After an action-packed 2018 for sports betting and its proponents, 2019 promises to be even more dynamic. Just in the last two weeks a collection of states began the process of legalizing sports betting within their borders. Here’s the roundup:
CONNECTICUT
Several members of the Connecticut legislature are sponsoring a bill that would authorize sports betting at the state’s two Indian casinos. Among the sponsors are Senators Stephen T. Cassano and Catherine A. Osten.
The bill would amend existing law to allow for both online and brick and mortar sports book, but only at the Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods, which are tribal casinos. It would also allow the state lottery to operate online keno.
Osten said the bill could be expanded to include sports betting at other locations. Her bill would require age verification to prevent minors from betting online. “We have the infrastructure, we can use the new revenue, and we’ve got bipartisan support,” she told The Day. “This should be an early session success story.” She added, “I’d like to see action on this as soon as possible.”
Osten, who is co-chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said the bill would likely evolve as it undergoes the legislative process, and that might include adding the number of places that could offers sports betting. Osten’s district includes both tribal casinos.
Cassano supported sports betting last year as soon as the Supreme Court lifted the federal ban. He claimed then that the state was losing money by not going into a special session to approve of a law as soon as it was legal to do so.
Norm Needleman, who will be sworn in as a new senator commented, “Two of the top 10 largest employers will benefit from this bill.” He added, “The U.S. Supreme Court has already cleared the way legally, so I believe it’s incumbent on us as state policymakers to do what’s necessary to remain relevant and profitable in a rapidly expanding new national industry.”
Rep. Joe Verrengia, co-chairman of the Public Safety and Security Committee, said last year he believes the legislature will work on a comprehensive gaming policy that will include sports betting.
The Connecticut Lottery Corporation has said it would like to be in charge of sports betting. The bill just introduced wouldn’t do that, but does give it the right to operate online keno, “pursuant to agreements” with the tribes.
That doesn’t mollify the lottery, whose spokesman, Tara Chozet, declared, “This particular proposal will clearly benefit the tribal casinos,” said Tara Chozet, a spokeswoman for the lottery. “There are many stakeholders interested in offering sports betting in the state. The CT Lottery would optimize the returns to Connecticut, and we should be included in the conversations alongside other potential operators as this discussion evolves.”
In another statement issued last week by the Lottery, it urged that it be allowed to offer “sports betting at retail locations (like the Delaware Lottery does) and through mobile and internet portals. Allowing the CT Lottery to be a sports betting operator simply makes sense. Our infrastructure is uniquely positioned to offer sports betting in customizable ways. The state would receive all the net revenue generated from sports betting, as opposed to a small tax from total gaming revenues as with other potential operators.”
Carving out an agreement that makes the tribes happy is probably the biggest challenge of legalizing sports betting. The tribes have stated publicly many times that they believe they have an exclusive right to any form of gaming, guaranteed by their existing compacts.
The existing pact does require that any expansion must be negotiated between the tribes and the state. And then any amendment would have to be approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Keeping the compacts intact is seen as a high-priority objective by many since last year the tribes paid more than $200 million in profit sharing. They pay 25 percent of their profits. This is way down from the peak amounts the tribes paid before the Great Recession, but still is a hefty amount of money.
The downward slide of tribal profit sharing is the entering wedge for MGM Resorts International, which has two fairly public aims: 1) to prevent or delay as long as possible the opening of the East Windsor commercial casino the legislature has already authorized the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes to open and 2) bust open exclusivity by opening up all gaming in the state to a commercial bidding process which would allow MGM to pursue its goal of a $675 million casino in Bridgeport.
MGM’s tactics have been in defense of its MGM Springfield in Massachusetts, which is located about a dozen miles from East Windsor.
A spokesman for MGM called on Governor-elect Ned Lamont to carry out a suggestion he made that he was willing to meet with both the tribes and MGM about sports betting.
MGM spokesman Uri Clinton said, “We appreciate the comments by Governor-elect Lamont over the weekend regarding sports wagering in the State of Connecticut, and the need for all interested parties to sit down together.” He added, “We agree that such a discussion is in the state’s best interest, and we are prepared to take him up on his suggestion immediately.”
In a recent interview with the Hartford Courant Lamont said he wants to convince the tribes that sports betting is too good of an opportunity to miss and that it shouldn’t be tied up in a lengthy court contest.
Meanwhile, nearby New Jersey’s sports betting handle is rising steadily since the state legalized sports book after the Supreme Court lifted the ban in May. In November the handle was $330 million, which translated into $21 million in tax revenue. Connecticut lawmakers want to get in on some of that action.
Shortly after Thanksgiving Rhode Island began offering sports betting. This too is incentivizing the Nutmeg State politicians.
Osten declared, “Connecticut needs to play catch-up with surrounding states if we’re serious about modernizing our existing gaming industry. Fortunately, we can do that with a relatively simple regulatory fix. We have the infrastructure with the tribal casinos, we can use the new revenue, and we’ve got bipartisan support. This should be an early session success story.”
INDIANA
In Indiana last fall, an interim study committee on public policy recommended the legislature consider a sports betting bill. State Senator Jon Ford and state Rep. Alan Morrison introduced sports betting measures that failed to pass. This year, the two said they plan to re-introduce their legislation allowing sports wagering in-person on riverboats and at casinos, racinos and satellite facilities, as well as online and via smartphones.
Ford said, “Legalizing sports betting in Indiana would expand our revenue resources and increase recreational opportunities for Hoosiers. Both in-person and mobile sports gambling are predicted to provide Indiana with hundreds of new jobs as well as an additional $150 million in annual state tax revenue over the next five years.”
Morrison added, “If for some reason it were to be pushed to another year, obviously, I think we’d be missing out a lot. I won’t even contemplate that right now. Whether some people like it or they don’t, it’s hundreds of millions of dollars back to the state.” An Indiana Gaming Commission report issued last year indicated direct tax and fee revenue from sports wagering could generate $148.1 million for the state during the first five years.
Morrison’s bill would allow users to register online to place wagers on sports; Ford’s would require bettors to sign up for mobile betting at a casino or an off-track betting parlor. Ford said requiring wagers to be placed on-site would “kind of be like passing a law that’s 20 years old. We’re now doing everything on our phones.”
Ford’s bill would allow betting on all major sports, including at the college level, but not on youth sports. Neither Morrison’s nor Ford’s bill would include professional sports leagues’ desired integrity or royalty fee. Last year, Morrison’s bill included a 1 percent integrity fee but he removed it this year. League officials said the fees would cover the additional costs associated with data monitoring and integrity training. Ford said, “I’ve never bought into the argument that the leagues needed revenue for integrity purposes. They never really made the case to me.”
Ford added major league teams would benefit from the marketing and increased attention paid to their games. “People become more interested in a game when they have a stake in it. Even if it’s $5, if you have an interest in it, it will certainly help that entity.”
Indianapolis Colts Chief Operating Officer Pete Ward said it’s too soon to specify what the team may like to see included in any legislation. But at a minimum, the Colts would want a royalty, a strong regulatory framework and that official NFL data be used to determine the outcome of bets.
Governor Eric Holcomb also said he’s concerned about how sports betting would be regulated to make sure games wouldn’t be fixed. “I don’t want to sacrifice the integrity of the game, of the competition. There are ways to do that,” he said.
Ford said he felt prospects for passage are “pretty good. There’s been a lot of talk about this for a couple of years. What will help us is seeing the numbers and the research on the gray market on how much sports betting really is going on. At this time, only seven other states allow sports gambling,” Ford said. “They’ve had great success, and I believe Indiana could benefit from it as well.”
IOWA
Among the issues Iowa legislators will bring up in the new session will be sports betting. A bill legalizing sports wagering failed to pass last year. However, retired Iowa Lottery Chief Executive Officer Terry Rich said the board recently voted to study sports betting and how the Iowa Lottery could play a role. He noted 70 percent of sports betting takes place through lotteries.
Rich said, “Our retailers have asked us to at least investigate the idea of kind of a sports lottery where you can bet on kind of a top-line, more parlay bet, where you bet on two or three games at once. So that it’s an easy bet because they don’t want long lines at the convenience stores. But they would want the opportunity that would have a place for people to be able to do a high-level bet.”
Wild Rose Casino Chief Operating Officer Tom Timmons stated he was disappointed a sports betting bill didn’t pass last year. However, he said he’s optimistic one will be successful this year. “On that basis, part of our Coach’s Corner is pretty well set up as a sports book now. All we would have to add is a few countertops to accept wagers. Come out there on some Sunday afternoon, wouldn’t that be fun, or some Saturday afternoon in the fall and just sit and watch your favorite teams and whatever, and see if you can make a little bit of money on it as well,” he said.
LOUISIANA
Recently speaking to the Baton Rouge Press Club, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards said he hopes lawmakers will legalize sports betting. “I want to be in a position to actually do it in Louisiana because we know it is happening in Mississippi,” Edwards said. He added legalizing sports wagering at the state’s casinos would help them effectively compete with other states, “so that the rest of their gaming isn’t diminished by the fact that patrons skip our casinos in order to go, for example, to Mississippi.” Sports betting became legal in Mississippi last August.
If legislators approve sports betting, Edwards would have to sign off on the measure and then each parish would be required to hold a referendum to determine if it would be allowed locally.
Last year, lawmakers rejected state Senator Danny Martiny’s sports betting legislation. However, that occurred prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling lifting the federal ban.
If sports betting is approved in Louisiana, the governor said he would consider directing the new revenue toward early childhood education. Louisiana Gaming Control Board Chairman Ronnie Jones also suggested directing some of the sports betting revenue to gambling addiction services. But Edwards, and gambling industry officials, have noted sports wagering is not as lucrative as casino slot machines. “The amount of additional revenue to Louisiana from sports betting is not going to be terribly significant,” he said. He added he’s waiting to see the results of a sports betting study the Louisiana legislature commissioned.
Martiny is likely to propose sports betting legislation again. His previous bill limited placing bets to casinos and possibly racetracks, a total of 20 locations across the state. Other interests are pushing for allowing bets to be placed from mobile phone apps.
Martiny is likely to propose restricting placing bets to casinos and possibly racetracks — 20 locations in total across the state. The video poker industry wants betting to be legal at 1,700 restaurants, bars and truck stop casinos where the games are legal.
MISSOURI
Along with taxing online purchases and redistricting, sports betting is expected to be one of the hot topics in the 2019 Missouri legislative session.
Several lawmakers have filed bills that would allow and regulate sports betting. However, the state’s casinos and major sports leagues disagree on the issue of so-called integrity fees.
Last year, sports league officials told state legislators they would use the 1 percent integrity fee to make sure players and teams don’t throw or influence games. Missouri Gaming Association Executive Director Mike Winter called the fees unnecessary. “The leagues and those who are supporting the integrity fee should already be doing those functions,” he said.
House Speaker Elijah Haahr said he doubts a sports wagering bill will advance until casinos and sports leagues reach an agreement.
NEW YORK
It’s a new year, and the political jockeying to determine the shape and scope of sports betting in New York is under way once more with the unveiling of stalking horse legislation in the Senate which, like its predecessors, requires that bookmakers pay an “integrity fee” to the sports leagues.
Bill S17, filed by Queens Democrat Joseph Addabbo, was referred to the Senate’s Racing, Gaming and Wagering Committee, which Addabbo now chairs following the Democratic Party’s November sweep of the formerly Republican-controlled upper house. The Democrats now control the Legislature and the Governor’s Mansion in New York.
S17 is similar in its essentials to a measure introduced last spring by Addabbo’s predecessor as Racing and Wagering chair, John Bonacic, who retired at the expiration of his term earlier this month. Like Bonacic’s bill𑁋and a bill filed in the Assembly near the end of last year’s legislative session by Gary Pretlow, the veteran Yonkers-Mount Vernon lawmaker who chairs the Racing and Wagering Committee in the lower house𑁋S17 provides a broad mandate for casinos, racetracks and OTBs to participate in land-based and remote and mobile betting.
Bookmakers will be pleased with the bill’s friendly tax rate of 8.5 percent𑁋5 percent of which is earmarked to combat problem gambling𑁋but they’re certain to push back against the fee for the sports leagues, assessed at 0.2 percent of wagering handle (similar to Bonacic’s 0.25 percent). It’s a fee designed to assist sports organizations with the costs of gambling education and monitoring and ensuring the integrity of their contests, and it comes with a proviso requiring the leagues to regularly report to the New York Gaming Commission on how they’re spending the money.
The bill also requires that bookmakers use official league data in determining the outcome of bets and allows the leagues to request that certain events be excluded from betting. The bill adds that data should be offered at “commercially reasonable terms,” and it further authorizes the Gaming Commission to price shop for data in other states.
Finally, the bill prohibits betting on any collegiate event that takes place in New York or involves a New York college team.
Experts agree that a regulated New York sports betting market has the potential to be one of the largest in the United States. But it’s a market crowded with overlapping and often competing interests—tribal and privately owned casinos and racinos, racetracks, off-track betting, a lottery.
Among myriad factors maneuvering to shape an ultimate regulatory framework: Will Gov. Andrew Cuomo include sports betting in his proposed 2019-2020 budget; if so, in what form? Will Pretlow reintroduce his bill in the Assembly? Does an expansion of sports betting beyond the state’s four commercial casinos, where it was enshrined in their enabling legislation, require an amendment to the state Constitution?
Last, but certainly not least, what influence will New York’s powerful casino tribes exert, and how will they be apportioned their share of the action?
The Oneida Nation, which dominates the central New York market, already has signaled its intention to participate with the signing of a partnership with Caesars Entertainment to manage bookmaking at its flagship Turning Stone Resort Casino in Verona and two smaller casinos it owns in the region. The Seneca Nation, the dominant player in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls market, is expected to partner up as well.
Similarly, the commercial casinos are gearing up for a running start. All four have concluded partnerships with established bookmakers: Tioga Downs Casino Resort, located on the Pennsylvania border near Binghamton, with FanDuel Sportsbook; del Lago Resort & Casino in the Finger Lakes with DraftKings Sportsbook; Rivers Casino & Resort in Schenectady with Kambi; and Resorts World Catskills in Monticello with Bet365.
But amid these maneuvers the question remains as to how mobile betting will sit with the tribes.
The Seneca, which have a federally mandated compact with the state that guarantees their casinos territorial exclusivity in exchange for a share of their slot revenues, opposed it in Bonacic’s and Pretlow’s bills. Pretlow blamed them for much of the opposition his bill encountered among lawmakers in the west of the state. At the same time, experts agree that mobile is where the big money lies. Indeed, it’s difficult to see how the New York market can be truly viable economically and competitive with neighboring states without it.
NORTH DAKOTA
Two North Dakota representatives have filed somewhat competing bills that would each allow sports betting. This would be a major change in a state that only allows gaming through the conduit of charities or at tribal casinos.
Rep. Thomas Beadle’s proposal would fit sports betting into the existing charitable organizations framework, while Rep. Jason Dockter’s bill would call for an amendment to the state constitution that would allow commercial sports betting.
Both bills would allow wagers on professional and college teams, including those in North Dakota. Wagers would be allowed at kiosks mainly at bars and restaurants in the case of one bill; at charitable organizations in the case of the other bill. Neither bill would allow for mobile platform betting. Both lawmakers believe that the simpler the bill, the easier to pass. Both bills leave to later enabling legislation such questions as tax rates, fees and regulation—or to the state attorney general.
Dockter argues that current law doesn’t allow charitable organizations to offer all the games that Las Vegas casinos can offer. His bill would allow such organizations to offer sports betting, but would not support wagering kiosks in convenience stores or bars.
Dockter told Sports Handle “What I was told is that the charitable organizations can only do about 20 percent of the games allowed in Las Vegas.” He added, “How I envision it would be a Vikings-Packers bet or a bet on college basketball, but you couldn’t do those unique bets like in-game wagering.”
He envisions the attorney general’s office then issuing regulations and even setting the tax rates and fees. Currently the Attorney General oversees charitable gaming and six tribal state gaming compacts, although tribes do not pay taxes. The state lottery oversees that only. Gaming taxes are graduated, ranging from 5 percent to 20 percent.
Beadle’s bill would operate sports betting within the charitable framework, but would not allow wagering on college sports. This again is seen more as a way of getting the bill passed than passing a moral judgement. He told Sports Handle, “Every time there is an expansion of gaming, there can be an issue. There is some reluctance on gaming expansion … but I don’t have a problem (with betting on college sports), it’s mostly just about ease of dissension.”
Beadle says he doesn’t have a problem with Dockter’s bill, and that he might consider following a complementary path by filing a different bill that would seek to amend the constitution to allow commercial gaming, in order to increase the likelihood of one or the other tactic succeeding.
Under that scenario, which would require a vote of the people, the soonest the measure could be brought to the ballot would be 2020.
The reason for seeking a constitutional amendment is that this is seen as the only way that mobile platforms could be used for wagers. Beadle added, “Sports betting has much more of a prevalence online than other games, except maybe poker. There are also some people interested in trying a Deadwood, South Dakota model. So, we’d be trying to do a Deadwood carve-out.”
Deadwood is the only town in South Dakota where casinos are allowed.
Charities in the state use gaming as a way to raise money for causes, which could be fighting a medical condition, or to fund a local sports team or anything in between. To a degree charitable gaming takes over the function that many other states do through government grants. There are about 20 such charitable casinos.
The legislature has traditionally been opposed to expanding gaming. The legislative session began January and will continue for 80 days. In North Dakota, all bills eventually make it to the floor for a vote.
RHODE ISLAND
The first four days that Rhode Island’s Twin River Casino hosted sports betting was very lucrative. Seers are trying to predict whether just four days of great profits means anything at all about future profits.
The first four days of sports betting in Rhode Island were very lucrative. Prognosticators are trying to read the tea leaves to see if those figures mean anything in the longer view.
Last week the Rhode Island state lottery released the first sports betting report for the first days in November, which began the day after Thanksgiving.
During the four days, more than $682,000 were wagered at Twin River, of which the casino “held” $73,000 or 10.7 percent.
The figures do not include the Tiverton casino, which didn’t begin accepting sports bets until December.
The days in question were during the middle of the NFL season, as college football was winding down.
Legal Sports Report ran the numbers and roughly estimates that under similar conditions Twin River would collect a handle of $151,000 a day, or $4.5 million per month. That would translate into about $481,000 in revenue for that month.
Rhode Island sports book does not yet include mobile wagering. It is only allowed in the two casinos owned by Twin River.
IGT and William Hill work with the Rhode Island Lottery to offer sports betting at those facilities.
Governor Gina Raimondo initially budgeted an annual revenue of $23 million, but downgraded that to $11 million after the state encountered delays in rolling out sports betting.
A spokesman for Twin River issued this statement: “We’re pleased by the response by our customers to this new amenity. We opened our sports betting in two phases — first with terminals in our simulcast area on the third floor of the Lincoln, RI, casino and more recently a dedicated Sportsbook Bar and Grill on our second floor where patrons can dine, bet and relax in a lounge-like environment.”
SOUTH DAKOTA
Newly inaugurated South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem this week began her first legislative session as governor. One of many proposals she will consider is whether to legalize sports betting in Deadwood.
At her first state of the state address, made just after being sworn in, Noem emphasized maintaining a strong budget without raising taxes.
So, she may be receptive to a proposal by gaming industry members asking support for a 2020 ballot initiative that would allow Deadwood’s casinos to offer sports betting.
This would not bring in major new revenues to the state. Estimates are about $185,000 the first year. But the main reason proponents are pushing it is to keep the casinos there competitive by offering an amenity that more and more states are allowing. The state’s tribal casinos would also be permitted to offer sports betting.
Deadwood Gaming Association Executive Director Mike Rodman said the group will ask legislators to put on the 2020 ballot a constitutional amendment to allow sports betting.
Rodman said allowing legalized sports wagering would not be a huge money-maker for the state. A legislative analysis estimated sports betting would generate $2 million in casino revenue and $185,000 in new tax revenue in the first state budget year. However, Rodman said sports betting would provide another amenity that would enhance Deadwood’s position as a gambling destination.
TENNESSEE
Tennessee state Rep. Rick Staples has introduced the Tennessee Sports Gaming Act which would allow local governments to determine if sports betting would be allowed. Staples said the bill would generate new income for local governments. “Billions of dollars leave the state of Tennessee to our neighboring states with casino and table gambling. So, this is a new stream of revenue that the federal government is allowing the states to take advantage of,” he said,
State Senator Brian Kelsey also said he’ll introduce a sports betting measure. “I am in the process of drafting a sports betting bill that would generate revenue specifically for preK-12 education. I think it is important to have local control over where sports betting takes place, so my bill would allow city councils in Memphis and the other three large cities to designate areas for physical sports betting locations subject to a vote by the people. Local governments will also have the authority to collect some of the revenue from these physical sports betting locations.”
Staples’ proposal would allow 10 percent of voters in a local community to petition their government to hold a vote legalizing sports betting in their area. It also would establish a state gaming commission that would work with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation to regulate sports betting.
The bill will impose a 10 percent tax on the gross income of sports betting license holders, to be paid monthly. Forty percent of the tax revenue would go to the state general fund; 30 percent would go to community and tech colleges; and 30 percent would go to local governments, which must use half for local schools and half toward infrastructure projects.
Dr. Ted Bender of Turning Point and Addiction Campuses said, “I would really hope that the lawmakers strongly consider putting money towards mental health and addiction treatment as a way to kind of help people who are struggling with this in the first place.”
VIRGINIA
In Virginia, two sports betting measures have been introduced, by state Senator Chapman Petersen and state Rep. Mark Sickles. Chapman filed SB 1238, the Virginia Sports Gaming Tuition Act, on January 5. He stated, “Yes, there is a sense of urgency for me. We’re losing business, we’re losing tax revenue, we’re losing entertainment dollars, so yeah, my goal is to keep it in state.”
The bill, which has been referred to the Committee on General Laws and Technology, would establish the Virginia Sports Betting Department to regulate sports betting. It would require that, “A locality may authorize sports betting if a referendum approving the question is held.” Counties and cities would be able to vote to legalize sports betting in a special election.
Petersen said, “I wrote the bill kind of to be tailored to our existing state law in Virginia. We have an existing infrastructure of racetracks and off-track betting or OTBs, and I would make all of those sites automatically eligible to host sports betting, and then what I would do is really by local option.”
Chapman’s bill would ban betting on collegiate sports. He said he doesn’t believe there is enough “oversight or guards against corruption” in amateur sports. He said he’d be open to allowing sports betting on “big-time” sports like college football and basketball, but he’d prefer to prohibit betting on most college sports.
Chapman’s measure also would define a sports betting platform as “a website, app or other platform accessible via the internet or mobile, wireless or similar communications technology that sports bettors use to place sports bets.” But aside from defining the term, the bill does not mention mobile and online sports betting, as opposed to Sickles’ bill which does appear to allow both.
Under Chapman’s legislation sports betting operators would pay a $5,000 application fee with a $1,000 annual renewal charge. They would be taxed at 10 percent of adjusted gross income, as compared to 15 percent under Sickles’ proposal. Chapman’s measure would direct 50 percent of tax revenue to the “locality within which it was generated;” 45 percent of tax revenue would go to the Virginia Foundation for Community College Education Fund; and 2.5 percent would be directed toward problem gambling assistance and the Sports Betting Operations Fund, which would fund the state’s costs for sports betting.
Another difference between the two bills is that Sickles’ measure includes a cap on the number of sports betting licenses the state would allow.
WASHINGTON D.C.
Phil Mendelson, chairman of the D.C. Council last week pulled an emergency bill that would have authorized the D.C. Lottery to contract with Intralot to provide sports betting without a bidding process—and which would have allowed only one app to offer it within the district.
D.C. Lottery CFO Jeff DeWitt had asked the council to put the measure on the agenda, arguing that the district stood to give up a position as “fire mover” on sports betting if required to go through a bidding process. DeWitt had argued this could take three years.
Intriguingly, the chairman gave no reason for pulling the agenda item, and no council members questioned him on it. This gave the impression to many that the issue had been discussed before the meeting in a closed door session.
One reporter, Sam Ford of ABC, said there was a heated early morning meeting that led to the council deciding to instead hold a hearing on the bidding process. NPR backed up this account.
NPR reporter Martin Austermuhle tweeted “The history of contracting related to the D.C. Lottery hasn’t been great through D.C. history.”
DeWitt is reportedly ready to press for a single app and a Lottery monopoly on sports betting. “The Office of the Chief financial Officer welcomes the opportunity to lay out the compelling business reasons why it is necessary to go with a sole source contract,” a spokesman told Sports Handle last week.
The Council passed the Sports Wagering Lottery Amendment in December, authorizing the Lottery to be the regulatory body. The D.C. Mayor, Muriel Bowser, has yet to sign or veto the bill. Sports Handle speculated, “It’s safe to say that it’s unlikely that sports betting will launch in D.C. this year, but probably likely that it will be less than the “three years” that the Lottery suggested in its memo.”
It’s not paranoia that the Lottery is fighting to get out of the gate ASAP. In Virginia two bills have been introduced to legalize sports betting. However, that state has no existing gaming structure, so that too could take time. Maryland requires a vote of the people to do so.
However, West Virginia has already legalized sports book. So has Delaware.
Although the emergency legislation has been withdrawn, the council has begun considering amendments to licensing fees for sports betting within the district. One amendment would double the licensing fee to $500,000 at the district’s four sports venues and $100,000 for venues outside out a two-block exclusivity zone.
Meanwhile, DraftKings, FanDuel and MGM, all providers of mobile sports betting in several other states, have begun making noises opposing a possibly Lottery monopoly.
