In January, federal authorities charged more than two dozen individuals in a sweeping college basketball betting scheme, including over a dozen former and current players accused of accepting bribes to manipulate game outcomes. The indictments, unsealed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, outlined a conspiracy that began overseas in late 2022 and spread to U.S. campuses by the 2023–24 season.

The plot, as multiple reports put it, was launched by gambling influencers Shane Hennen (“Sugar”) and Marves Fairley (“Vezino Locks”), who partnered with Antonio Blakeney, a former LSU star and NBA player then playing in China’s professional league. (American players periodically compete in China through professional contracts, exhibition tours, and NCAA-sanctioned events.) Prosecutors say they targeted games where Blakeney’s team was favored to lose, bribed him to underperform, and bet against the team covering the spread—classic point-shaving. After profiting hundreds of thousands from rigged Chinese games, the group moved stateside.

The scheme scaled up by enlisting “fixers”—trainers, recruiters, and influencers with ties to college basketball—who targeted players from mid- and low-major programs. These athletes, often with limited NIL earnings, received bribes of $10,000 to $30,000 to deliberately underperform in specific games. The operation allegedly involved more than 39 players across at least 17 Division I teams. One of those charged was Mo Arnold, a former guard at my alma mater, Southern Miss.

Prosecutors charged defendants with bribery and wire fraud, noting the scheme exploited financially vulnerable student-athletes. The conspirators, U.S. Attorney David Metcalf stated, targeted players “for whom the bribe payments would meaningfully supplement or exceed legitimate NIL opportunities.” Schools suspended implicated athletes, and the NCAA launched related integrity probes.

How this scheme came to light is not entirely clear, given the opacity of FBI investigations. What does seem clear, however, is that its exposure was aided by a legal environment created in 2018, when the Supreme Court decided Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association.

That ruling struck down the federal ban on state-authorized sports betting and shifted much of the gambling economy onto regulated platforms. Legal sportsbooks, integrity-monitoring firms, and state regulators now scrutinize wagering patterns that once would have remained buried in illegal markets, making unusual line movements and suspicious betting surges easier to detect and investigate.

For its defense of states’ rights, conservatives and libertarians alike celebrated the ruling as a triumph of federalism. The Cato Institute, for example, invoked James Madison’s view that federal powers are “few and defined,” with the rest reserved to the states and the people. Whatever Madison himself might have thought of the modern gambling economy—he recoiled from the liquor-soaked betting culture of early American politics—states’ rights carried the day. In fact, when I proposed a few years ago to write an article arguing that the Court’s ruling would fuel widespread gambling addiction and leave more Americans financially worse off, a conservative outlet I was working for at the time refused to run it, warning that the argument would alienate donors who prized local autonomy over moral concern. I should have pressed the case anyway, because what I anticipated then has since come to pass. The ruling may have provided constitutional clarity, but it has exacted a steep social price.

As of this writing, 38 states and the District of Columbia have legalized online sports betting, marking the fastest expansion of gambling in U.S. history. Recent estimates suggest that roughly 2.5 million Americans experience severe gambling problems each year, with an additional 5 to 8 million meeting one or more criteria for gambling disorder. Technology has only made the situation worse by making wagering frictionless—no more effort than scrolling a feed. The appeal lies not just in ease, but also in excess: hyper-granular sports props on everything from a quarterback’s yardage to whether the White House press secretary will utter the word “China” at a briefing.

Young men have borne the brunt of this transformation, with problem-gambling hotlines and Gamblers Anonymous meetings reporting a surge of young male participants. But nowhere is the fallout more acute than on college campuses, where youthful impulsivity, financial pressure, and academic stress create a uniquely combustible mix. A 2023 NCAA-commissioned study found that 58 percent of Americans aged 18 to 22 had bet on sports. On college campuses, participation was even higher, reaching 67 percent and occurring at greater frequency. Though many college students may see this as harmless fun, they are placing themselves at real risk of developing gambling addiction. A 2024 Lancet study, for example, found that 16.3 percent of adolescents who bet on sports developed gambling addiction. Many reported serious consequences—mounting debt, declining grades, and mental-health strain. One estimate suggests that six percent of college students now struggle with severe gambling problems, while more than one in five have used financial aid to fund bets.

Compounding the damage is the role universities themselves have chosen to play. 

Facing so-called budget pressures, many institutions have forged Faustian bargains with gambling firms. At least eight schools, including Louisiana State, Michigan State, and the University of Colorado Boulder, have signed multimillion-dollar partnerships with companies such as Caesars Sportsbook. These deals, as the New York Times reported, saturate campus life with betting promotions—stadium signage, athletic broadcasts, official websites, and even emails urging students to “place your first bet” and “earn your first bonus,” sometimes sent to those under the legal gambling age. The reach of these arrangements extends even to religiously affiliated institutions, with Texas Christian University partnering with WinStar World Casino and Resort. In other cases, these sports-betting relationships are routed through booster clubs, allowing university administrators to shield themselves from scrutiny as institutions face increasing criticism for partnering with gambling firms. As U.S. Attorney Metcalf said, the harm extends far beyond bettors themselves—“fans, honest athletes, teammates… everyone is victimized.”

By embedding gambling into campus life, colleges and universities are attempting to make easy money by leaning into people’s vices. That has nothing to do with education, and it is not the mission taxpayers expect public institutions to fulfill. Instead of sitting above these practices, universities have chosen to participate in them—normalizing routine wagering and exposing their own students to financial risk in the process. 

Universities should be ashamed of themselves. 

Follow Jared Gould on X.