North Carolina aims to regulate college sports betting

Added: May 3, 2024

House Bill 967 was introduced by Rep. Marcia Morey of North Carolina in response to concerns regarding college sports betting.

This bill focuses on “player prop bets,” which are wagers on college athletes’ individual performances as opposed to the game’s final result. Additionally, the bill would outlaw “retail,” or physical, betting establishments during collegiate sporting events. This bill’s introduction comes in response to a nationwide appeal made by NCAA President Charlie Baker, who asked all states to enact similar prohibitions in order to preserve the fairness of sporting events and shield collegiate athletes from any potential harassment resulting from gaming-related activities.

Since the state’s legalization of sports betting on the eleventh of March, there has been a movement for this legislation in North Carolina. Significant betting activity was recorded by the North Carolina State Lottery Commission, with $659.3 million in total handled for sports betting online in just March. $202.6 million of the total amount was wagered using promotional incentives.

Currently, North Carolina is home to eight regulated sportsbooks, indicating the state’s expanding presence in the gambling sector. The current legislative session ends on July 31st, which is the deadline for considering the bill, HB 967.

Interestingly enough, similar actions have previously been done by other governments. College player prop bets are prohibited in Ohio, Maryland, and Louisiana as of 2024; the Louisiana restriction will go into effect on August 1st. Sen. Kristin Corrado’s Bill S3080, which would likewise allow similar wagers if they don’t feature in-state college teams, is being considered by New Jersey.

On the other hand, Montana seems to be an anomaly in this conversation. The state, represented by Bob Brown, the director of the Montana Lottery, feels that because of smaller population and fewer large colleges, national issues pertaining to player prop bets do not greatly affect them. Although Brown is aware of the concerns expressed, he is certain that Montana’s unique circumstances do not call for a ban on these wagers.

North Carolina