Show Caption

It’s time for the major players in major professional sports to make a move that could solve the gambling problem once and for all.

Ironically, the solution would involve Pete Rose, but everyone also will need to get paid more for winning games.

The idea comes as Major League Baseball has banned or suspended several players, including Arizona Diamondbacks’ relief pitcher Andrew Saalfrank, for betting on baseball.

“He made a bad decision,” Arizona manager Torey Lovullo said Tuesday. “… We have to protect the integrity of this game.”

Saalfrank, Oakland pitcher Michael Kelly, San Diego pitcher Jay Groome and Philadelphia infielder Jose Rodriguez were each suspended a year for betting on baseball. San Diego infielder Tucupita Marcano, meanwhile, was banned for life.

They’re just the latest examples in a scandal that has enveloped the sport’s biggest star, Shohei Ohtani, as his interpreter pleaded guilty to stealing money from the two-time MVP to pay massive gambling debts.  

The NFL has suspended players for gambling at team facilities.

And the NBA has banned a player for betting on games in which he played.

The actions are exactly what observers and fans feared when sports betting spread beyond Las Vegas following a 2018 Supreme Court decision that had the effect of creating a multibillion-dollar industry.

But what if leagues restructured in a way that rewarded winning?

First, what if any player, anywhere and at any time was allowed to bet on his team to win? What would be the harm?

From there, what if leagues started paying more to winning organizations? And not just to players, but to staffers, managers, coaches, front-office employees?

Imagine everyone gets their regular salary, but there’s a bonus for finishing the regular season with a .600 winning percentage, another bonus for a .700 winning percentage and so on, perhaps paid from revenue generated by gambling companies?

The bonus structure would, of course, include bumps for playoff appearances and championships.

There already are contract incentives across sports that reward players for accomplishing a variety of individual milestones.

But what if the reward was shifted to team goals?

Call it the “Pete Rose Plan.”

Rose, of course, was banned for life after gambling on baseball.

“I’ve been suspended over 30 years,” Rose said last year in an interview with Forbes. “That’s a long time to be suspended for betting on your own team to win. And I was wrong. …”

But was he?

Don’t people own stock in companies they work for? Is that significantly different from betting on your own team to win?

“Time usually heals everything,” Rose said. “It seems like it does in baseball, except when you talk about the Pete Rose case.”

It could be time that changes, but are enough people ready to consider the reality that Rose was right all along?

The NBA has a version of what I’m proposing with it’s in-season tournament (which really needs a new name). Players get prize money for making it to the championship game.

And if you think athletes are paid enough already, that’s fair. But what if there was an unwritten code that any player making more than, say, $10 million a year, would put their prize money into the pockets of players, coaches, team staffers and others who earn significantly less?

The details can be worked out, but the overarching premise merits discussion.

What’s wrong with rewarding winning? Where’s the problem if a guy is about to go to the plate or the free-throw line in the closing seconds, and he puts a quick $1 million on himself to come through in the clutch? Or what if field-goal kickers were required to bet on themselves to make kicks at the end of close games?

And if this plan becomes a reality, which it should, what’s wrong with slapping Charlie Hustle on the back and letting him into the Hall of Fame?

“The Pete Rose Plan” could solve the gambling problem in professional sports once and for all.

Reach Moore at [email protected] or 602-444-2236. Follow him on X, formerly Twitter, @SayingMoore.