September 8, 2020

Amy Dilworth

General Counsel

Virginia Lottery Board

600 E. Main Street

Richmond, VA 23219

Re: NFL Comments on Proposed Regulations for Online Sports Betting

Dear Ms. Dilworth:

On behalf of the National Football League (“NFL”) and its member clubs, we appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the Lottery’s proposed regulations for online sports betting. We want to thank the Virginia Lottery Board for your willingness to engage with our organization to work on the future of sports betting in Virginia. As a key stakeholder and partner in the process, we appreciate your help in ensuring the integrity of our games is protected.

This letter sets forth certain suggested amendments to the proposed regulations pursuant to Virginia 2020 Session Chapters 1218 and 1256. These recommendations are intended to help further the Act’s fundamental objectives, while focusing in particular on the regulations in 11VAC5-70-190 (Use of Official League Data); 11VAC5-70-170 (Permissible Wagers); and 11VAC5-70-180 (Requests from Sports Governing Bodies), which we believe are essential to consumer protection.

Our suggestions are set forth below (in sequential order of the corresponding regulations):

1. Page 13, Definition of “Vendor” or “sports betting vendor”

• The definition of “vendor” or “sports betting vendor” appears to capture any entity under contract with a permit holder, which may be overboard. We would accordingly request the Board’s clarification as to whether the intent was indeed to require registration from every such entity (which would include, for example, TV stations that sell advertising units to permit holders, Leagues or teams that license trademarks to permit holders, and other entities that provide the permit holder non-sports betting related goods and services (e.g., office equipment, plumbing services, etc.). If not, we would suggest narrowing the definition to clarify that it applies only to those entities providing permit holders dedicated sports-betting related services.

2. Page 38, “Permissible Wagers”; Section A.

• We appreciate the Board’s recognition that bets on injuries are inherently objectionable and should be prohibited outright. Along the same lines, we would propose this category be broadened to include any wagers based on officiating calls or the conduct of officials (to further include, for example, bets on penalties or ejections), which is consistent with the approach adopted in other states (such as TN[1] and IA[2]), and we believe is also sound public policy.

3. Page 39, “Requests from Sports Governing Bodies”; Section B.1.

• We believe that if a sports governing body desires to restrict, limit, or exclude wagering on any of its events, its position in that regard should be presumed to have been made in good faith and for good cause, and therefore afforded deference. We would accordingly request that, consistent with other state sports betting laws and regulations (e.g., IN, IA and TN), a sports governing body’s request in this regard will not be denied, limited, restricted or conditioned by the Board absent good cause shown by the Board or a permit holder.

4. Page 40, “Use of Official League Data”; Section F.1.

• As drafted, the regulations appear to provide a definitive list of factors that permit holders must show, rather than merely identifying certain non-exhaustive factors that the Board may consider, which is inconsistent with the underlying legislation. We would accordingly suggest that this language be revised to clarify that intent.

5. Page 40, “Use of Official League Data”; Section F.2.

• In light of the important policy requirements behind mandating official league data, we would ask for further clarification here that no one factor listed would be dispositive in the Board’s determination, specifically by including the following provision at the end of this paragraph: “provided that no single factor on its own will be deemed evidence that official league data is being offered on terms that are not commercially reasonable.”

6. Page 40, “Use of Official League Data”; Section F.2.d

• We would request assurances here that any competitively sensitive information received by the Board will be maintained in confidence.

7. Page 40, “Use of Official League Data”; Section G.

• To help close a loophole that may allow permit holders to circumvent official data requirements for a full NFL season, we would request some assurances that the Board will endeavor to make timely determinations as to whether official league data is being offered on commercially reasonable terms. 

            Thank you again for providing us an opportunity to submit our comments. We believe the proposed regulations do a great job of addressing some of our issues and hope that you will take our suggestions into consideration to properly capture those remaining concerns. We welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss our concerns in greater detail.  Please contact Jonathan Nabavi (Jonathan.Nabavi@nfl.com) or Marvin Yates (Marvin.Yates@nfl.com) with any questions.