FanDuel Is Using Personal Messages From Sports Stars to Keep Gambling Addicts Hooked ⁠78%

By Victor Tangermann⁠83%

7/10/2026, 7:51:55 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 59.5% saturation with 358 hits. Analysis detected 2,172 faulty-reasoning hits from 602 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠78% (4,837 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.90% of the article peer group.

The soaring popularity of sports betting apps and prediction markets has alarmed researchers, who’ve observed a spike in risky gambling behavior and addiction. 
It’s practically impossible to watch a game of any sport without being bombarded with ads for the controversial services — in large part thanks to a major regulatory vacuum following a 2018 Supreme Court ruling — making it a thorny and pervasive social issue. 
And sports betting companies are going to extreme lengths to keep addicts hooked. 
While they’ve long attempted to distance themselves from traditional gambling, the similarities are overwhelming and impossible to ignore. 
As the Philadelphia Inquirer reports , NFL fan Terry Thompson, who became hopelessly addicted to sports gambling, received a personalized video message from Philadelphia Phillies star player Bryce Harper in late 2024. 
While Harper wasn’t wearing any FanDuel merchandise in the video, the message was sent through the gambling company. 
Harper said he was reaching out to Thompson — a so-called VIP FanDuel user — on behalf of “your host Bryttanni at FanDuel” to ensure the fan had an “extra special Thanksgiving.” 
Thompson ultimately underwent treatment for addiction at a psychiatric facility after racking up huge amounts of debt. 
Besides the concerning implications of having a star player effectively encourage an addict to keep betting, the incident also highlights an already uncomfortable relationship between the gambling world and professional players, which could undermine the integrity of entire leagues. 
Experts were taken aback by the incident. 
“I’ve never heard of an active player, let alone a former MVP, doing something like this,” sports gambling expert and author Danny Funt told the Inquirer . 
“It’s not good for your brand,” lawyer Leigh Steinberg, who has represented several MLB all-star players, added. 
“It’s exploitative and it’s not the sort of activity you want to be associated with.” 
Thompson is part of a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Public Health Advocacy Institute in a Philadelphia court in March. 
The suit accuses both FanDuel and competitor DraftKings of using their products to get and keep users addicted. 
The statistics paint a sobering picture . 
According to a recent survey of adult Americans, more than half of men aged 18 to 49 said they had an active account with at least one online sports betting service. 
A whopping 42 percent of active bettors said they felt like they were spending more than they should, suggesting a growing personal finance crisis . 
Prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket are also exacerbating the crisis, employing a wildly addictive formula that sets bettors against each other instead of the house. 
However, the vast majority of users are left holding the bag for a tiny proportion of accounts being run by pros, insiders, and trading firms. 
The trend could place renewed strain on sports leagues, which already have a studied history of sports betting scandals . 
Meanwhile, more and more young impressionable minds are getting sucked into the betting world, a dangerous public health threat from which companies like FanDuel and DraftKings are reaping enormous profits. 
Leveraging major star players is just the tip of the iceberg. 
“Getting a phone call or a zoom or a Cameo from a highly placed player is so flattering,” Steinberg told the Inquirer . 
“It’s stacking the deck unfairly in favor of continuing addicting behavior.” 
More on sports betting: More Than Half of Men Aged 18 to 49 Have Already Fallen Into Online Sports Betting 
The post FanDuel Is Using Personal Messages From Sports Stars to Keep Gambling Addicts Hooked appeared first on Futurism . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.4%Victor Tangermann: 6.3%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias16.4%This article: 7.3%Victor Tangermann: 2.6%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias7.3%This article: 13.5%Victor Tangermann: 5.5%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic13.5%This article: 5.1%Victor Tangermann: 1.4%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic5.1%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.3%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 22.8%Victor Tangermann: 11.3%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect22.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.9%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.8%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 31.4%Victor Tangermann: 6.1%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias31.4%This article: 59.5%Victor Tangermann: 23.7%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias59.5%This article: 5.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.1%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.7%Futurism: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.2%This article: 2.8%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Victor Tangermann: 2.3%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.9%Futurism: 1.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.5%Victor Tangermann: 7.8%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority8.5%This article: 4.2%Victor Tangermann: 2.5%Futurism: 2.6%False Dilemma4.2%This article: 11.6%Victor Tangermann: 3.2%Futurism: 2.5%Slippery Slope11.6%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 23.6%Victor Tangermann: 10.0%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization23.6%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 28.4%Victor Tangermann: 8.8%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion28.4%This article: 4.3%Victor Tangermann: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question4.3%This article: 7.0%Victor Tangermann: 3.9%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof3.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.1%Victor Tangermann: 3.8%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal16.1%This article: 3.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman3.0%This article: 22.3%Victor Tangermann: 3.1%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)22.3%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 4.5%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity4.5%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.8%Victor Tangermann: 4.1%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote9.8%This article: 5.5%Victor Tangermann: 2.4%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection5.5%This article: 23.6%Victor Tangermann: 21.7%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice23.6%This article: 3.8%Victor Tangermann: 1.3%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination3.8%This article: 5.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.2%Futurism: 2.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Victor Tangermann: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.3%

602 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers21%attributed speech477writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageBryce Harper • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageDanny Funt • 27 words • 100.0% coverageLeigh Steinberg • 17 words • 100.0% coverageLeigh Steinberg • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageLeigh Steinberg • 23 words • 0.0% coverageLeigh Steinberg • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Danny Funt

100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words22% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+93.3 ptsWriter: 6.7%Danny Funt: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-26.2 ptsWriter: 26.2%Danny Funt: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.9 ptsWriter: 6.9%Danny Funt: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%Danny Funt: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Danny Funt: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.8 ptsWriter: 4.8%Danny Funt: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.