Former DraftKings employee charged in Fresno State betting scheme: report

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

Integrity risk moves from locker room to sportsbook desk

The Nevada case against former DraftKings employee Samuel Silverman puts a sharper focus on a concern that has shadowed the rapid expansion of legal sports betting: the vulnerability of college sports when athletes, bettors and industry insiders intersect. Prosecutors allege Silverman participated in a scheme tied to a Fresno State men’s basketball game, with wagers placed on a player’s underperformance and winnings divided among participants. Silverman has pleaded not guilty.

The allegation is notable not because of the dollar amount, which was modest by commercial sportsbook standards, but because of the cast. The case involves former college athletes and former sportsbook employees, two groups expected to understand the rules and risks around wagering. DraftKings said the alleged activity did not occur on its platform, that the employees were not involved in setting college basketball odds and that its review found no evidence confidential information was used. Even so, the case lands at a sensitive moment for operators and regulators seeking to show they can detect and deter betting manipulation before it damages public confidence.

Fresno State warnings came first

The charges followed months of scrutiny around Fresno State’s program. In February, the school’s men’s basketball team became the subject of a gambling investigation involving players accused of betting on their own games and on statistical underperformance. As reported in the earlier Fresno State betting investigation, Mykell Robinson and Jalen Weaver were accused of placing bets tied to Fresno State underperforming on points and rebounds.

That episode began inside the program. Coach Vance Walberg discovered possible gambling activity and notified the administration, prompting an internal review and NCAA involvement. Fresno State withheld players from competition while citing eligibility matters, a standard but consequential step in college athletics. The allegations mattered because NCAA rules bar athletes, coaches and staff from betting on any games, regardless of sport or division. The prohibition covers parlays, pools, props, single-game wagers and in-game bets.

The Nevada complaint now appears to connect part of that earlier turbulence to a specific wagering event. Investigators allege Robinson deliberately underperformed against Colorado State on Jan. 7, 2025, while a former DraftKings employee, Matthew Martin, placed parlay wagers at BetMGM. The suspicious activity was flagged by the sportsbook, demonstrating how monitoring systems can surface irregular bets but also how quickly a low-stakes scheme can implicate athletes, operators and regulators.

NCAA faces a widening manipulation problem

Fresno State is not an isolated warning. College basketball has become an especially acute integrity challenge because its large number of games, lower public visibility and player-level betting markets can create opportunities for manipulation. The issue intensified after a former University of New Orleans player said he intentionally missed shots as part of a betting arrangement during the 2024-25 season.

In that case, former New Orleans guard Cedquavious “Dae Dae” Hunter admitted to purposely missing shots after being approached by an unnamed Las Vegas-based bettor. The NCAA accused Hunter and two teammates of trying to affect point spreads, while other players from Arizona State and Mississippi Valley State were also accused of altering performances. Sportsbooks had flagged suspicious bets tied to a gambling syndicate targeting NCAA basketball.

The pattern is what alarms regulators. These cases show manipulation can be built around narrow performance outcomes rather than outright game-fixing. A missed rebound, a low point total or a deliberate slump may be less visible than a thrown game but can still affect betting markets. For athletes outside the highest-paid tiers of college sports, financial pressure can make such approaches more dangerous. Hunter said he felt compelled by personal financial needs, an explanation that does not excuse the conduct but underscores the vulnerability regulators and schools must address.

Operators are under pressure to police both sides

The Fresno State and New Orleans cases raise questions for sportsbook operators beyond whether a particular wager was accepted on their platform. Legal betting companies market themselves as regulated alternatives to offshore books, with surveillance, compliance teams and reporting obligations. That framework depends on operators detecting suspicious patterns and cooperating with regulators.

BetMGM’s flagging of the Fresno State parlay is part of that system. But the alleged involvement of former DraftKings employees complicates the narrative, even if DraftKings says no confidential information was involved and the wagers were not placed with it. Operators must monitor customers, protect internal systems and enforce employee conduct rules in a market where staff may have betting expertise, industry contacts or access to sensitive business processes.

The reputational stakes are similar to those seen in other sports betting controversies. FanDuel’s agreement to repay the Jacksonville Jaguars US$5 million after a former team employee stole US$22 million and used much of it to gamble showed how operators can face pressure even when the criminal conduct began elsewhere. In the Jaguars-FanDuel repayment dispute, the sportsbook’s relationship with the NFL became part of the resolution, highlighting how league partnerships can raise expectations for operators to support broader integrity and responsibility goals.

Growth has magnified the cost of failure

The integrity questions are unfolding against a backdrop of rapid sports betting growth. North Carolina’s first year of legal online wagering offers a measure of the industry’s scale. The state recorded more than US$6.6 billion in wagers after mobile betting launched in March 2024, with revenue of US$713.8 million and US$128 million in tax receipts.

That expansion, described in North Carolina’s first-year sports betting report, shows why regulators and policymakers have embraced legal wagering: it generates tax revenue, brings betting into a monitored environment and funds public programs, including problem gambling services. But the same growth means more events, markets and participants are exposed to betting incentives. College sports, with thousands of athletes and uneven compensation, are among the hardest areas to safeguard.

The business model also depends on trust. Bettors must believe markets are fair, leagues must believe competition is protected and states must believe licensees can enforce rules. A scheme involving a player and sportsbook employees, even if small, challenges those assumptions. It gives critics of expanded wagering a concrete example of how integrity risks can move through legal markets and around regulated platforms.

Nevada signals a tougher enforcement posture

Nevada’s role in the Silverman case is consistent with a broader push by the state to defend the boundaries of regulated gaming. The Nevada Gaming Control Board has said additional suspects remain under investigation in the Fresno State matter and emphasized its commitment to protecting public confidence in sports wagering.

That posture extends beyond traditional sportsbooks. In a separate case, a Carson City judge granted a preliminary injunction preventing Polymarket from operating in Nevada, after regulators argued its event-based contracts resembled gambling without a state license. As covered in Nevada’s injunction against Polymarket, the state has taken similar action against prediction market platforms, asserting that sports and event contracts cannot bypass gaming oversight by claiming a different regulatory category.

Taken together, the cases show Nevada trying to maintain a firm line around who may offer wagers, who may participate and how suspicious activity is handled. For college sports and regulated operators, the Fresno State allegations are another test of that system. The outcome will matter beyond one game, one parlay or one employee. It will help define how aggressively regulators, sportsbooks and the NCAA respond when the integrity threat comes from inside the ecosystem they are trying to protect.