Rob Manfred Gives Great Answer on Difference Between Pete Rose and Fans Gambling

"Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame?" might be the greatest evergreen debate in sports history. It got a new twist in recent years when some fans wondered why MLB is able to embrace legalized sports betting, but has yet to let Rose out of timeout. 

MLB commissioner Rob Manfred appeared on "The Dan Patrick Show" this week, and for the first time since Rose's passing last month, was asked whether the sport is being hypocritical in regards to Rose since they've made billions in gambling revenue in recent years. 

"Yeah, here's how I think about that," Manfred responded. "I think it's a privilege to work in Major League Baseball, and to be a Major League Baseball player. Often, when you have a privilege, it comes with obligations. 

"The obligation in this case is to stay away from gambling, because involvement with gambling by people who work in the game and can influence outcomes reflects and presents a threat to the integrity of the game." 

So what's the difference in Rose betting on the Cincinnati Reds when he was their manager, and fans betting on games from their phones? 

"That's a category of people," Manfred said, referring to those who work in the sport. "Fans are different. The government, in this case the Supreme Court, paved the way for legalization of sports betting. Fans want to engage with the game in that way. They present no threat to the integrity of the game, or minimal threat to the integrity of the game. And as a result, we have different rules that apply to those fans and have taken advantage of that business opportunity. 

"I don't see any inconsistency between those two rules," Manfred added. "I really don't." 

Whatever you think of Manfred — I would argue there have been some necessary changes to the sport under his watch, but he's often struggled to be the face of the owners — that's a good answer. 

If you think that Rose has been punished long enough and should be made eligible for the Hall of Fame ballot, fair enough. I might be inclined to agree with you from that sense. 

But don't act like there's not a massive difference between a fan betting at home, and a manager — who can affect the outcome of games — betting. Even if Rose, as he's said, only bet on his team to win, that's a line you can't cross. Once he did, Rose rightfully wasn't allowed to be employed by an MLB team again. 

Should that keep him from being on the Hall of Fame ballot? Perhaps not. Although, those who act like the only issue with Rose was gambling are either naive or dense. 

Rose was supposed to be inducted onto the Phillies Wall of Fame in 2017, but the ceremony was cancelled after allegations of statutory rape from the 1970s surfaced. Rose was 34 when the relationship is said to have taken place, but said in court documents obtained by ESPN that he believed the girl was 16 years old, which was the legal age of consent in Ohio, where the actions took place.

When Rose was asked legitimate questions about it during Phillies Alumni Day in 2022 by a female reporter, he responded by saying “It was 55 years ago, babe.”

If your argument — especially now that Rose has passed away — is that there are a lot of very flawed people in the Hall of Fame and his career is unquestionably deserving of induction, so be it. Make that case then. 

But making hacky arguments about baseball making money off of fans gambling in a regulated manner and altogether ignoring Rose allegedly having a relationship with a teenager when he was in his mid-30s don't help your case. 

If you want a full picture of Rose's life — the good, bad and in between — then watch "Charlie Hustle and The Matter of Pete Rose" on Max. It's an extremely well done documentary, and includes footage of his interactions on Alumni Day 2022, which is the rudest I've ever seen anyone act in any capacity in my life. On Pattison's Anthony SanFilippo and myself make cameos in the documentary, even though we had no idea we were being filmed.