Rhode Island currently operates its online sports betting market under a monopoly structure, with IGT as the exclusive operator. Since the repeal of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), the landscape of sports betting in the United States has dramatically transformed. Numerous states have launched competitive sports betting markets to meet the surging interest in wagering and capitalize on the financial inflows associated with it. In contrast, Rhode Island has maintained a monopoly model, with IGT running the Rhode Island Lottery’s Sportsbook RI app.
However, there are increasing discussions and legislative efforts to liberalize the market. Earlier this year, the Rhode Island Department of Revenue Lottery Division initiated a Request for Information to explore the potential benefits of opening the market to additional operators. This move indicated a step towards considering a more competitive environment for online sports betting in the state. The department discovered significant interest from major players in the industry; among those expressing interest were Bally’s, which operates the state’s two casinos, as well as well-known brands like BetMGM, DraftKings, Fanatics, FanDuel, Kambi, and OpenBet. The exclusive contract with IGT is due to expire in November 2026, which opens the door for potential market expansion.
There have been legislative attempts to end the monopoly. Earlier this year, a bill aimed at breaking IGT’s exclusivity gained traction in the Senate. Unfortunately, it was not reviewed by the House before the legislative session ended. A similar legislative effort was made the previous year, highlighting the persistence among lawmakers who support diversification of the betting market.
Proponents of market liberalization argue that introducing more operators could lead to increased tax revenues. In 2024, Rhode Island collected $14 million in online betting tax revenue, thanks in part to a 51% tax on online betting. Advocates believe that more operators would increase market activity, thereby boosting tax income for the state. Additionally, they argue that a competitive market would offer bettors more choices and potentially better odds, creating a more attractive and dynamic betting environment.
Critics of the monopoly model argue that it does not serve the best interest of bettors. A non-competitive environment can stifle innovation and service quality, ultimately disadvantaging consumers. Technical issues with a single operator could also prevent fans from placing wagers, leading to missed opportunities for both bettors and the state in terms of revenue. The lack of competition can result in complacency, where the sole provider may not feel the pressure to enhance the user experience or offer enticing promotions and odds.
Despite these points, there are voices in favor of retaining the monopoly. Some argue that a single operator can provide a more controlled and streamlined regulatory environment, potentially reducing the risk of illegal activities and ensuring all operations comply with state laws. They suggest that the monopoly can simplify oversight and enforcement, making it easier for the state to manage its betting operations effectively.
The debate over Rhode Island’s sports betting market structure is framed by broader industry trends. Across the United States, states have adopted varied approaches to sports betting, from open markets with numerous operators to more restricted models. Each approach has its pros and cons, with states weighing factors such as potential tax revenue, regulatory complexities, consumer protection, and market stability.
As discussions continue, stakeholders in Rhode Island are closely observing the outcomes in other states to inform their decisions. Both supporters and detractors of the monopoly model agree that the primary goal should be to serve the interests of the state and its residents effectively. The ongoing deliberations are set against the backdrop of a rapidly evolving industry where technology, consumer preferences, and regulatory landscapes are constantly changing.
The upcoming expiration of IGT’s contract presents a pivotal moment for Rhode Island to reassess its strategy. Whether the state chooses to maintain its current model or embrace a more open market, the decision will significantly impact its economic landscape. As one local insider commented, the stakes are high, and the potential for growth in tax revenue and consumer satisfaction could be substantial.
In conclusion, Rhode Island stands at a crossroads regarding its online sports betting market. The decision to maintain or end the monopoly will likely hinge on balancing the benefits of competition with the need for regulatory oversight and consumer protection. With interest from major industry players and varying perspectives on the best path forward, the state’s decision will be closely watched as a potential indicator of future trends in sports betting regulation in the United States.
