Did two rookie first rounders just violate the NFL gambling rules?

[OldSchool]

its a bet based on performance

I think its dumb though... should always be able to bet on yourself to win or do well.

Which isn't listed in what the players can't bet on.

 

[OldSchool]

It is a bet on the “performance of individual participants,” which is not allowed and, as I said, the bet would play out after they sign their deals (the rule is not limited to gambling at the facility if a bet involves the NFL).

I’m not suggesting that it was nefarious or likely to be harmful, but zero tolerance means ZERO tolerance.

its a bet based on performance

I think its dumb though... should always be able to bet on yourself to win or do well.

Which performance did they bet on? This isn't the first time bets like this have been made and it has been determined to be fine. IIRC Baker Mayfield had to pay off Barkley on a similar bet and there was no action by the NFL.

 

[AvengerRam]

Which isn't listed in what the players can't bet on.

Yes, it is. I quoted the relevant portion of the rule before.

 

[OldSchool]

Yes, it is. I quoted the relevant portion of the rule before.

Read my last replay, that's talking about prop bets like a player is going to score 3 touchdowns. I read the article I posted and others and they all say the same thing. Also as I said before you replied this isn't the first time rookies have bet on this. Also two college teammates bet on a future bet before they're even in the NFL or have declared for the NFL draft the NFL can't and shouldn't suspend them for that.

 

[AvengerRam]

Which performance did they bet on? This isn't the first time bets like this have been made and it has been determined to be fine. IIRC Baker Mayfield had to pay off Barkley on a similar bet and there was no action by the NFL.

I don’t recall that, and the rule may have changed since then.

The reaction to this is interesting. Nobody is questioning the players’ intentions or integrity. It’s a question of following a strict rule that preserves the games’ integrity.

 

[AvengerRam]

Read my last replay, that's talking about prop bets like a player is going to score 3 touchdowns. I read the article I posted and others and they all say the same thing. Also as I said before you replied this isn't the first time rookies have bet on this. Also two college teammates bet on a future bet before they're even in the NFL or have declared for the NFL draft the NFL can't and shouldn't suspend them for that.

Who said anything about suspending them?

The subject of the bet clearly falls within the rule, though, which includes the catch-all of “any kind of proposition bet.”

Their bet is a prop bet:

2025-26 NFL Rookie of the Year Odds

2025-26 NFL Rookie of the Year betting odds, contenders, history and wagering information provided by VegasInsider.com.

www.vegasinsider.com

 

[OldSchool]

Who said anything about suspending them?

The subject of the bet clearly falls within the rule, though, which includes the catch-all of “any kind of proposition bet.”

Their bet is a prop bet:

2025-26 NFL Rookie of the Year Odds

2025-26 NFL Rookie of the Year betting odds, contenders, history and wagering information provided by VegasInsider.com.

www.vegasinsider.com

So you think they violated the rule on gambling which calls for suspending players but you don't think they'll get suspended? Ok I guess we're done here.

I don’t recall that, and the rule may have changed since then.

The reaction to this is interesting. Nobody is questioning the players’ intentions or integrity. It’s a question of following a strict rule that preserves the games’ integrity.

The NFL hasn't allowed gambling for a very long time.

Detroit Lions great Alex Karras was suspended for gambling 60 years ago

News of four Detroit Lions suspended by the NFL for violating the league's policy on gambling reminds us of a similar circumstance in 1963.

www.freep.com

 

[AvengerRam]

So you think they violated the rule on gambling which calls for suspending players but you don't think they'll get suspended? Ok I guess we're done here.

The NFL hasn't allowed gambling for a very long time.

Detroit Lions great Alex Karras was suspended for gambling 60 years ago

News of four Detroit Lions suspended by the NFL for violating the league's policy on gambling reminds us of a similar circumstance in 1963.

www.freep.com

Suspensions are not mandatory. Penalties are determined on a case-by-case basis. Here, the players in question are not yet signed, so I’d expect that they’ll just get a warning.

And, of course, gambling rules have always existed, but they are amended, as recently occurred.

 

[Londoner]

Three things:

a) It’s a private bet between two individuals
b) These individuals were not in the NFL at the time the bet was struck
c) The bet requires the participants to be BETTER so there is no question of the integrity of the game being threatened

The rule needs to be revised, by the way.

 

[AvengerRam]

Three things:

a) It’s a private bet between two individuals
b) These individuals were not in the NFL at the time the bet was struck
c) The bet requires the participants to be BETTER so there is no question of the integrity of the game being threatened

The rule needs to be revised, by the way.

a) Does not matter - still contrary to the rules.
b) Relevant, but not necessarily dispositive, as previously noted.
C) Does not matter - still contrary to the rules.

 

[Londoner]

a) Does not matter - still contrary to the rules.
b) Relevant, but not necessarily dispositive, as previously noted.
C) Does not matter - still contrary to the rules.

As I said, the rules need to be changed.

How does a bet which forces players to be better bring the game’s integrity into question?

Surely the league wants its stars to push themselves to improve their performance?

 

[AvengerRam]

As I said, the rules need to be changed.

How does a bet which forces players to be better bring the game’s integrity into question?

Surely the league wants its stars to push themselves to improve their performance?

By that logic, they might also allow PEDs.

I’m fine with zero tolerance.

 

[Londoner]

I’m fine with zero tolerance.

As am I… for rules which make sense.

 

[RhodyRams]

give em a slap on the wrist, burn the tapes and move on

 

[ScotsRam]

There's a difference between sanctioned gambling through a legal company, illegal betting through a 3rd party bookie and this, which appears to be a bet between friends. 1 and 2 are what the gambling rules are designed to stop.

Nothing to see here.

 

[AvengerRam]

There's a difference between sanctioned gambling through a legal company, illegal betting through a 3rd party bookie and this, which appears to be a bet between friends. 1 and 2 are what the gambling rules are designed to stop.

Nothing to see here.

Wrong. Read the rule. Prohibits bets (involving NFL) made “directly or through a third party.”

 

[Alaskan Ram]

There's a difference between sanctioned gambling through a legal company, illegal betting through a 3rd party bookie and this, which appears to be a bet between friends. 1 and 2 are what the gambling rules are designed to stop.

Nothing to see here.

I agree. Seems the "spirit" of the law is to restrict participation in organized gambling in order to preserve the integrity of the game.

The letter of the law would require a suspension for any mic'd up player caught saying in the middle of a game:

"I bet Yo momma's armpits are so hairy, it looks like she's got Buckwheat in a headlock".

Sanction:
"Prop bet... Number 45 on the defense. 3 game suspension. And may GODell have mercy your soul."

Go Rams.

 

[AvengerRam]

I agree. Seems the "spirit" of the law is to restrict participation in organized gambling in order to preserve the integrity of the game.

The letter of the law would require a suspension for any mic'd up player caught saying in the middle of a game:

"I bet Yo momma's armpits are so hairy, it looks like she's got Buckwheat in a headlock".

Sanction:
"Prop bet... Number 45 on the defense. 3 game suspension. And may GODell have mercy your soul."

Go Rams.

The “spirit” of the law is why nobody thinks a severe penalty is warranted. The zero tolerance concept, though, requires that they be told this type of bet is not allowed.

 

[ScotsRam]

Wrong. Read the rule. Prohibits bets (involving NFL) made “directly or through a third party.”

With respect, I think it's you who is reading the rule wrongly. "Directly" means player phoning bookie himself or putting an online bet on by himself with his own account. "Third party" means someone else doing it on the players behalf.

Bets between friends are by definition unsanctioned. It would be absolutely impossible to police those and they aren't explicitly banned in any of the rules you've shared.

Still nothing to see here.

 

[AvengerRam]

With respect, I think it's you who is reading the rule wrongly. "Directly" means player phoning bookie himself or putting an online bet on by himself with his own account. "Third party" means someone else doing it on the players behalf.

Bets between friends are by definition unsanctioned. It would be absolutely impossible to police those and they aren't explicitly banned in any of the rules you've shared.

Still nothing to see here.

Wrong. Directly means without the involvement of a third party. That’s what this was - a bet made directly between two bettors.

By your definition, any two players could make a bet with each other on any NFL outcome or proposition with impunity. That is clearly not allowed.