 extraordinarily busy schedule. Should I wait? I'm sorry. Just one minute. I don't think we're live. Are we live now? We have just gone live. So we're good. Just one moment. Mr. I'm going to start the meeting. This is a meeting of the Massachusetts gaming commission. And because we hold this virtually, you have to do a vocal. Commissioner O'Brien. Good afternoon. I'm here. Commissioner Hill. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm here. Mr. Skinner. Good afternoon. Good afternoon and commissioner Maynard. Good afternoon. I'm here. Excellent. Thank you so much. And we're calling today at a special public meeting. It's Monday, January 23rd. And we have a round table. We have a round table discussion today. And I just want to give a few setting of the state remarks. So over the past few weeks and months, the Massachusetts gaming commission has been working diligently to implement the change to the charge in Massachusetts general laws chapter 23 and to stand up a new industry to the commonwealth by licensing and regulating legalized sports wagering. We spent a great deal of time meeting in public and revealing applications from prospective sports wagering operators and inquiring how they would bring their business and expertise to this new industry in Massachusetts. We augmented those conversations with a number of roundtables, specifically roundtables to hear from stakeholders involved in responsible gaming and advertising. Today we are thrilled to be joined by representatives from the players association. A collective representing the individual associations representing players in the NFL, NHL, NBA and NLB. Sports wagering to be successful. All of the commissioners agree is essential that the games and events being wagered on maintain their integrity. And that those taking the contest are able to participate in a line of work without added pressure from this new market. We are pleased to hear today from a group of individuals that represents a wide array of professional athletes who will soon have their games and performance wagered on. Consistent with our commitment to transparency, the Massachusetts gaming commission is always interested in a productive dialogue with all stakeholders and those with important insights that will inform our work. We all know that this conversation will be helpful. Myself, my fellow commissioners, and I encourage those with additional input to reach out to our MGC comments, email. And with that, I'd like to now turn over to turn to our sports wagering roundtable discussion. And I think I'll have James Eisenberg and Chris Erickson from Prety Strategies take the lead. Good afternoon gentlemen. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Pleasure, thank you. And apologize for jumping the gun earlier. Commissioners, thank you again for your time. We very much appreciate. So I'm Jim Eisenberg, Chris Erickson from Prety Strategies. We're based here in Boston and we represent the players association. And just to sort of throw a couple of opening comments out there. We worked with the players associations while the bill was making its way through the legislation. And the folks up on Beacon Hill were very interested in this, in the issues that we brought up specifically around player safety, biometric data and a number of other issues that you're going to hear about today. And as you know, there are provisions in the statute that reflect that. However, there were some issues that we spoke to the legislative leaders about where they, the feedback from the board, was that it was more appropriate to address them in a regulatory setting. And that is why we are here today. We feel that there are a few, a few areas that the statute allows for your, your involvement, your insight and certainly enforcement. And hopefully we'd like to have a product dialogue with you today about those answer questions. Regarding what the, the players associations are seeing across the different states that are implementing. Sports wagering and how we can, we can make improvements to, to how it goes here in Massachusetts. You just mentioned, Madam chair, that with sports wagering, there does come an increase risk and difference in the way things happen. And we are, we're very grateful for the opportunity to, to be here today. So I think with that, do you have anything to. Okay. So I think with that. And with your permission, Madam chair, I'd like to throw it to, to the, to the players associations representatives just to quickly introduce themselves. Maybe start with Steve. I'm Steve fear. I am council for the national hockey league players association, the NHLPA. And I've represented them on a, a wide variety of matters for more than 10 years. And Matt Nussbaum. After that, I'd like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to present myself. I'm David Foster. Good afternoon. It's great to be with everybody on the zoom here today. My name is Matt Nussbaum. I am the general council at the major League baseball. Players association. Where I have served as an in house attorney for. Well, a little over 11 years. And before that, I actually worked at the NHLPA, where Steve is now. Thank you for having us. David. Sure. Good afternoon everyone. in the Deputy General Counsel of the National Basketball Players Association. Pleasure to meet everyone. And what do we do? Yeah, why don't we go with Ned? Good afternoon. My name is Ned Ehrlich. I am the Associate General Counsel at the NFL Players Association and have been in that capacity for 11 years previous to that was outside council for the NFLPA in multiple matters. And Madam Chair, I just thought and commissioners just like to note that Major League Soccer is also a member of our coalition, although they weren't able to join us today. Thank you. So, welcome everyone. And I think that the way we've done this in the past is to really allow it to be an iterative and organic discussion among our participants. And you did provide a very helpful letter to us. I wanted to point out that you submitted it on the same day that we were at the State House hearing from the online sports on wagering potential, sports wagering applicants and licensees. And so we want to note that that was in September. And this was a very critical conversation for us to have. But once we got going on our calendar, it was a little bit tough to coordinate a date. So here we are now on January 23rd. So we thank you for your patience, but your issues have come up occasionally in our meetings. I know that there'll be some follow up questions for you today that even as recently as last week, thought of you and thought of this conversation to inform our regulation. So we thank you for that. For that matter. And I think we'll just turn to the two general topics that you raised and then allow for other issues to percolate as they come up. And we're working virtually. So folks can lean in, raise their hand. But in many ways, we wanted to feel like around table if we could have it in person, it would be very conversational in nature. So turning to regulations protecting athletes, the athletes and their families, we would love to hear more about that. And is there somebody who would like to take the lead on that? I think I think Ned for NFLPA is going to take that. And I'd like to just add a general advisory to this. When we submitted these language and regulation, the language for the regulation proposal, I want to make clear that we are not, we're not wed to any of this language as is. We are willing to work with the commission and take your advice as long as it meets the same ends. So I just wanted to make that clear that this is not a, we're very happy to work with you towards whatever language would meet that. And that goes across the board here on all these conversations we're going to have. But with that, I'd ask Ned to kick it off. And I'm sure others will want to chime in as well. Thanks, yeah. I'm the newest guy on the block. So it's ironic that I go first. But the protection of the players and their families, umpires, referees, club officials, other personnel is a paramount concern to us. The likelihood of an adverse incident arising from sports wagering and involving these individuals is going to continue to increase as gambling becomes more prevalent. We hope that you'll take into consideration the safety not only during the games and in restricted areas like parking lots at team events or where the athletes are training, but also where they live their lives in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts outside of their work environment. There's obviously a broad spectrum of potential misconduct, including physical threats, attempted assault, verbal threats, intimidation, harassment. And our members know that they're going to be targeted by potential losing sports better than importantly, obviously their family members as well. There have been incidents already of involving not only players, but in other areas. And there have been some rather public incidents involving unruly fan behavior at events. And there was one at the Boston Garden. There was one on November, I'm sorry, September 8th, where a fan threw a flare on the field at SoFi Stadium during a Bill's Rams game a month later on October 3rd in a game between the Rams and 49ers. Another flare with a fan incident occurred, although unfortunately this time the fan was actually on the field and close enough to the players that one of our players was compelled to stop the fan. There are obviously multiple instances and incidents of things being thrown at our members long before gambling, beer being dumped on opposing players. In fact, there was a rather public one at Foxborough in 2018 with Tyreek Hill when he was playing for the Chiefs. There's a very public incident at the 22 World Series where a fan was out on the field. So our associations are certainly calling on you to outline exactly what safety measures and what the safety measures should look like with the aforementioned incidents in mind and that fans need to be made aware of what constitute a breach in this conduct and what the penalties will be for fans who violate this through some sort of a notice similar to that which already exists through impaired driving and distracted driving campaigns. Other states have considered this an act of definitions and protections in their sports wagering laws, Virginia, Illinois, among others. And the players are hopeful that Massachusetts legislature will recognize the importance of protecting our members through the definitions in the sports wagering legislation. We would hope that there will be language that would incentivize the leagues, the teams, and the sporting arenas to ensure that our members and their families are protected. And that's obviously of paramount importance to us. If I could piggyback and add a little to what Ned said, I think, well, to back up, we've been doing this with a number of state legislatures throughout the country, some places we've had a fair amount of success, some places we haven't. But it is of great concern to us. And I think there is a particular reason why you ought to give serious consideration to what we're asking for. And that is because this industry, the sports betting industry, is built on the backs of the players. Quite literally, the revenue is generated entirely by the performance of the players. And yet we are not here today with our handout asking for money. All we are asking for today in this process is that you consider some things that will make things safer and make sports betting better and more fair. Our requests are pretty straightforward and set forth in the letter on September 22 as you have in front of you. Yes, just one more thing I'd like to add just to piggyback on what Ned said earlier. I know oftentimes when myself, my colleagues in the past have addressed some of these concerns across the country, that there's always a thought that the leagues or the teams are best suited to handle some of these issues, for example, when it comes to safety. And I think we're in a unique position to explain that oftentimes they actually are not and need a gentle or forceful nudge from government bodies. Because as you can imagine, in the arena situations where you have a fan throwing something on a player or fans are heckling the family members of players because people figure out where the family sit. And when you have more betting, you have increased tension, increased anxiety, increased anger. Oftentimes, the teams in the leagues, they struggle a little bit when it comes to enforcing discipline on fans because fans are the ones that are driving the revenue. And oftentimes, there's a relationship between the fans who've been sitting in the same seats for years and the security guards that have been working in that section for years. And so you can imagine there's a certain level of comfort. And then as a result, sometimes there's a sacrifice when it comes to the personal safety of those fans and the players. So I just want to add that unique perspective to that issue, particularly when it comes to player discipline, fan discipline and conduct in the arenas. And also as Ned intimated earlier, the concerns we have were there are there merely because of the fans' interest and passion in who wins the game. When you add to it now, they may have bet on certain aspects of the game, and the performance of a certain player may excite or disappoint the fans. The concern is even more heightened. I could just add one quick note to that. These concerns are very much real and not theoretical. We encountered a situation in 2019 where a what I'll call professional sports better, a high volume sports better located in California who had placed wagers on a baseball game involving the Tampa Rays and Chicago White Sox. Things must not have gone well because he made death threats to four players on the Tampa Rays, a player on the Chicago White Sox. He ended up being arrested and pled guilty to a number of charges in 2021. And so some of this began as theoretical, but we're already seeing these safety concerns both in the ballpark and away from the ballpark and in things like social media are indeed very real. I'm sure as I want you to interject if you'd like with any questions, Mr. Eisenberger, are you leaning in? No, no, please. We're happy to answer any questions here. Madam Chair? Commissioner Hill? Yes. So as I understand the discussion and the language through the letter that was sent to us, you would like us to ensure that in our regulations that there is language that should there be a threat to the player, should there be a threat to the family member, that that better would no longer be allowed to bet on sports in Massachusetts. That an accurate statement? Well, Commissioner, I think it's that's not explicitly stated, but that's certainly something that we would be interested in forcing. I think in addition to that would be, as I understand both the statute and the regulations that you've been promulgating so far, your sort of ultimate enforcement mechanism is to exclude an event, a sporting event from betting. And so we think it's important that it be made clear that that threat, for lack of a better word, exists in extreme cases where the commission determines it's just not safe for the players to be playing because of threats, intimidation and the like that are related to sports wager. You know, again, as Chris said earlier, we're not wedded to the specific language we've submitted, but I do believe that's the intent. And I think if we want to put a more positive light on it, we were trying to drive incentivizing the leagues and the teams and the arenas to provide no question security for the players and their families. And only after a series of, you know, incidents that have been, you know, investigated and proven to be lack of security, that is when, you know, potentially you could use regulations to, you know, potentially not allow, you know, betting at that facility until they, until they, you know, get back on track and do it a better way. But excluding the better is also, I think, something that you guys will be looking at in separate issues and separate regulations, but we're very much would support that as well. Anyone that's, you know, threatens and has proven to threaten, you know, professional athlete or their family. And again, we keep hammering that home because it's hard to remember, but a lot of these family members are sitting in these arenas and stadiums watching and people know who they are now because of social media. And that just puts a heavier risk burden on them. So we really want the teams, leagues and arenas to step up their enforcement because these incidences are going to escalate. And Madam Chair, if I could direct a question to Med. I think you, I think you brought up two other jurisdictions who had definitions language that was adopted. I heard that Virginia, I didn't hear the first one. I think Illinois is the other one. And do you folks, could you forward, well, we certainly can call them as well. But to see that language would be very helpful to us. If you could get us that way. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you. Thank you for clarification. So just a clarification for me when you say in proposed language that there's commission determines that there's reports of violence threats or other acts of intimidation on players, coaches, officials or their families to be credible or other prohibited conduct. And then you give us that definition. Said determination shall constitute sufficient cause for exclusion of a sporting event. You mean, because are you, are you assuming that there's sufficient noise chatter, you know, the idea of threats being made in advance of the sporting event that that event itself, let's say it's a Super Bowl gets pulled? Or are you talking about events, meaning all NHL, hockey games for a while until things settle down? I guess I'd like to understand what event means from your perspective. Well, I think the place that the if the general councils on on the line from the place association want to flush this out. But yes, I think it's all of the above. We think it's we think this is going to be a very hope this would be a very rare occurrence. But the ability, we believe based on the statute that the commission has the ability to exclude a specific event from sports wagering under certain circumstances. And we just want to make it explicit in the regulations that that includes threats, say threats against the safety of players, families and staff and coaches and referees. Obviously, none of us wanted to get to that point. When we do say events, we do mean any and all sporting events that would be sanctioned for the purposes of placing a sports sports wager. Mr. Questions. I have a question, Madam Chair. Okay, Commissioner Skinner, then Commissioner Brian. Thank you. And I'm happy to defer to Commissioner Brian. Chris is going to go right ahead. I think you're going to go after you. That's fine. Okay. So taking the action that you are suggesting or that you have suggested in your letter, obviously impacts folks beyond the bad actors. And the examples you gave, unruly behavior, intimidating players and the like. How do you justify that? Because if the commission decided to exclude an entire event, entire sports from participants, residents of Massachusetts being allowed to wager, that's the entirety of Massachusetts. And so just looking for your justification there. And if you could speak a little bit more about why you think it's this commission that's in the best position to sort of manage incidents that occur in the arenas. Sure. I think that I, again, I go back to the possibility of doing it as having a very strong effect on the overall market rather than actually executing something like this. But we would see this as a very extreme example where there were imminent threats that for whatever reason, law enforcement was very concerned about. Other regulatory agencies were very concerned about. And sports wagering was playing a major part in that. As I understand it, your main mechanism of enforcement is the licensing of specific events and vendors for the purposes of sports wagering. So this we're trying to utilize that power that you have to effectuate better relations between the leagues, the teams and the arenas, and also other law enforcement agencies to make sure that there's adequate communication of potential threats and that they're dealt with correctly. Again, I'll defer to the councils online from the various associations, but we are hopeful that it would be a very rare event. And in fact, most of the enforcement would be on an individualized basis, as Commissioner Hill suggested, that threats from a specific better might be addressed individually more often than not. So it looks like Mr. Foster has a... Sure. I just want to chime in. And I just want to agree that I think the first mechanism probably would be addressing the individual better and whatever his or her actions were. But I think it's important that this body does have the ultimate ability that if things have gotten so out of hand, and there's enough evidence to suggest a major unfortunate event might occur, that you have the ability to prevent betting from occurring. I think once again, there would have to be a lot of information and a serious threat, but I do think that this body should have the authority. And quite frankly, I can't think of a body that's better positioned because you would... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that one of your missions is to protect the safety of your residents and the functioning of the business overall. I think ourselves and the leagues, we wouldn't be in the best position, right? We would be focused on our players. The league might be focused on the game and the difficulty if they wanted to reschedule or this or that. And I think you guys do have a pretty much a clear mission. I do want to emphasize I do think it would be rare, but I can certainly see situations where individual bettors are not allowed to bet. I can quite honestly see that happening pretty quickly because some people get out of control and then maybe it expands to that. I don't know if people bet in groups or memberships or whatever, but I just think the overall ability to regulate how the betting is occurring and who gets the bet should definitely be in your purview. Thank you. And just to clarify, my question leaned more toward the suggestion that entire categories of sports be excluded from wagering. And so I appreciate your response. Thank you. Michelle Bryan? Sure. So just going back to your letter in September, looking again at what you brought forward to us, you at the bottom of the first page, you talk about the fact that a number of the things that you asked for from the legislature were in fact included in the statute. And then you have some bulleted points and then you sort of move on to other areas where they maybe clearly said go ask the commission and their regulatory authority. I guess I have a follow-up. The third bullet in says prohibition of in-game bets and demeaning bets. And the statute does eliminate and prohibit certain things like betting on if someone is going to get injured, that sort of thing. I'm just curious if there was something beyond what was in the statute that you had been hoping to get in terms of in-game betting beyond what is specifically laid out in the statute. The position we took on that before any of the general councils went away in, what we had two mechanisms. One was a specific bet, prohibitive bets of demeaning injuries and other things. But the second thing that we were able to get in the legislation is specifically for this group, the players association representatives to be able to petition the MGC as is warranted potentially in the future of other kinds of bets. So to my understanding right now, I don't think we have any of those to petition you, but we did fight very hard to make sure originally it was only going to be the leagues that had that ability, but now the players associations have that ability to come back to you to be able to have a discussion with you about potentially prohibiting other kinds of bets. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, any of our general councils, but I don't believe we have any of those currently to bring before you. I think that's right, but I think that provision, the right to petition is very important for the simple fact that, hey, it's a brand new world out there. It's going to be widespread and easy access to sports betting all over the country, whereas it was very, very limited just a couple of short years ago. I don't think any of us are smart enough to envision any of the problems or situations that are going to arise. So nothing today that you would want to get in front of us beyond what's in the statute, but just reminding us that you may in the future. Correct. Yes. And then the language in Virginia and Illinois statute, is that language proposed by the Players Association? So from Jim and Ari's perspective, we did look at some of the other different legislation that was passing out throughout the country when we were going through this, and we did pull different pieces together from that. I think the prohibited conduct language that's at the bottom of page two of our letter is from the, I believe that's from the Illinois statute, just that put a finer point on actually defining what that prohibited conduct is. And that, I believe, came directly out of there. But to Commissioner Hill's point, Jim and I will take the assignment of getting you exactly what each of those language provisions were in Illinois and Virginia. So that's, so that's very clear. We will get that to you this week. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for everyone who's participating in this. These have been extremely helpful. So I understand the point about the events at large, but I wanted to kind of drill down on the individuals who could be causing trouble for the players, the families, the referees. We do have a provision 205CMR 152 on the gaming side that allows us to exclude individuals from participating in gaming. And I'm not sure if the regs come before us or not, or if it's coming before us or not. But if we have a robust regulation dealing with excluded individuals, both at the brick and mortar locations in the category one, but also, I imagine more importantly, in a category three situation, where someone could actually be sitting in the actual arena or venue with their gaming device in their hand, I'm assuming that would go a long way for the Players Association, correct? Having an ability for the Commission to exclude some of these individuals and do so in a pretty quick manner. So yeah, so Commissioner, I think that's absolutely right. I think that will go a long way. The language that we propose, I think deals with another scenario that we are concerned about, which is potential and we have no evidence that this is occurring at the present time. But in the future, there may be a potential breakdown of communication between the leagues, the team, and specific arenas around Massachusetts, boarding event locations, where physical safety has become in danger of becoming a problem. And we see this as a defining one potential enforcement mechanism that the Commission could have, but really also about keeping everyone on their toes and in communication and where that this is an issue that the Commission takes very seriously. So again, I'd reiterate the chances of you having, I would hope, the chances of you having to shut down a basketball game at the garden are very small. However, there needs to be an ongoing dialogue between the teams, Players Associations, and the event arena owners in order to ensure player safety as sports wagering, mobile sports wagering especially spins off. I think, Mr. Nosbom, you are leading in, maybe? I was, thank you very much. The one thing I wanted to add to that is just a short yes, the answer is yes, Commissioner Maynard. If I could, and if my colleagues could go in front of our players and say that there is a way through the regulations in Massachusetts and hopefully in other states that if you're being threatened, if your family members are being threatened, if that's in the ballpark, if it's in the arena, if it's on social media, we can get them disqualified from being able to bet. I think that that is going to encourage players to come forward. We, under our collective bargaining agreement, have a hotline for players and their families to bring their concerns to us because there are things that we can do. The answer to your question, I think, is it would go a tremendous way toward getting where we need to be if we could target it toward the individual betters and their eligibility to bet. Thank you. Madam Chair, I would ask for our legal team if we're going to have something like this in front of us, or if it's coming, or if we have the authority to do this, because I think that what I'm hearing is we need a robust mechanism for exclusion. Council Grossman, the Commissioner Maynard referenced we have, is there a possibility of enhancement here in light of the discussion? I think we'll have to take a close look at that. Certainly, Chapter 23N has provisions that talk about voluntary self-exclusion. I'd have to look at it a little bit more closely to see whether it addresses involuntary exclusion, like Chapter 23K does. Offhand, I'm not aware of any such language, but it may certainly exist. Then the question would become if it does not exist, whether the Commission has authority to adopt such language in the regulations. But I think we're certainly aware of this issue now, and perhaps we have been, but we will take a close look at that. Thank you. Okay. Madam Chair, another question, please. Yes. This one I think is for Mr. Erickson and Mr. Eisenberg. I understand you've spent a lot of time here in Massachusetts before the legislature, as the bill was being contemplated and negotiated, wondering if, and I'm just curious, you've had the opportunity to reach out directly to the sports wagering operators, either the ones who have recently been granted a temporary license or in any other jurisdiction, to make your concerns known and to try to understand what their processes might be relative to a response to an unruly sports wager or someone who is attending an event and sort of acts up. I will say, Commissioner, that's a very interesting question. It's one we had not contemplated. We, through the legislative process, worked with the legislators drafting the law, which is now law. And then we turn to the regulatory body to do that, who's going to promulgate the regulation. So very interesting point. The answer is no, we have not, but that is something that we can go back and talk to our general councils and see if there might be some mirror in doing that to understanding their exclusion processes, if you will. So it's a very good question. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I want to be respectful of time. Can we visit this and raise any questions that we have, Commissioner, but perhaps we should just turn to the second item, that was written in the letter of credit strategies on the collective bargaining agreements. Does this make sense? No, it's not, it's pretty. Yep. And I think that's, apologies. After these calls, can I take the lead on that one? Thank you so much. Thank you. And I think that the reason I have the honor of taking the lead here is that of all the players' associations, I think that we are probably the furthest along when it comes to putting in place a collectively bargained regulatory framework of our own to govern sports betting. And for anybody who follows baseball, you'll know that we had a close to 100-day lockout in 2021 into 2022. We were able to play a full season in 2022, but we were very close to losing some games. It was a very difficult negotiation as collective bargaining often is, anybody who has had familiarity with the process. So we went 15 rounds with the league on a whole host of issues. I can tell you though, if there was a silver lining to that process, it was in the area of sports betting. And really, since the world changed, so to speak, with the Supreme Court decision, what seems like sometimes 10 minutes ago, sometimes 100 years ago, this is one issue where we've actually worked fairly well, at least in baseball with the commissioner's office. We now have a collectively bargained policy that has not yet been published, because we're still drafting our full document. But I'm happy to make a copy of our sports betting policy available to the commissioners as soon as this meeting is over. There are a number of safety measures that I won't get into, because I think that we've covered the landscape there. There are a number of important education pieces where every single player, and by the way, we used to just represent major league baseball players, about 1200 members. We have now organized minor league players, so we have over 6,000 members. And these issues may actually be more important at the minor league level, because the salaries that they make, their career length, their career stability, is not nearly what the major leaders have. And arguably, they're more susceptible to malign behavior in this area. But every single player goes through, because of our collectively bargain process, a series of educational pieces about what they need to be aware of, what resources are available to them in this area and available to their families. In terms of deference to collective bargaining agreements, because on the one hand, we're asking U.S. regulators to take an active role in certain areas, but we're also asking for a certain amount of deference in other areas, and specifically in the area of investigations, disciplinary matters. I can tell you that the office of the commissioner of baseball, and I don't believe that baseball is unique in this respect, but they have an entire investigations department that's full of former assistant U.S. attorneys, federal prosecutors, state prosecutors, and they investigate any allegations of improper betting by players, improper betting by fans, very thoroughly. Now, we represent the player, so to the extent a player is subject to potential discipline, those players have to sit for investigatory interviews. They often have to respond to information requests and turn over documents and text messages and emails and things of that nature. But the most important point I want to make here is that we have collectively bargain very important confidentiality provisions that govern all of these investigatory mechanisms that are in place, and that's very, very important to us because I can tell you from years of experience, while there are investigations that often lead to violations and players are disciplined in one form or fashion, we have also seen many, many allegations that quite frankly just boiled down to extortion attempts against players. And they're thoroughly investigated by the league, and at the end of the day the facts aren't there, the case is closed, and no action is taken, but most importantly, there's nothing that becomes public about that. Our players are unique in the sense that they live their lives in the public limelight. And allegations, even if they prove out not to be true. There are certain players where after having been entirely cleared of certain charges, if you Google their name, there's still a certain amount of taint because there were allegations made. So to the extent that anything in the regulatory framework that you were considering could afford deference to our process in terms of investigations, in terms of discipline, and in terms of appeal through arbitration or grievance arbitration process, I just think that that would be tremendously important for our players so that they have the types of due process rights that we have spent many, many weeks and months collectively bargain. So that I think with that is I'll defer to any of the other folks from the players' associations and of course, happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Well, I could add in with the NHL and the NHLPA, we do not have a detailed specific investigative procedure in regard to gambling, but we do have in the CBA a detailed provision as to how investigations are commenced, what the players' rights are, what the players' association's rights are, and ultimate access to an impartial arbitrator if discipline is assessed. So it would be very important if possible to allow us to use that process and not interfere with it. And we also have had circumstances and they're going to come up more and more frequently where investigations are commenced based upon an anonymous social media post and you investigate it and in all likelihood or sometimes in any event there's no there there. So with that, I would echo everything Matt said. Yeah, I would join with what Matt said. The NFLPA, we do have an investigatory process. It is also confidential. I personally have been involved in a number of allegations against our members involved in gambling. Involvement surprised at the level of information that the former FBI and other investigators for the league are able to generate, both which implicate and also exculpate our members. So I would also join in the ask for the deference to our process. Pressures. I guess I'm going to turn to Councilor Grossman and Director Lilios. I believe if there were suspicious activity and it involved a professional athlete, that would probably trigger some degree of investigation on our part. But it sounds as though we probably have, we can coordinate with the league, with the players association and their collective bargaining agreements to protect that confidential information under believing the public record small and perhaps the statute. But I turn to Director Lilios and Councilor Grossman on that. Well, on the public disclosure piece, our ability to withhold information is somewhat limited. We did enjoy the ability to protect certain information provided to us in the course of the application process. But that seems to be the limit of the commission's authority there specific to sports wagering. Otherwise, the public records law of course affords us an ability to protect certain information to the extent it falls in one of the exemptions that exist in the law. Unfortunately, I'd have to take a closer look at it, but the the investigatory exemption for example applies to our own investigations, not to other people's investigations generally. So to the extent we are investigating something and that disclosure of any piece of information would inhibit our ability to effectively investigate it, we can certainly withhold information. But I don't believe we would have the ability to withhold investigative information that was just provided to us from someone else so we don't compromise their investigation. So it's complicated, but we were only given limited tools to navigate some of these sensitive information areas. But it is something for us to look into again. I don't want to kind of opine conclusively that we have no ability to do any of this. It's just Director Lillios. Chair, I don't really have too much to add to what General Counsel Grossman just explained other than that the Investigations and Enforcement Bureau is well aware of the importance of confidentiality in maintaining the integrity of any investigation. And you would typically press the exemptions under the open meeting law, I'm sorry, under the public records law, both under the investigations exception and under the general personal privacy exception to the fullest extent possible. Thank you. We did trust you with the Legislature for more tools on that front. But as General Counsel Grossman said, we have what we have with the public records law. I think Mr. Eisenberg and Mr. Erickson, you're real familiar with it. So I think there would be our ability to comply fully with that law. And of course, we have to be fully committed to the transparency of the other meeting that we're required to operate then. But as Director Lillios and General Counsel Grossman pointed out, there are the public records law certainly contemplates investigations and the need for confidentiality. Other questions, commissioners, on the collective bargaining case? Are there other elements of the collective bargaining that you wanted to raise as well besides the confidentiality? Excuse me, confidentiality, please. I might add one more. I guess I'd file this under the umbrella of due process. I believe that there's been discussion about a notice procedure or putting the players' associations or individual athletes on par with the leagues or any league investigators with regard to the notice of an athlete investigation. I think that that would be incredibly important to making sure that players, if they're going to be investigated, have prompt notice. And so that either their individual attorneys, because sometimes they're represented by their own counsel or counsel from the players association who you have a number of on the Zoom here today, can ensure that their due process rights are protected. So notice parity would be the one other thing that I would like to put in a plug for. So real quick in my apologies, I lost my connection. And so I caught the tail end. Yes, yes, yes. It's funny because of course you guys are talking about some of the stuff that's even more near and dear to my heart. As many of my colleagues know, I was a prosecutor for 11 years. So due process investigations are really something I've specialized in for many years. And to piggyback on what Matt said about the information sharing, it is critical to us and our players that we're able to receive information as close in time as possible to when the leagues receive it and that we're not solely relied, we're not solely relying upon them. This is an ongoing issue I have in our league and it's been said to me in response to when I bring this up that in response to my request, they've said, this is not a criminal matter. You don't have those same rights to access information at the same time. So when I when in some hand, we do like to defer to our collective bargaining agreements, but there's certain things as my colleagues know you have to fight for and there gives and takes and sometimes you have to give certain things up. And this one's of particular importance that players should be able to have access to all the information that potentially is being used against them. And it shouldn't be, they shouldn't have to wait for it. They should in their respective council should have access. And to piggyback on that, should not have to wait and rely on the league to determine what they want to share that they have received from other authorities and filter it because that becomes a problem. And as David said, due process can be impacted if we don't get the same information that the leagues get. So it is of paramount importance to us as well. My shares follow up with questions. To our team, I think we want to be looking back at what we've passed and think about how we can address these questions. I'm leaning in Mr. Eisenberg, are you I'm leaning in to see are you leaning in? No, no, no, we appreciate it. And if they're, you know, again, if there are if there are issues where we can facilitate follow up, obviously, we spoke a couple of other ones, but on this particular issue with respect to the CPAs, we're happy to get you any information that you might require. I don't want to I want to be able to return to the two topics, but I also want to be respectful back that we discussed a matter last week concerning endorsements and concerning your younger professional players, not those who are under 18, but between 18 and up to 21. And we did adopt a regulation that would allow those younger professional players to still be able to participate in endorsements by sports betting companies. There was a very, very good conversation among all of us because we are of course concerned about not just we're concerned about the welfare of the players, but we're also concerned about whether those kinds of endorsements could inadvertently or, you know, purposefully be directed toward a targeted population that we, you know, want to protect. And that's those younger those those who are 18 to younger people who are not able to that yet. We wanted to raise them commissioners. If you want to add to that, we wondered if the players association would have any thoughts on it. You know, I think we came down to kind of a thought that well, they can be bet on perhaps they should be allowed to have the the benefit of the financial income that comes from those endorsements, but it was a healthy debate, Mr. Brian. Brian, do you want to just add in? No, so I think it was somewhat of a compromise, as you recall, there were some of us that didn't feel it anybody that shouldn't bet should actually be in any way marketing the product. And then there was the thought that if you're going to be having someone make money off of your conduct, and you're over the age of 18, that maybe that's a carve out. I would be interested in hearing from the players association thoughts on that 18, 19, 20 year old potential grouping that would fall into that category. I'm happy to speak to this issue. If for no other reason that we're actually collectively bargaining it right now as we speak, as I mentioned, we recently organized minor league baseball players who aren't exclusively between the ages of 18 and 21, but certainly there's a larger percentage of players in that age grouping then at the major league level. And what we and I don't want to get into too much of the bargaining, because we try to keep that out of the public sphere, but for purposes certainly of this discussion, I think it would be helpful to share where we're at at the big league level and where we hope to get at the minor league level, because it goes right to this question. And basically where we ended up at the big league level under our policy is that players are allowed to use their names, images and likenesses to sponsor or to market legal sports gaming operations. Now there are certain lines that we've drawn. So for example, if you are Kike Hernandez of the Boston Red Sox, you can do a deal with MGM or with FanDuel, but you can't do a deal where you say when I bet on baseball, I bet with FanDuel. So we've tried to take a nuanced and hopefully elegant approach to allowing players partake in what is a rapidly expanding and very lucrative business market, while at the same time not crossing any lines, they're going to call into question the integrity of actual games being played. So that's the big league level. We negotiated that and we got to yes on that. We have proposed to take the same approach at the minor league level as well. We're still in the middle of collective bargaining. We're not quite sure where it's going to end up. But we certainly, at least from the players associations perspective, believe that it can be done in a responsible way. There are lines that can be drawn. So that if you are an 18 to 21 year old, as he said, people can bet on you if they're especially for these players who are making, at least until we negotiate something better below poverty wages, better for them to monetize their name, image and likeness rights. So maybe they're not quite as susceptible to the, as we mentioned before, the malign actors who may try and get involved with, you know, tainting the outcome of games. So that's a very long winded way of saying that we would be in favor of in a responsible fashion, enabling that age group young, though they may be to partake in sponsorship or marketing or other legitimate business activities in the sphere. So at least from our standpoint for the moment, our members are prohibited from endorsing gambling products that may or may not change, but at least at the moment, that's not an area where our members are permitted to participate. So I guess I have a follow-up question. But when you're saying they're allowed to do endorsements that fall sort of within the legal sphere, would not being able to actually partake in betting in a jurisdiction mean they're outside the sphere? I understood your definition of that agreement? So if I understand the question correctly, it's, so if you were a 19-year-old in a jurisdiction where you have to be 21 as opposed to a jurisdiction where you're 18 and up is okay. Yeah, I think in our view, I think we would be open to enabling, even if a player himself were not permitted to legally bet to be involved in certain types of endorsement activities. Again, it's a fluid situation. We do not yet have a minor league policy like we do a major league policy, but I would not rule it out now. Thanks for the clarification. Mr. Foster, I think you were leaving it. Yes, I just I'm just going to quickly add that from the basketball players perspective that we agree with Matt and his and their analysis, we think that there are going to be some players that actually their entire career might be between the ages of 18 and 21. And our players are well aware of the fact that there's going to be hundreds of millions of dollars made by the betting companies and a lot of other people off of their labor and to prohibit them even at that young age from having the opportunity to share in some of that revenue. We just think that it's a little bit unnecessary. And also, I think it'll be interesting from the gaming company's perspective. I mean, look, I'm not in marketing, but I just the upside of actually using a 19 year old to advertise your betting, I think that some of them might very well shy away from it because it does seem a little unseemly. However, if it tastesly done, maybe it can happen. And if so, we definitely want to support our players, you know, take advantage of that. Mr. Erickson, Mr. Oh, OK, you're right. Mr. Erickson, can I just make it just to clarify with respect to the NFL, those types of endorsements, not necessarily endorsement of a betting product, like a particular bet, but you're saying endorsement of a sports wagering operator business is prohibited across the line regardless of age for all players? That's correct. At the moment, the NFL's gambling policy prohibits that. OK, it does create an issue for our members who are and who may have thought their careers were over and have moved into that sphere. And now are suddenly thinking that I want to come back. It has created an issue for those who want to come back. So at the moment, endorsement of gambling products or gambling entities is prohibited. OK. Hi, Jeff. Yes, sure. Matt, could you elaborate a little bit? I think I heard you say that at the MLB level, the majors, that the 18 to 20 would be allowed to have this endorsement, but with restrictions on what they could say and what they could do in that advertising. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that? And if possible, publicly, because I know it's collective bargaining. Some of that language might be very helpful to us in our regulations, actually. Can I just clarify an instrument on that one? Were your remarks limited to the 18 to 21 or was it with respect to all players? Well, we don't have any age limitations in our Major League Sports betting policy. We do have not a lot, but we do have some players who were younger than 21. So this applies to everyone equally, regardless of age. I will send a copy and maybe I'll rely on the folks from Freddie to forward along, but I'm happy to share the language. It will be part of our collective bargaining agreement that is published widely to the public as soon as lawyers like me can get all of the language finalized today. We're working on it, but the one area that is final and ready to go is our sports betting policy. We'll get that to you. To answer the question is where we've drawn the line, and I won't get into the nitty gritty of the language, but let me maybe use an example here. Players are not able to do, let's say commercials, a commercial that would run on television that advertises or promotes betting on baseball. So to the extent that Fox Woods Casino, for example, you're able to bet on baseball games there. If a Boston Red Sox player wanted to promote Fox Woods Casino and they have a sports book, he can do that, but it has to be the sort of general either hotel or it can't be specific to baseball, and there can't be any suggestion whatsoever that the player himself bets on baseball games. So that's really, we've tried to wall off anything relating to baseball, but understanding that a lot of these sports betting entities are really parts of much broader, whether it's MGM, much broader corporations, that's what's still fair game, is if it's divorced from baseball, it's more in the context of the overall enterprise, baseball players are allowed to do it. I'm probably not doing the best job explaining here. Hopefully, when you have the language, it'll make it a little more okay, good, good. Very helpful. Madam Chair. And so when we were having this robust debate the other day on this issue, Matt, you know, my assumption, and maybe I was assuming too much, was that agreements like that exist, and that there would be guardrails amongst what could be said or done. Obviously, nowhere in my brain did I envision that a player can say, oh, you know, come bet on my sport or my game. I grew up too close to Cincinnati to know better than that. But I think that it's important to me, and I, you know, it's something that I discussed the other day, that I don't stand in the way of a contract and a revenue generating ability for a young player when you have a situation where there's no question about 21 and up, right? So if, you know, if our regulations are going to allow 21 and up, I feel like we have to capture that 18 to 21. So that's where I was coming from. Your statement was very, very helpful in helping me understand kind of the parameters of what exists right now. The one, I appreciate that. The one thing I'll add to that is, in some ways, with respect to 18 to 21 year olds, we're already there because you really these days cannot turn on a professional baseball game or basketball game or football game without seeing what seems like sometimes a never ending stream of advertisements for sports betting entities or even broadcasters who are folding in spreads and lines and over unders into their televised or streaming products. And those are all happening alongside the names, image and likenesses of players who are playing in those games, many of whom are 18 to 21. So in some ways, I think that the the horse is out of the barn on this. And that's not to say that we just throw our hands up and say that it shouldn't be looked at at all. But as I said before, to the extent that it can be responsibly done, and these players in the younger age groups can can take advantage of their publicity rights, we certainly want to protect that ability. Commissioner, do you want to go back to either the two topics or we have another topic? I know we're running a little bit long, but I feel it's helpful for us to have this information in real time. Christopher Hill. Madam Chair, I just want to add one more thing. Matt, we keep coming to you because you're the last person that we talked to. But this is this is for everybody. As you are looking to us to promulgate some regulations, I'm going to look to you. One of the reasons that this last issue came up is something we call responsible gaming. Which is very near and dear to every one of us on this commission. So I would look to you that when you're doing your collective bargaining, or at the very least, when you're discussing these issues, that you understand the responsible gaming piece of why we're discussing this. It's very important, not just here in Massachusetts, but nationwide, and every single jurisdiction is dealing with responsible gaming. So as you're having your discussions internally or externally, we would ask that you remember the responsible gaming piece of what we're trying to do as we will understand and remember what you're asking us to do today. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I just want to turn, did you want to respond, Mr. Nosmo? Please do. No, I just understood in point well taken. I have to turn back to item number one. We do have wide discretion in our regulatory powers, and I would imagine that as long as there is a channel for us to hear about threats, and that's something I want assurances from our IEV team, that somehow we have the proper channels to hear of any threats that are being made to players, their families, officials, or anyone else who is making up this form of entertainment of sports, never mind sports betting. If it's sports betting related, we will assess that and take it seriously. I have a hard time imagining that the players, never mind their family members, are subject to this kind of harassment or threatening language, physical harm. So we need to make sure, commissioners, I believe, I think you can probably join me in this, making sure that the channels for this information are connected. And looking at Director Wells, you're on camera, but I'm sure you're thinking the same thing. You were the former director of IEV. I understand that the leagues get information, players association get information, they should be able to get to us, correct? Yes, yes. And we, you know, the IEV already has contacts within law enforcement and also things like this, where we're making contacts with people in the leagues and we're making contacts with people in the players associations and then other associations. So the information network is very important because we do care about what happens to the players and their families and referees and everyone involved in sports. So we are certainly open to any information that pertains to someone's health and well-being to see what if anything is appropriate for us to do. And we will look to the licensees. So we're going to work on the regulation language to make sure that we can address the safety and well-being of the players. And I think, commissioners, we're going to at least want to have that information clear and then we assess our next steps. But from my perspective, that's going to be a paramount, that we ensure that in Massachusetts no one can intimidate officials, family members, and the athletes themselves, they're being bet on to provide entertainment, entertainment for the residents of Massachusetts. And the licensees are being awarded the opportunity to operate in Massachusetts and soon they're going to join us in that effort. So that's just my thought. I'm very pleased that you brought this matter to my attention and we will continue to figure out the best way to manage it in a regulatory fashion. Commissioners, I'm speaking for myself now. I turn to you if you want to add in or in some way direct me in any way. I would just echo what you said, Madam Chair, the conundrum of an industry making its money off of the actions and the hard work of other individuals. The primary responsibility would rest with the companies making that money. And then also with the other companies that make the money in the first instance off the work of the athletes. So I do believe we can play a role in making sure that it's equitable and protect where we can. There is a limit. Obviously our statutory limit only goes so far. But I am glad we had this conversation. I absolutely think that we need to be as aggressive as we can in our regulations to make sure we make as much of an impact as we're capable of making. Let's just get here. Player safety is something that I think this commission should absolutely prioritize. Not only the players, but their families, officials. And I will await our legal advice from Attorney Grossman as to whether or not we do have the authority. I believe that we do to some extent. But how far we extend that authority I think is an open discussion. And so I'm looking forward to having that discussion with my fellow commissioners. And I appreciate you coming before us today to share your thoughts around how the commission might be able to help protect the industry, the most valuable players in the industry. I forgot you now thinking it. So your life like that. I just wanted to say thank you to our commissioners and to all the commissioners and to you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity. It really has been an amazing dialogue. And we're just very appreciative that you have been able to hear the concerns that we've outlined. And we look forward to working with you going forward. Feel free to reach out to us at any time. And on the last point raised, I would say I understand why you would say responsibility for safety should rest primarily with the people running the business. That is the gaming company. But keep in mind the gaming company has no relationship whatsoever with the players. So we have to rely on you and ourselves to do the best things we can. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification, Mr. Fair. They're very helpful. Thank you. Other other dialogue can continue. I want to make sure everyone has their last word that they want to share on any topic, including the one that we just addressed. Hand out anybody? Okay. Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Maynard, are you all set? I have nothing further to add except thank you for being here today. We appreciate the dialogue. And I've been looking forward to it for quite some time. So thank you. It was very, very good conversation. Well, Commissioner Maynard. I appreciate everyone coming today, taking time to educate us and listening to all your concerns. And as Commissioner Skinner pointed out, we're going to weigh everything. We're going to look at everything. We're going to see what we can do and can't do. And I think that, you know, player safety is paramount. Excellent. I'll set then to our guests. Thank you. And then as we noted, we'll keep the dialogue going. If there's anything that you'd like to submit to us, I know we're going to get some information from you already, but anything we welcome that very, very much. To all of your players, we wish them the very best. And the same to their families and to the officials. So thank you. And we've just commented. We were all busy watching a lot of professional sports over the weekend. So thank you for all that we do to entertain so many of us. Thank you. And so, commissioners. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, I would move to adjourn. Thank you, Commissioner. Second. Any further discussion or edits? Okay, Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Thanks so much. 5-0. Thank you. Thank you.