Our employees work for FanDuel because they love sports. They think sports betting is additive to the fan experience. So these stories are not fun for us. But we take very seriously our role in ensuring that there’s transparency. And what’s becoming clear is that if you do this, you will get caught. The leagues have done the right thing with very low-to-zero-tolerance policies, law enforcement has taken these cases seriously, and I think as the consequences become clear, this activity will diminish—at least on regulated sportsbooks. Sorsby specifically was betting in his own name on sites available to people under 21, and using people over 21 to create accounts for him on regulated books. Those things are harder to catch, but we did unearth all of it. It’s an unfortunate story, but I hope the reaction to it makes an impression on others in his position.

Influential people like Adam Silver have raised the idea of curtailing prop bets—which, of course, are important for increasing engagement on your platform. Where do you come down on that?

In the wake of the Jontay Porter situation, we sat down with the NBA and asked what we should do together as close partners. We don’t need to take a bet on everything. Unders inform the pricing on overs, and if you were to eliminate all unders across the board, you’d probably end up with a really bad customer experience on pricing because you need both sides of the bet. 

But to retain some perspective: If you look at the total volume of proposition bets and isolate the ones that have been problematic from an integrity standpoint, you’re talking about 0.01 percent of bets. That doesn’t mean it’s not important—it absolutely has to be addressed—but you have to place it in context. If you were to get rid of all prop bets, people aren’t going to stop betting them; they’re readily available all across the illegal market. We operate our sportsbook in roughly half the states. The other half is not not betting—they’re just betting through other sources. Demand is there either way. What we’ve tried to do is work closely with the leagues and fellow operators to identify which bets and bet combinations are more vulnerable to manipulation, take a harder look at those, and continue to iterate.

You recently launched FanDuel Predicts—sort of your hedge on the prediction markets. What is your view of those prediction markets, and where do you see this migrating to as a business?

Frankly, this wasn’t an area we were exploring before others jumped in. But once the federal government made clear they’re backing the right of C.F.T.C. licensees to offer sports event contracts, we had to pay attention. It’s been a delicate situation for us to navigate because we hold gaming licenses in 25 states. That’s our primary business, and that public-private partnership with states has been genuinely beneficial. FanDuel has paid $5 billion in taxes over the course of its sportsbook and iGaming operations.

Out of deference to our primary offering, we’re not offering FanDuel Predicts in any state where we operate the sportsbook. In some sense, it’s like a launch party for FanDuel in half the country. Nobody knows how the courts will ultimately decide this. A new administration may have something to say about what the C.F.T.C. does and doesn’t authorize. We’re aware things could take a turn. In the meantime, if we’re acquiring customers and giving them a great experience, that’s to the good—and if the long-term outcome is that a significant portion of the country accesses sports wagering through C.F.T.C.-regulated event contracts, FanDuel needs to be there.

If prediction markets get fully greenlit, why would a consumer choose the regulated sportsbook?

Because for sports, it’s a much richer offering, and we think that will remain true. We’re not seeing meaningful cannibalization in states where we operate the sportsbook. There are things you can do for users in a regulated sportsbook—profit boosts, free bets, recycling of value—that are much more difficult on a prediction market exchange. We’re a sports company. The prediction markets may grow in pop culture and entertainment, but on sports, we think the regulated product wins.

On YouTube’s sports strategy: “Just a hunch here, but YouTube dialing it back on sports comes as Google’s pouring more and more into A.I. data centers. They’ll spend $190 billion on data centers this year and are projected to spend $290 billion next year. I’m guessing the sports world will discover that Big Tech has other, much more important priorities at the very time leagues thought tech would be its rights-fee sugar daddies.” —A journalist

On NBC’s golf telecasts: “You’re gonna get smoked for your NBC take. They are dreadful at majors. Just dreadful. If you talk to any golf fan, NBC is so far behind CBS on golf productions. It needs an almost total overhaul.” —A Varsity subscriber involved with the golf business

On Apple’s F1 strategy:“Apple’s strategic move of having F1 free to everyone is smart, especially for a few months to get people invested and more attached, and to have certain features and more exclusive races behind the paywall. I do think it’s probably underperforming a little, but still doing better than soccer or baseball on the service.” —A Varsity subscriber

Errata: “I assume you meant the Austrian Grand Prix that’s going in front of the Apple TV paywall rather than Australia, which was held in March.” —A streaming executive

See you all on Thursday,
John