Georgia committee hears sports gambling arguments

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/03/07: Georgia online sports betting bill fails to meet deadline 2025/03/03: Georgia Senate put an end to online sports betting bill 2025/05/26: The Supreme Court of India hears plea to ban all online sports betting apps 2025/08/05: Senate committee approves military gambling addiction research

The Backstory

Why the debate resurfaced now

Georgia’s latest push to legalize online sports betting and broader gambling did not materialize overnight. A string of hearings and failed votes over the past year set the stage for the current conversation, as lawmakers weighed projected tax revenue against public health risks and political math. A House study panel convened in Savannah to test the waters, taking testimony from former lawmakers, economists and advocacy groups about what gambling could mean for jobs, rural investment and addiction. That session underscored the split: backers pitched a revenue engine anchored by horse wagering and mobile sportsbooks, while opponents warned of youth exposure and a rise in problem gambling. The meeting, detailed in a report on the Georgia House Study Committee’s Savannah hearing, foreshadowed the arguments that would frame the session.

The committee’s listening tour followed years of stalled efforts since the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to state-by-state legalization in 2018. While 38 states have adopted some form of sports betting, Georgia has remained on the sidelines, with the state lottery as the only legal gambling channel. That policy gap created urgency among business groups and professional sports franchises in Atlanta, which argue legalization could capture tax dollars that now leak to illegal offshore sites or neighboring states. It also galvanized faith groups and family advocacy organizations that organized to block expansion beyond the lottery.

The result is a policy arena where bipartisan coalitions form and fracture depending on the proposal before them. The latest round showed how quickly momentum can fade when sponsors cannot reconcile constitutional questions, tax structures and responsible gaming safeguards that both sides say they want.

Deadlines missed and shifting tactics

Supporters entered this year with two tracks: a statutory bill to authorize online sports betting and a constitutional amendment to fortify legalization against court challenges. Neither path advanced in time. As reported in a wrap of the missed cutoff, Georgia’s online sports betting plan failed to meet a key deadline in the House, with leadership signaling there was not yet sufficient backing to call a vote. The chair of a key committee cautioned that a referendum could slip to the November 2026 ballot if consensus does not emerge sooner.

The Senate was an even steeper climb. A resolution that would have sent a broader package—online sports betting and casino gambling—to voters was voted down in committee, with opponents citing mental health risks and addiction. The measure envisioned a 20% tax and emphasized revenue potential, but it did not overcome concerns about social costs or the optics of expanding gambling beyond sportsbooks. Even so, sponsors in both chambers signaled they would keep introducing legislation, betting that public polling and persistent revenue gaps would bring holdouts to the table in a future session.

These setbacks highlight a tactical dilemma: whether to advance a narrow, sportsbook-only model through statute or to pursue a comprehensive amendment that bundles casinos and horse tracks. Narrow bills may be easier to pass but risk legal challenges over constitutionality; broader amendments invite more opposition and complex negotiations on tax rates, licensing and local approvals.

Revenue promises versus leakage reality

Economic claims have been central. Proponents argue the state is surrendering tax receipts to other jurisdictions and to illegal markets. A University of Kentucky-linked estimate cited during the Savannah hearing projected billions in wagering handle and thousands of jobs tied to legalized horse betting, according to the account of the committee session in Savannah. A separate data point, shared in Senate testimony, suggested there were roughly 14,500 active geolocated betting accounts during Super Bowl LIX inside Georgia’s borders—evidence that residents already gamble online despite the ban. That metric, reported in the Senate committee’s rejection, was paired with estimates that Georgia could capture up to $115 million a year in tax revenue if it regulated the market.

Opponents contest the size of those gains or argue they are not worth the risk. They note that handle is not revenue and that tax projections depend on assumptions about participation, operator margins and tax compliance. They also stress that expanding legal channels can normalize betting among young adults and open pathways to problem gambling that carry costs for families, employers and public services. Those concerns, amplified by groups with deep ties across both parties, have been decisive at key moments when leadership must count votes.

The public health lens grows sharper

What is different in this cycle is how addiction risk is moving from a rhetorical point to a policy pillar. In Washington, a Senate panel approved a provision to fund military-focused gambling addiction research through the Defense Department’s medical program. The measure, supported by industry and public health advocates, acknowledges data that service members face elevated risk and that veterans with gambling disorder report high rates of suicide attempts. This creates a federal backdrop that state lawmakers can reference as they draft guardrails such as universal self-exclusion, data sharing, ad limits and funding for treatment.

Public health groups also point to national training and research resources, including the National Council on Problem Gambling’s NGAGE survey initiative, to argue any legalization should build in stable funding for prevention, screening and treatment. In Georgia’s hearings, family advocates emphasized youth exposure through ubiquitous mobile apps and sports marketing, urging lawmakers to slow down or put the question directly to voters with robust consumer protections specified in the text.

Globally, the trend is toward tighter oversight as markets mature. Chile advanced a comprehensive framework to regulate online gambling, with Senate finance leaders emphasizing biometric identity checks, platform blocking and tax clarity as part of an “urgent” bill to legitimize the sector. In India, the Supreme Court heard a plea to ban betting apps nationally amid claims of youth harm and suicides, a stark reminder—captured in this report on the petition before India’s high court—that jurisdictions are grappling with the social fallout of mobile wagering even as they weigh economic benefits.

What’s at stake for Georgia next

The immediate question is procedural: whether lawmakers rally around a narrow statutory bill that can clear committee and floor votes or punt to a constitutional referendum in 2026. The broader stakes are fiscal and social. Supporters see a chance to formalize a market that already exists, redirect dollars to state priorities and corral illegal operators. Opponents warn that legalization without rigorous controls risks normalizing an addictive product and shifting hidden costs onto families and taxpayers.

Between those poles lies a negotiated model. Expect debate over tax rates that do not push bettors back to offshore sites, advertising standards that limit youth exposure, and identity and payment rules that mirror emerging best practices in other countries. Georgia’s past false starts suggest the next viable package will be slower, narrower and more prescriptive on responsible gaming than earlier attempts.

For now, the throughline is clear: each failed vote builds a record that will shape the next bill. Hearings in Savannah, missed House deadlines and an emphatic Senate committee rejection have clarified what won’t pass. The next draft will reveal whether backers can translate public support and leakage data into a plan that addresses addiction risks in concrete, enforceable terms.