After languishing for months in a Massachusetts Senate committee purgatory, a bill to legalize sports betting was approved by the full Senate. A form of the bill was passed by the House months ago by a vote of 156 to 3. Up until now the Senate has been less eager to take up the issue. But there are significant differences between the two.
The two chambers have until the end of the legislative session, July 31, to reconcile the two versions and get them to Governor Charlie Baker, who is eager to sign such a bill before he retires in December.
On April 22 the Senate Ways and Means Committee moved the bill. But it doesn’t contain a key provision that was in the House bill: allowing wagers on college sports. That might be enough to keep the two chambers from agreeing on a final bill. Last summer House Speaker Ron Mariano told the State House News Service that a bill without college betting “probably would be” a deal killer. “
“I find myself having a tough time trying to justify going through all of this to not include probably the main driver of betting in the commonwealth,” said Mariano.
The reason is largely money. Without college betting, state revenue would be no more than $35 million, compared to $60 million when it is included. Only one state that has sports betting, Oregon, doesn’t allow betting on college games.
However, lawmakers have been lobbied by presidents and athletic directors of eight colleges and universities such as University of Massachusetts, Boston College and Harvard University that all have athletic programs. They argue that student athletes would be under such pressure that the integrity of the games would be threatened.
Also, the Senate bill would tax sports betting revenue at 20 percent for retail wagers and 35 percent for mobile sports bets, compared to 12.5 percent for retail and 15 percent for mobile in the House bill. The Senate rates are higher than what most states charge.
The two bills are also miles apart on license structure, with 11 online sportsbooks permitted by the House bill, compared to nine in the Senate bill. The House bill assigns three retail and mobile licenses to the Bay State’s casinos, the MGM Springfield, Encore Boston Harbor and Plainridge Park slots parlor. Up to six additional operators would be authorized to take both kinds of bets. Licenses would be for five years, which would cost $5 million for the initial license and each renewal.
The Senate bill allows for only six mobile licenses, but probably less would be approved. It does, however, allow for another casino license (the state still has one commercial license it has not issued) and the possibility for tribal casinos.
Another way the bills differ is their approach to using credit cards to pay sports bets. Senator Eric Lesser notes that due to his insistence, the Senate bill doesn’t allow the use of a credit card. The House version does. But the Senate version goes on step further by prohibiting “third-party payment method providing funds through the use of a credit card.” Under this stipulation, a player couldn’t fund his sports betting account via e-wallets or PayPal using credit cards.
Both bills would put sports betting under the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.
Consumer protection standards seems to be the cornerstone of the Senate bill. The bill bans ads during sporting events and a requirement that any ads that do appear do so before an audience that is certified to be 85 percent over 21.
