over the company to the Morris Mohawk Gaming Group (MMGG) in some sort of licensing deal.

At the time, I figured it wasn't the last we had seen of Mr. Ayre, and while I was correct, I must admit that he held himself out of the news for a lot longer than I thought was possible for somebody with his ego.

But it sounds like Ayre is warming up for a comeback. In that way, he's kinda sounding like Pat Riley... when things go sour, he drops out of sight; but when things start to turn around he'll pop right back up as if he never left.

Anyway, I must admit that I got some guilty pleasure from reading the interview. It offers some delicious bits of revisionist history.

For instance, I am loving the twist that Ayre and MMGG is putting on the deal to get back the bodog.com domain... Something to do with shell companies being already out of business in 2006.

Yeah, right. And that's why it took two years to get the domain back, and when you did it was through a licensing deal.

From the outside it looks like a classic zero-sum situation. Neither side had anything to gain by holding out anymore, so they cut a deal. It's business.

 But the real gem is when Ayre gives this statement:

"It’s funny - I often hear people say that “Bodog” never left the US market following the passage of the UIGEA.  I suppose in a way that’s true, as the brand continued to thrive there, but in a deeper sense, the operation that was “Bodog” pre-2006 did, in fact, leave the US. The fact that the customer experience was seamless is only testament to the enormous efforts of the MMGG transition team as they moved everything to the MMGG offices in Kahnawake."

What?!?

I wish this interview was on video so I could see if he was smiling when he said those words. Because the words betray a shocking misunderstanding of the situation, if not an outright insult to the intelligence of the audience. Since Calvin Ayre definitely knows the situation, I can only assume he was joking.

As far as the American government, and indeed the international community is concerned, if you are accepting online gambling business from American customers, then you are in the American gambling market.

As far as I know, Bodog has never left the American market. Even now, despite the fact they are located on the Kahnawake reserve in Canada, they are still technically in the American market because they still take bets from Americans.

Now, we can all debate the merits of the American government's ridiculous argument that American laws apply to foreign companies in foreign jurisdictions, but one thing that is not is question is whether or not Bodog was or is in the American market.

They were. They are. They will be.

The only question for me now is how long it will take before Ayre gets the itch to get back into the mainstream spotlight.

I've heard semi-realistic rumors about a multi-million dollar bounty on Ayre's head in America. And the DOJ has set the bar for financial settlements with its recent deals with PartyGaming and one of its founders.

But PartyGaming actually DID exit the American market after the UIGEA was passed, something that Bodog - despite Ayre's statements otherwise - has yet to do.

Given those facts, and the fact that Ayre was undoubtably the most public figure in the American online gambling business for a number of years, it would be hard to see the DOJ cut any deal with Ayre at all that didn't include some sort of jail time... and several hundred million dollars.

So, it will probably be a while before we see Calvin Ayre back in America.

Once again, I leave the office for a few days, and therefore the industry lights up with interesting, if not overly important, news.

It looks like the bodog.com domain is once again in the possession of Bodog, er, the Morris Mohawk Gaming Group (MMGG).

Currently, it is still redirecting to their bodoglife.com domain, but I imagine that will be changing shortly.

The domain has been in dispute now for at least two years, after Bodog failed to respond to a patent lawsuit and had the domain seized as part of the default judgement in favor of the patent-trolling plaintiff, First Technology LLC.

As of yet, MMGG is not releasing how much it cost to get the domain back, but a couple of stories (here and here) describe the deal as a "domain licensing agreement", which indicates to me that MMGG still does not own or control the domain, but rather is leasing it from First Technology.

Even this seems kind of murky to me. If First Technology is an American company, then are they even allowed to license the domain to a gambling company? Either way, I don't care.

But this news is definitely good for Bodog, which has managed to stay afloat for the last year despite a flood of negative publicity and the seizure of bank accounts.

Of course, their survival depended upon some massive cost-cutting measures, as well as the timely retirement of "former" owner, Calvin Ayre, who was becoming a negative press magnet.

However, with their domain back and the tide turning against the UIGEA, it looks like Bodog may finally be off life support.