The NFL made headlines this week by announcing a partnership with the International Center for Responsible Gaming (ICRG). Their goal? Research the impact of gambling on college students and athletes. They’re also funding the development of updated educational materials aimed at preventing underage gambling.
“This initiative reflects our ongoing commitment to promoting responsible gambling and fostering a safe and supportive environment for athletes, fans, and communities,” said Anna Isaacson, the league’s senior vice president of social responsibility.
Let that statement breathe for a moment. Maybe read it twice.
Then try not to roll your eyes too hard.
This is the same NFL that inked multi-million-dollar deals with FanDuel, DraftKings, Caesars, and a slew of other betting giants. It’s the same league that hosted last year’s Super Bowl in Las Vegas and will hold the next one in a stadium named after a gaming company. Now it wants credit for being the voice of caution in a betting-obsessed culture it helped create?
Even if the NFL’s intentions are good—and supporting research into gambling addiction is undeniably important—this feels like a firefighter who moonlights as an arsonist handing out smoke detectors. You can’t fan the flames and then act shocked when someone gets burned.
When you help create the problem, you don’t get applause for trying to minimize the damage.
“There’s some hypocrisy there,” said Victor Matheson, a Holy Cross economist who studies sports and gambling. “That being said, it’s not nearly on the same level as the gambling companies themselves.”
Matheson draws a line between the NFL and its betting partners: “The NFL does not need addicted gamblers. FanDuel and DraftKings do.”
But that line is getting awfully blurry.
The NFL wants it both ways. It’s more than happy to accept massive sponsorship checks from sportsbooks and allow those brands to plaster their logos across NFL broadcasts and stadiums. It’s also content with letting betting companies use its name, games, and players to attract more users—and keep them betting more often. Yet, it acts as if it’s merely a bystander in the rise of America’s gambling culture.
There was a time when the NFL took a firm stance against gambling. Commissioner Roger Goodell used to be hyper-aware of even the appearance of impropriety. In 2003, the NFL refused to air an ad from the Las Vegas tourism board during the Super Bowl. In 2015, Goodell made Tony Romo cancel a fantasy football convention in Vegas.
But everything changed after the 2018 Supreme Court ruling that paved the way for nationwide sports betting. Now, only 11 states haven’t legalized some form of it, with 32 allowing online and mobile wagers.
When there was no money in it, the NFL had principles. Once the revenue stream opened up, those principles were put on ice.
And while the NFL is getting richer, everyday people are the ones taking the real hits.
“We’ve seen gambling companies become a little more evil,” Matheson noted, highlighting how easily accessible—and addictive—online betting has become. “It’s much more of an addictive product now.”
And the NFL? It’s right in the middle of that.
You can’t escape gambling ads during NFL games. DraftKings sponsors the NFL RedZone. Kevin Hart’s face shows up in so many betting commercials, he might as well suit up on Sundays. Caesars has naming rights to the Superdome, host of this year’s Super Bowl.
If this is what a “safe and supportive environment” looks like, it’s hard to imagine what a reckless one might be.
There’s a warning buried in all this—for the NFL and every league cashing in on sports betting.
Look to the UK, where gambling and sports have been deeply intertwined for decades. In the Premier League, betting brands dominate everything from stadium banners to jersey fronts. But mounting concerns over gambling addiction have triggered government scrutiny. Starting in 2026, EPL clubs will no longer be allowed to have betting sponsors on the front of their jerseys.
That kind of government pushback could easily cross the Atlantic.
“The NFL isn’t going to walk away from the money without an awfully good reason,” Matheson said. “But if state governments start to restrict the worst abuses of the gambling industry, I don’t think the league will fight back too hard.”
In other words, change may not come from the NFL’s conscience—but it might come when lawmakers decide enough is enough.