If Vermont is going to become the 31st state to offer sports betting, there are several issues state lawmakers are going to have to figure out.
Recently, some of those concerns were addressed in a Sports Betting Study Committee meeting.
The biggest issue, according to Wendy Knight, who chairs the committee, has to do with what format would be best for the citizens of the Green Mountain State.
“We have not yet decided whether to recommend only online gaming, retail or both,” Knight said. “I think those questions need to be addressed first before we can really understand whether we want to recommend an existing administrative structure or a new administrative structure.”
The committee will try and get key points in place before the Legislature convenes in January.
One group the committee would like to model sports wagering after is cannabis, which has several similar challenges. Cannabis has been allowed in the state since January 2018.
Knight said there are similarities between marijuana legalization and sports betting, but she was also quick to point out the differences as well.
“Sports betting differs from cannabis in that cannabis is a controlled substance,” Knight said. “It’s also federally illegal. That’s not the case for sports betting.”
State Senator Dick Sears said his concern for sports wagering was making sure that it was available to all companies, not just one or two big industry players.
“In the sports betting world, there are big players,” said Sears, who serves on the study committee. “One of my concerns is that when we go down the route of legalizing sports betting in Vermont, that we not limit it to one player or one company—that we have a variety of companies available.”
The appropriate number of operators was discussed, as well as a tax rate and revenue sharing model.
Andrew Winchell, FanDuel’s director of governmental affairs, said his company would be in favor of a set tax rate, not one that fluctuates.
Vermont is the only New England state that does not have sports wagering, though Knight said that would not force the state to hurry the process.
