In 1992, Congress passed the Bradley Act. The New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley at the time, who was a former NBA player, introduced the act. The Bradley Act is formally known as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA. PASPA was created to fight the theoretical plague of sports gambling. The law made sports gambling illegal in nearly every US state.
The Exception to PASPA and How Nevada Benefited
The one exception to PASPA? Nevada, the sole state that allowed full sports gambling. Moreover, Nevada, therefore, had a monopoly on the practice. In almost three decades since the law went into effect, Nevada saw an increase in legal betting on sports of 172 percent. That meant an increase of $1.8 billion per year to $4.9 billion, as reported by the UNLV Center for Gaming Research. 
The Supreme Court Lays down the Law
To many, PASPA seemed an artifact of the pre-Internet era. Fantasy sports somewhat normalized the idea of gambling on games for millions of Americans. Betting on horses used to seem like a quirky vice to a small sector of the population. Fantasy leagues, for example, have now become the norm in sports such as baseball and betting among friends has turned into a common practice for masses of people.
On May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court struck down PASPA in a 6-3 decision. The Justices found PASPA to be an unconstitutional violation of states’ rights. The Supreme Court’s ruling now opens doors for states to legalize sports gambling. Moreover, many states appear eager to do so. 
What the Future of Sports Betting Could Mean
So, what are some of the deliberations in terms the of pros and cons of legalized gambling? For one, as mentioned before, billions of dollars go into sports betting every year, not only in Nevada but off-shore foreign sites. When done via external websites, that’s money that’s under the table and untaxed by the United States. Places like Atlantic City, New Jersey are in dire financial situations and have double the unemployment rates than most of the country. As Dennis Drazin, who represents the Monmouth Park Race Track in New Jersey points out, criminals cashing in on illegal better are making out on the financial aspect. He claims we should figure out a legal way of going about it whereas Drazin says, “…it can be regulated; it can be taxed” in addition to providing revenues for local businesses.
The opposition to sports gambling, however, was meant to protect the integrity of the game. It was set in place to prevent match or game fixing, with bribing for example. Will fans have to worry about padded, secret handshakes affecting the outcome of games? Or will states benefit from the masses of tax revenue once each state individually passes legal betting?