Massachusetts Gaming Commission Discusses Blurred Line Between Entertainment, Traditional Sports Events

• The Massachusetts Gaming Commission will require operators to notify the commission if they wish to offer bets on any non-standard events
• A non-standard event, the MGC notes, includes event with substantial rule changes, like the Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson fight last year
• Commission members want operators to notify them directly if they hope to offer bets on events like this in the future

---

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission will require licensed sports betting operators to notify the state’s sports wagering division if they want to accept bets on any non-standard events moving forward.

The new decision came after a discussion on the 2024 Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson certified boxing match, which saw a number of states prohibit bets on the event and featured several substantial rule changes from a typically certified boxing match.

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) unanimously agreed to the solution instead of requiring more strict regulation changes.

Blurred Line Between Entertainment-Driven Events, Traditional Sports

The changes came after a lengthy discussion on the Paul vs. Tyson match, which saw the then 27-year-old Paul take on the 58-year-old Tyson in an eight round bout. The November match was officially certified and sanctioned by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulations, but included a number of rule changes that varied from a typical boxing bout.

Most notably, the match only included eight rounds of two minutes each, compared with a usual match that consists of 10 to 12 rounds of three minutes each. Additionally, the fighters wore 14-ounce gloves instead of traditional 10-ounce gloves.

The rule changes were implemented by request from Tyson’s camp and based on medical guidance and safety considerations.

“The Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson match highlighted the evolving nature of professional combat sports, particularly as events blur the lines between traditional sport and entertainment-driven events. The fight’s professional sanctioning, despite modified rules and a wide age gap between participants, raises important considerations for regulatory oversight of wagering,” representatives of the sports wagering division wrote to the MGC.

Nationally, the sports wagering division estimated upwards of $63 million in bets were placed on the match, with $8,392,731.95 coming from Massachusetts bettors.

Six states – Colorado, Kentucky, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont – outright prohibited bets on the match. Colorado, Kentucky, Louisiana, and New York cited non-compliance with the Association of Boxing Commissions & Combative Sports’ unified rules of boxing as the main reason for prohibiting bets, while Pennsylvania cited the extreme age gap between the fighters as its reasoning.

Vermont did not publicly state why it prohibited bets on the match.

The sports wagering division proposed four potential ways forward for the MGC to determine allowances on non-standard events with significant rule changes.

1. Maintain current practices, with the division monitoring events and alerting the MGC to any non-standard markets
2. Require a formal commission review of all non-standard rule changes of sanctioned events
3. Require operators to include commission language for non-standard rule changes in their house rules for customers
4. Require operators to notify the sports wagering division prior to offering markets with any non-standard rule changes

Operators Must Now Notify MGC

The MGC unanimously decided that a current change in regulations is not necessary, but will require all operators to notify the sports wagering division if they want to offer bets on any non-standard events with non-standard rule changes.

MGC Chair Jordan Maynard said the sports wagering division should be notified by operators prior to the event being offering. With the Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson match, Maynard said the division became aware of the event when a customer contacted them and asked if the markets would be available in the commonwealth.

“I’m in agreement that a very narrowly written number four is appropriate, which we then push out to the operators saying, ‘hey, we don’t want to find out this way again’,” he said.