BetMGM introduces athlete anti-harassment policy for its users

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/08/18: NBA union calls for bet limits to curb athlete abuse 2026/01/26: Missouri rejects NCAA push to restrict college athlete prop bets 2025/06/12: Scottie Scheffler closes Venmo account following harassment by sports bettors 2025/08/28: NCAA and Venmo partner to address harassment of athletes

The Backstory

Why this policy is surfacing now

Betting-linked harassment has shifted from a background irritant to a front-burner risk for teams, leagues and sportsbooks. In the past two years, athletes across pro and college sports have described a surge of abusive messages, payment requests and solicitations for inside information that track with the rise of live and micro betting. Operators have responded unevenly, often taking action after high-profile flare-ups. The new BetMGM terms target a specific pain point: customers weaponizing access to athletes and team personnel to vent losses or influence outcomes. By codifying suspensions for harassing or abusive language toward athletes, coaches, teams or league personnel, one of the largest U.S. sportsbooks is formalizing a disciplinary tool that had been used more informally. The move puts pressure on competitors to clarify their own rules and sets a benchmark regulators and leagues can cite as they press for tighter guardrails.

The policy also arrives as leagues consider narrowing bet types that can trigger direct fan-to-athlete conflicts, and as college sports governing bodies try to shut down the social channels that enable harassment. The market is testing where to draw lines between acceptable fan engagement and conduct that threatens integrity. Operators face the operational and brand risk of being seen as complicit if they do not act decisively when abuse is reported.

Athletes become targets beyond the arena

The human toll of betting-fueled vitriol has been visible well outside stadiums. The world’s No. 1 golfer, Scottie Scheffler, closed his Venmo account after persistent harassment by bettors who found his public username and swamped him with payment solicitations and abusive messages after losses. Scheffler’s account underscores how direct-to-athlete platforms can be exploited, turning a routine communication tool into a channel for pressure and abuse. The incident mirrors complaints from other pros, including baseball and track athletes, that harassment is not limited to anonymous social feeds but can spill into financial and private messaging apps.

Scheffler’s experience tracks with a broader trend: more wagers placed on discrete, player-specific outcomes mean more opportunities for bettors to blame individuals. In some cases, that has crossed into live, in-person confrontations and doxxing attempts. FanDuel drew attention last year for suspending a user who hurled in-person threats at an Olympic sprinter, an example of the kind of decisive action operators now cite when asked how they protect athletes. BetMGM’s new policy seeks to standardize those consequences on its platform and signal to users that account privileges are contingent on conduct, not just compliance with wagering rules.

Leagues rethink the menu of bets

The leagues are not waiting for operators to set the tone. The NBA and its players’ union have urged tighter limits on markets most likely to invite manipulation or abuse, calling for restrictions on certain player props after a run of integrity incidents. In a notable flashpoint, the NBA and its players’ association backed curbs on prop betting after Jontay Porter pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges for influencing prop outcomes by exiting games early. The league also asked partner books to remove the option to bet the under on props for players on two-way contracts, and it has supported broader limits as probes spread to other players.

The problem is not confined to basketball. Major League Baseball has wrestled with micro-betting dynamics that put athletes under a microscope pitch by pitch. Regulators in Ohio and New Jersey have already narrowed some prop and live-bet offerings, a template leagues point to when they argue that certain bet types carry disproportionate risk. The practical effect is a steady tightening around markets that directly tie fan fortunes to a single athlete’s performance, which is exactly where harassment tends to concentrate when bets go bad.

Colleges try to cut off harassment at the source

At the college level, administrators are pairing policy with platform controls. The NCAA and Venmo announced a partnership to curb abuse of college athletes, creating a hotline for reporting misconduct, expanding education on account security and ramping up monitoring during marquee events. The initiative addresses reports that some bettors solicit insider information or flood student-athletes with payment requests after losses. NCAA officials say nearly one in five instances of online abuse directed at basketball and football players is tied to sports betting, making payments apps an unexpected front in the integrity fight.

The NCAA has simultaneously pressed regulators to choke off prop bets on college athletes, arguing those markets create direct incentives to harass or coerce. The organization’s push has yielded mixed results. Four states have adopted bans on college prop bets, but others have chosen delay over prohibition, setting up a patchwork that complicates compliance for national operators and fuels calls for self-imposed, uniform standards across platforms.

Regulators split on restricting college props

Missouri’s newly legal market illustrates that divergence. Less than two months after launch, the state’s gaming commission rejected an NCAA request to ban prop bets on college athletes, saying it lacked sufficient evidence to justify a rule change and preferring to watch patterns develop. Missouri still prohibits college props for in-state teams but otherwise allows them, placing it at odds with stricter states. The stance underscores a broader regulatory debate: whether to preemptively curtail high-friction bet types because of potential harm or to wait for documented abuse tied to specific markets.

For sportsbooks, that split field raises operational complexity and reputational risk. A bet that is legal in one state but restricted in another can foster inconsistencies in customer expectations and enforcement. Operators that voluntarily narrow offerings may gain goodwill with leagues and colleges but potentially concede handle to rivals. That tradeoff is now central to strategy discussions, particularly as federal investigations into match manipulation draw headlines and spur legislative attention.

The path forward for operators, teams and tribes

BetMGM’s move sits alongside other boundary-setting efforts, from league-driven prop limits to platform partnerships that block harassment vectors. The industry’s next test is whether operators collectively adopt clearer, enforceable policies and whether those policies are transparent enough for athletes and teams to trust. Without coordination, bad actors can migrate across books and platforms, undermining deterrence.

In states still debating expansion, the tenor of the conversation has shifted toward caution. In California, tribal leaders are working to unify around a sports betting framework that reflects tribal priorities and voter wariness of mobile wagering. Their message—centered on community protection and long-term sustainability—echoes the broader integrity and safety concerns that have sharpened nationwide. While California’s path is distinct, the emphasis on respect, accountability and guardrails mirrors the pressures pushing national operators to clarify their house rules.

The stakes are clear. If harassment goes unchecked, athletes will retreat from public platforms, leagues will further restrict markets and regulators will harden rules piecemeal. By codifying penalties and touting enforcement capacity, sportsbooks can blunt reputational damage, reassure partners and shape regulation instead of reacting to it. The question now is whether policies like BetMGM’s become standard practice and, ultimately, whether they meaningfully deter abuse in the moments when emotions and money collide.