Cranky Panda

About Cranky Panda

As the annual US Sports Equinox nears in the coming weeks, a contingent of professional sports leagues made waves on Tuesday with the release of a groundbreaking collaboration aimed at curbing harassment of athletes from frustrated bettors.

At a time when sports betting and predictions have reached a fever pitch, the majority of the country’s most prominent sports leagues, along with their player unions, sent a memo dated 15 September to a contingent of 35 state gaming authorities. Among proposed regulatory actions, the leagues recommend mandatory lifetime bans for individuals deemed to have “abusively harassed or issued threats of violence” against any professional athlete.

The leagues, including the National Basketball Association and the National Football League, submitted the memo as Texas Senator Ted Cruz works assiduously to pass a landmark federal framework for college athletics. While the NCAA is not a signatory to Tuesday’s letter, the advisory also urges states to pass mandatory bans for individuals who threaten “amateur athletes” along with coaches, officials and team personnel.

How to play Cranky Panda

Eilers & Krejcik Gaming (EKG) estimates that bettors will plunk down $40.5 billion on the NFL this season through regulated channels. Traditional sportsbooks are projected to capture $31.7 billion of that total, compared to a handle analog of $8.4 billion for prediction markets—a 79% to 21% split in favor of legacy operators.

Handle analog is a metric used as a cleaner comparison between sportsbooks and prediction markets because the latter’s volume doesn’t compare evenly with sportsbook handle.

Based on its projections, EKG sees the overall sports wagering industry growing 8% year-over-year, outpacing the current baseline growth rate of 5% (a figure that strips out temporary boosts from the 2026 World Cup).

What is Cranky Panda?

Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”

Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.

IPI now has until this Friday to find a new lawyer to carry the six-case workload Hasselback had, but will most likely use this as an excuse to delay the ongoing legal battles. It won’t get very far with that, though, and perhaps Judge Kennedy expected IPI to try something. She added in her ruling that the attorney’s exit “may cause some delay, [but] that delay is not so much so that it would cause significant prejudice or adversely and materially affect the plaintiff.”