College athletes increasingly find themselves on the receiving end of vicious online attacks fueled by sports betting losses, prompting bipartisan calls for federal intervention. Lawmakers are exploring a national registry of banned bettors and new legal avenues for athletes to sue their harassers, according to policy experts and legislative drafts.
The problem has escalated as more states legalize wagering on individual player statistics, known as prop bets. Florida State forward Cam Corhen, after a subpar game due to injury, returned to his phone to find messages including one wishing his mother's death. North Carolina forward Armando Bacot received over a hundred messages criticizing his rebounding performance just 12 days after his state permitted player prop bets on college sports.
A recent survey indicates that one in three high-profile college athletes receives abusive messages from individuals with a betting interest. These athletes juggle rigorous training schedules, academic demands, and, thanks to name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals, a constant online presence. That public profile makes them vulnerable to targeted harassment, forcing a painful trade-off between visibility and safety.
Advocates argue that existing measures are insufficient. The NCAA's awareness campaign, "Don't Be a Loser," has been criticized as toothless. State-level responses vary wildly: some ban prop bets, others maintain their own banned bettor lists, and a few prohibit all sports betting. This patchwork leaves athletes unprotected across state lines.
To close these gaps, a federal standard is being proposed. One model is a New York Senate bill that would criminalize online conduct causing substantial emotional distress or fear for safety, and would automatically bar convicted harassers from placing bets. A federal version would ensure consistent enforcement nationwide.
Beyond criminal penalties, the legislation would allow athletes to file civil suits for monetary damages. Because much of the abuse stems from financial frustration over lost wagers, attaching a financial penalty directly targets the root cause. Critics may raise First Amendment concerns, but supporters stress the proposal is narrowly tailored to true threats and repeated harassment, which the Supreme Court has long excluded from protected speech.
A federal approach would also standardize accountability, creating a baseline of protection regardless of where an athlete competes or where the harasser resides. This would replace the current inconsistent system that relies on state-by-state rules and voluntary cooperation from platforms.
As lawmakers push a broader college sports overhaul, this harassment issue is gaining traction. Some even advocate banning prop bets entirely, but that faces fierce opposition from the gambling lobby and would take longer to implement. The federal legislative route is seen as more expedient.
College athletes accept pressure when they step onto the field. They should not have to accept abuse when they step off it. Moving forward requires more than awareness; it requires accountability. Most importantly, it requires a commitment to protecting the well-being of the athletes who make college sports possible.
