Bettors are harassing college athletes. It’s time for Congress to act.

The proposal to create a federal banned bettors registry and a private right of action for athletes represents a significant escalation in how Washington is thinking about the sports betting boom. Since the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on sports wagering in 2018, states have rushed to legalize and tax betting markets—but the collateral damage to athletes, who are often young, unpaid, and thrust into the public eye, has become increasingly hard to ignore. The Hill piece (https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/6072042-congress-sports-betting-legislation/) captures a real shift: the conversation is no longer just about the integrity of games, but about the safety of the people who play them. Yet the proposed remedies invite scrutiny from both sides of the political spectrum. Civil libertarians may balk at a national registry of banned bettors, arguing it raises due process and privacy concerns—who gets listed, how do they appeal, and what constitutes a triggering offense? Meanwhile, federalism-minded conservatives might question whether Congress should be layering a federal enforcement regime on top of an area that states have actively chosen to regulate themselves. And some legal scholars would note that existing harassment and stalking statutes, both state and federal, already provide avenues for recourse—raising the question of whether a new law is necessary or merely symbolic. There is also a practical dimension worth weighing. A registry only works if sportsbooks, both legal and illegal, actually check it—and illegal operators, by definition, are unlikely to comply. That means the enforcement burden could fall disproportionately on licensed platforms, potentially creating a false sense of security while underground betting continues to fuel the very abuse the law seeks to stop. The right to sue, meanwhile, could empower athletes but also invite a wave of litigation that tests the boundaries of what constitutes betting-related harassment versus general online abuse. Still, the core grievance is legitimate and bipartisan. College athletes are being targeted with threats and abuse over outcomes they often have little control over, and the current patchwork of state laws has not deterred it. Whether or not a federal registry is the right mechanism, the article makes a compelling case that Congress at minimum owes athletes a hearing. The challenge for lawmakers will be crafting a solution that protects individuals without trampling civil liberties or creating an unenforceable mandate—a balancing act that defines so much of modern governance.