Share 
Philadelphia Phillies first baseman Bryce Harper agreed to record a personalized video for a FanDuel customer. He says he had no idea what it would be used for. Now that video sits at the center of a gambling addiction lawsuit, a round of congressional letters and a fight over how much freedom MLB players should have to work with sportsbooks in the first place — all three months before Major League Baseball’s labor contract runs out.
A video, a lawsuit, a deadline
On Aug. 10, 2026, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Reps. Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Valerie Foushee (D-NC) sent letters to FanDuel, MLB and the MLB Players Association. The trigger was a video Harper recorded through FanDuel’s VIP program for a customer who later sued the company over a gambling addiction. Harper has said he did not know how the video would be used.
The letter to FanDuel doesn’t mince words.
“FanDuel should not be using reckless and unscrupulous loyalty programs to drive bettors into debt and addiction,” the lawmakers wrote. “As such, we strongly demand FanDuel to end its VIP program for bettors, especially those suffering from a gambling addiction, on its platform.”
That gave FanDuel CEO Christian Genetski‘s company eight questions to answer by Aug. 24.
MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred and MLBPA executive director Bruce Meyer received their own letter, asking the league and union to bar players from sportsbook endorsement deals entirely. “Despite clear harms that VIP programs pose to bettors, MLB and MLBPA continue to disregard fan safety by permitting partnerships with sportsbooks operating these programs,” the lawmakers wrote. “We demand an immediate end to this policy.”
Their letter puts it bluntly: “How will MLB and the MLBPA guarantee that fan safety and well-being take precedence over revenue from gambling partnerships?”
FanDuel responded first. On Aug. 17, the company sent its own letter to the three lawmakers defending the VIP program, arguing that VIP account managers are paid a salary and are not compensated based on a customer’s wagering outcomes.
FanDuel told lawmakers its VIP program operates under the same responsible-gaming framework as the rest of its business, governed by regulatory standards across the 26 US jurisdictions where it operates, and that VIP employees undergo extensive training to recognize problem gambling.
The MLBPA came next, and it broke from FanDuel. On Aug. 25, the union told Congress it supports prohibiting players from taking part in personalized marketing campaigns for sportsbook VIP programs, even as it stopped short of endorsing a full ban on the programs themselves. MLB has not yet detailed its own response.
The current MLB/MLBPA collective bargaining agreement expires Dec. 1, and heading into this dispute, the union has already signaled it wants more, not less, room for players to sign with gambling companies — which makes its Aug. 25 concession notable.
What actually makes a VIP program different
To understand why lawmakers are targeting VIP programs specifically, rather than sportsbook promos in general, it helps to hear from someone who has spent a career on the harm-reduction side. Brianne Doura-Schawohl, director of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, draws the distinction sharply.
“Standard sportsbook promotions are blanket offers designed for the general public,” she said. “In contrast, a VIP program, which typically includes a dedicated host, goes beyond personalized offers. It establishes a direct, targeted relationship with the sportsbook designed to cater to the individual in a manner that keeps them actively betting, sometimes incentivizing chasing losses and incentivizing players to spend more than they can afford to lose in order to ‘maximize’ rewards.”
The mechanism she points to is host compensation. “When hosts are compensated based upon player losses, they are disincentivized to take signs of problematic play seriously,” she said.
Keith Whyte, president of Safer Gambling Strategies, agrees that structure is the risk. Whyte brings more than 30 years of national experience on gambling issues. While Whyte’s firm advises FanDuel, he does not speak on the company’s behalf. On host compensation, he said:
“Such an incentive structure creates additional risk for gambling problems. I understand FanDuel does not compensate VIP hosts based on revenue. And in fact account manager and certain executive compensation is tied to responsible play metrics.”
That claim tracks with what FanDuel itself later told Congress about salaried, not performance-based, VIP host pay.
One video, two verdicts
On the Harper video specifically, the two experts diverge.
Doura-Schawohl does not think athletes should be doing this at all. “The Harper video raises serious questions about how Cameo, and other social media and celebrities, are utilized by sportsbooks,” she said. “The MLB and other leagues understand athlete endorsement of sports betting needs to be handled with care, so I think we can all agree using these athletes taping personal messages to bettors from sportsbooks is not something that should be allowed.”
Whyte does not see it that way. “Athlete likenesses, sponsorship deals with clubs and league partnerships are common across gambling marketing, as well as many other commercial products from cereal companies to shaving cream,” he said.
“Should be no surprise this marketing is also used in VIP programs, and I don’t see anything untoward with doing so as long as the gambling operator has good general responsible gambling programs and specific responsible gambling policies for VIP.”
Guardrails vs. ban
Lawmakers demanded FanDuel end its VIP program outright. Doura-Schawohl isn’t there yet, but she’s close.
“There are several options to consider beyond a full ban on VIP,” she said. “The campaign has long supported raising the minimum age on VIP programs to 25. Removing compensation schemes for VIP hosts that are in any way related to customer spend is another reform to consider. However, an outright ban might be appropriate if the status quo continues as is.”
She also pointed to research she says shows a small share of bettors driving a disproportionate share of VIP revenue, calling that “an unacceptable finding.”
Whyte never entertains a ban in any of his answers. Instead, his framing assumes that VIP programs will continue to exist and simply be redesigned. Asked what a safety-first version would look like, he said:
“So many things would [change]; major ones would be eliminating compensation based on revenue, requiring VIPs to set limits — right now, limit setting is optional — and require VIPs to review and sign off on safety information and understanding of the additional risk for gambling problems as a VIP.” He added: “None of this is new; it’s all being done either voluntarily or by regulation in various US and international jurisdictions.”
That last point is where the two of them converge despite starting from different places. Doura-Schawohl cites the UK’s 2020 VIP reforms as a model, including a higher minimum age, a ban on loss-based incentives, and required oversight by senior managers for every program.
“This has led to a decrease in the number of reported incidents of harm as a result of VIP programs,” she said. Strip away the ban-or-no-ban disagreement, and the actual reform list — kill loss-based comp, mandate limits, add oversight — looks nearly identical coming from both of them.
Who can actually fix this?
Congress can send letters, but gambling regulation mostly lives at the state level, and here Whyte and Doura-Schawohl land in different places on how much faith to put in that system right now.
“While I would welcome in theory Federal/national standards for responsible gambling, historically states have had the jurisdiction to regulate gambling, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon,” Whyte said.
He pointed to Massachusetts as an example worth watching: “At the state level I advise the Massachusetts Gaming Commission on responsible gambling issues, including VIP programs, and I expect they will extend their industry-leading player protection regulations in this area as well.”
Doura-Schawohl’s patience with the current system sounds thinner. “No longer can we allow sportsbooks to self-regulate,” she said. “It’s imperative that state gambling regulators take these events seriously and demand change from their licensed operators.”
What FanDuel actually said
Asked what a good-faith answer from FanDuel would look like ahead of the deadline, Doura-Schawohl set a low bar in one sense and a high one in another. “What we most want to see is a promise to take action,” she said.
“Sportsbooks have been notoriously secretive about VIP programs, claiming insights into them are trade secrets, so if they are unwilling to speak about these practices, it is unlikely they will actually promise any sort of reform.”
By that measure, FanDuel’s Aug. 17 letter fell short of what either expert wants. The company defended its existing framework rather than proposing changes, telling lawmakers its VIP customers already face the same responsible-gaming standards as everyone else. It did not address the demand to end the program.
A labor fight hiding inside a safety story
The part of this story that gets less attention is the timing. The MLB/MLBPA CBA expires Dec. 1, and the union had wanted more freedom for player partnerships, not less. The MLBPA’s Aug. 25 letter suggests that calculus has shifted, at least on personalized VIP marketing — even as the union stopped short of matching Congress’s call for a full ban on player-sportsbook endorsement deals generally.
Doura-Schawohl thinks the Harper episode should weigh on those talks.
“If anything, this incident with Bryce Harper illustrates how problematic players endorsing gambling activity can be,” she said. “I would hope these discussions involve addressing how players can be fairly compensated for the earnings the league draws from gambling partnerships without expanding the scope of the MLB’s involvement in gambling.”
Bottom line
Two gambling safety experts who largely agree on the fix — mandatory limits, no loss-based host pay, real oversight — split on whether FanDuel should be allowed to run a VIP program at all, and split further on whether an athlete should ever tape a personal betting-platform video for a customer.
FanDuel has now answered Congress’s questions, defending its VIP program rather than ending it. The MLBPA, meanwhile, broke from that position, telling lawmakers it backs a ban on personalized VIP marketing campaigns involving players — a concession that lands three months before a labor negotiation where the union had been pushing for looser rules, not tighter ones.
MLB has yet to say publicly where it stands. The Harper video forced this fight into public view, and how MLB responds next will be telling for the industry at large.
