We now have a clear picture of who the champions of Ohio online casinos and iLottery will be and who will stand against them, thanks to a comprehensive report by the Study Commission on the Future of Gaming in Ohio. The hefty 354-page document collates testimony from virtually every stakeholder in Ohio gambling, most of whom have a clear opinion on the possibility of legalizing new digital products.
Ohio launched online sports betting in January 2023. Its lawmakers could have joined their peers in New York, Maryland, etc., in attempting to expand that to iGaming this year. Instead, they chose to collect all the information and viewpoints first, paving the way for a more informed discussion in 2025.
Based on the Study Commission’s report, that conversation will have many similarities to those taking place in other states. However, there are some notable differences. Some important parties are still on the fence, whose ultimate leaning may decide the issue.
The primary advocates for iGaming and iLottery are—naturally enough—the parties that would be offering those products. They have on their side several lawmakers who see money flowing out of the state to illegal offshore gambling operations and would rather keep that in Ohio.
The most notable opponents are small business owners and casino companies that have yet to venture into online gambling. Notably absent from the discussion at this stage are labor unions. These have come down against online casinos in other states. Despite their lack of direct involvement in Ohio, others in the anti camp mention the threat of lost union jobs at several points.
Who’s in Favor of Ohio Online Gambling Expansion?
The report’s lengthiest and most detailed arguments in favor of Ohio online casino gambling come from the direct beneficiaries. The list will be familiar to anyone who has followed other efforts taking place around the country:
- The Sports Betting Alliance (BetMGM, DraftKings, Fanatics, FanDuel)
- iDevelopment and Economic Association (iDEA Growth)
- Boyd Gaming
- MGM Resorts International
- Caesars
- Playtech
These make the usual arguments: increased revenue to the state, synergies with existing retail gambling, new jobs, and better player protections relative to the unregulated market.
A majority of lawmakers on the Study Commission opined in favor of online gambling. Much has been made of a letter endorsing online gambling expansion, signed by three Republican House Representatives: Jay Edwards, Jeff LaRe, and Cindy Abrams. From the sound of things, they may lead the push next year. They favor adding online casinos and an iLottery while also rolling back some of the recent changes to Ohio’s sports betting laws.
Who’s Against Ohio Online Gambling Expansion?
Two significant economic forces have made clear that they’ll fight any attempt to expand online gambling in Ohio.
The first is JACK Entertainment, which holds one of the state’s four retail casino licenses and operates one of the racinos. Land-based gambling companies that weren’t among the first adopters of online opportunities have tended to resist it, and for good reason. Those that made belated attempts to join the trend—like Wynn Resorts and Churchhill Downs—have not fared well.
JACK will oppose any novel forms of gambling that aren’t tied to land-based establishments. It also questions whether it would violate the state constitution to allow online casinos to be operated by anyone other than the four retail casino licensees. The racinos, meanwhile, would surely oppose any bill that would cut them out.
The other principal sources of resistance will be the state’s bowling alleys, bars, truck stops, and taverns. These have banded together to form the Fair Gaming Coalition of Ohio (FGCO) in preparation to resist any further gambling expansion. Their concern is mainly that online sports betting has already reduced Keno revenue, which they share with the Lottery. Rather than online gambling expansion, they would like to see new land-based forms of convenience gambling. In particular, they want Ohio to extend its video lottery terminals to their types of businesses.
In the legislature, Sen. Al Landis, a Republican, is shaping up to be the most vocal opponent. His letter emphasizes that he favors maintaining the status quo and is not interested in any gambling expansion, let alone iGaming. Sen. William DeMora, a Democrat, is in the same camp and seems keen on representing the interests of small business owners and the horse racing industry.
Who’s on the Fence About Online Gambling in Ohio?
JACK and the FGCO aren’t the only potential sources of resistance. However, some other potential opponents seemed more measured in their criticisms of online gambling. At the same time, a few parties were generally in favor of it but with reservations.
The success or failure of an Ohio online casino push in 2025 may depend on how these people and groups swing.
Ohio Lottery Director Michelle Gillcrist strongly favors an iLottery. She wants one with as few restrictions as possible, pointing to the success of states like Pennsylvania. On the other hand, she opposes iGaming because of its negative impact on lottery sales. Convincing her of the merits of an omnibus bill might be difficult.
The Ohio Grocers Association and Ohio Council of Merchants expressed reservations about the impact on lottery sales as well. However, the tone they adopted was one of seeking consideration for their interests by those drafting the laws rather than categorically opposing any expansion.
Similarly, the Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association indicated that it would be amendable to iGaming if some of the proceeds would go to support horse racing.
Sen. Nathan Manning is broadly in favor of expansion but more cautious than Reps. Edwards, LaRe, and Abrams. He indicated that he might advocate only for online draw ticket sales for the Lottery, which would be a step forward but only a small one.
Perhaps the most nuanced opinion in the report was penned by Rep. Bride Rose Sweeney. She appears to see technological progress as inevitable and to be receptive to the idea that a regulated market is the only solution to the black market. On the other hand, she understands opponents’ concerns and that there is conflicting evidence about iGaming’s impact on retail casino revenue.
Will Ohio Legalize Online Casinos in 2025?
The report only includes commentary from legislators who were on the Study Committee. It’s likely that other lawmakers have opinions too, and the November election might shake things up further.
However, based on the report, it looks like there is potential for a 2025 iGaming and iLottery expansion push beginning in the House with Reps. Edwards, LaRe, and Abrams.
Inevitably, some Republicans will oppose gambling expansion on moral grounds or to protect small business interests. So, to succeed, the effort will likely need bipartisan support. Rep. Sweeney would appear to be the key to making this happen. If the proposal successfully addresses her concerns, she might be able to drum up support from House Democrats.
The more significant challenge is likely to be the Senate. That echoes what happened this year in Maryland. Its online casino referendum bill passed in the House but couldn’t quite muster the necessary votes in the Senate. Sens. Landis and DeMora will likely try to obstruct efforts in the Ohio Senate. Meanwhile, Sen. Manning is already indicating that he’s prepared to accept a much smaller scale of expansion than his peers in the House want.
The bowling alleys might be manageable, but JACK Entertainment will be a formidable opponent. It has proven very hard to pass iGaming legislation unless all of a state’s retail operators are on board. Moreover, JACK is a local company headquartered in Cleveland, while the iGaming proponents are based elsewhere in the US.
Given the way online casino expansion has stalled in other states, Ohio has to be a long shot to get it done on the first try. That’s more likely to be a multi-year effort. The prospects appear much better of getting an iLottery-only bill through in 2025.
About the Author
