id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
iiclr-25070	Farrell, Sean M.	Cashing in on Murphy v. NCAA: Looking to the United Kingdom and Australia for Solutions to Regulating Sports Betting in America	2021	31	.pdf	application/pdf	14798	721	62	New Jersey’s Success and PASPA’s Fall New Jersey responded to the Third Circuit Court’s suggestion that nothing in PASPA required states to keep sports betting laws in place by passing a law to “[r]epeal the provisions of state law prohibiting sports gambling insofar as they concerned the ‘placement and acceptance of wagers’ on sporting events. The biggest obstacle to merely adopting the United Kingdom’s approach is the difference in government structures.171 The United Kingdom only has one level of government, while the United States has two.172 The United States would first need to repeal laws that conflict with the new framework, pass legislation at the federal level, and then ensure it is carried out at the state level.173 Because there is still significant disagreement over whether sports betting should be legalized in the United States, it is unrealistic to believe Congress will pass an entirely new regulatory scheme for sports betting, especially at a time when Congress is extremely divided.174 Additionally, as demonstrated by the Supreme Court’s Decision in Murphy, sports betting laws passed at the federal level must be carefully crafted to avoid constitutional issues.175 Any United States law modeled after the Gambling Act would need to account for this distribution of power, which makes adopting the United Kingdom’s approach that much more difficult.176 The other issue with the United Kingdom’s framework is that it goes against the traditional approach to regulating sports betting, leaving the task to the states.177 Since sports betting has traditionally been regulated at the state level, it makes sense for federal legislators to work within this pre-existing framework.178 169.	cache/iiclr-25070.pdf	txt/iiclr-25070.txt