Bally’s selected to operate Rhode Island’s second online sportsbook

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

A monopoly built around state revenue

Rhode Island’s decision to add a second online sportsbook comes after years of operating one of the most tightly controlled sports betting markets in the U.S. Since mobile wagering began in 2019, the state has relied on a single online product, Sportsbook Rhode Island, with IGT supplying the platform under an exclusivity framework tied to the Rhode Island Lottery and Bally’s retail operations. That model was designed to protect state revenue and simplify oversight in a small market, but it also left Rhode Island as an outlier while neighboring states embraced broader competition.

The structure has been especially important because gambling is a major budget contributor in Rhode Island. Under the existing online sports betting split, the state receives 51% of revenue, operators receive 32% and Bally’s retail sportsbook operations receive 17%. That high state share helped justify the monopoly, but it also created a trade-off: Rhode Island captured a larger slice of a smaller, less competitive market. The decision to select Bally’s as a second online sportsbook operator signals that officials are now willing to test whether more choice can expand the overall pool without sacrificing the state’s fiscal position.

Pressure grew after app failures and stalled reforms

Consumer frustration helped push the market-opening debate from theory into legislative and regulatory action. The most visible flashpoint came when the Sportsbook Rhode Island app suffered an outage on the NFL’s first full Sunday, blocking wagers for about 75 minutes during one of the most important betting windows of the year. The Lottery attributed the disruption to server issues and said the downtime was unexpected, but the episode fed long-running complaints about the performance and user experience of the state’s sole app.

Those complaints mattered because sports betting is a convenience-driven business. Bettors in nearby states can use national platforms with deep promotional budgets, extensive betting menus and familiar interfaces. Rhode Island customers have had fewer alternatives unless they crossed state lines or refrained from betting. That created a policy question: whether the state’s monopoly could remain defensible if it limited consumer choice and potentially pushed activity outside Rhode Island.

Lawmakers had already considered opening the market before the latest selection. A Senate effort to authorize more operators advanced in 2024 but did not become law after the House failed to take it up. The latest regulatory move, therefore, does not come out of nowhere. It reflects a wider reassessment of whether the state’s sports betting structure should prioritize exclusivity or broader participation.

Legislators pressed for a wider field

The selection of Bally’s also lands in the middle of a broader legislative debate over how far Rhode Island should go. This year, the Senate passed a bill that could open Rhode Island’s market to new sportsbooks, including national operators such as DraftKings and FanDuel. The measure would allow the state to move beyond the current framework and invite outside bidders once key contractual limits expire. The Senate vote, 30-2, showed strong support in that chamber for a more competitive model, though the House companion bill has not advanced.

Supporters argue that competition would let residents use preferred betting apps while increasing tax revenue through a larger handle and improved customer retention. DraftKings, in testimony supporting the legislation, said Rhode Island could reach its market potential by allowing more operators. That argument reflects the industry’s standard case: multiple brands compete on product, marketing and pricing, which can increase engagement and keep bettors in the legal market.

IGT and defenders of the current model have countered that Rhode Island’s high state share is possible because of the monopoly. They warn that attracting large commercial operators may require lowering taxes, potentially reducing the state’s take even if total betting volume rises. The dispute is not simply about consumer choice. It is about whether Rhode Island should protect a high-margin state revenue model or pursue a broader market that may be more resilient over time.

Bally’s wider Rhode Island footprint matters

Bally’s selection cannot be separated from its broader position in the state. The company is already central to Rhode Island gaming through its casino properties and retail sports betting role. It has also become the state’s exclusive online casino operator, giving it a growing digital footprint at a time when Rhode Island is still learning how much revenue internet gambling can produce.

Early online casino results show both the promise and volatility of that segment. In November 2024, Rhode Island online gaming revenue reached nearly $3 million, though it fell from October despite higher wagering volume. The figures underscored a key point for policymakers: handle alone does not guarantee revenue, especially when player winnings fluctuate. Still, online casino gaming gives Rhode Island a new recurring revenue stream and gives Bally’s more incentive to integrate its sports betting and iGaming products.

That integration is already taking shape. Bally’s recently deepened its content pipeline when Evolution expanded into Rhode Island through a Bally’s partnership, bringing online slots from NetEnt, Red Tiger and Big Time Gaming into the state. The deal also extended Bally’s relationship with Evolution in other markets through branded live dealer content. For Rhode Island, the arrangement matters because a stronger casino product can help Bally’s build the kind of digital account base that supports sports betting, cross-selling and customer retention.

National ambitions meet local scrutiny

Bally’s is trying to position itself as more than a regional casino operator, but its national strategy has faced pressure. The company has expanded across digital gaming, sports media and streaming, including the decision to rebrand Bally Live as Bally Sports Live. That platform is intended to connect live sports streaming, social features, gamification and Bally Rewards, giving the company more ways to engage sports fans outside the sportsbook itself.

The timing is notable. The rebrand followed a difficult period for Bally’s shares and came as investors scrutinized the company’s ability to execute across casinos, online gambling and sports media. In Rhode Island, regulators are not just choosing another app. They are betting that Bally’s can deliver reliable technology, compete for digital customers and generate incremental tax revenue while operating under state oversight.

That creates a different kind of accountability than the existing monopoly model. If Bally’s launches after the IGT exclusivity provisions expire Nov. 26, its performance will be compared with the incumbent Sportsbook Rhode Island app and with the products available just across state borders. A second operator may ease complaints about lack of choice, but it also raises expectations for uptime, pricing, bet selection and customer service.

The next fight is over how open Rhode Island becomes

The immediate effect of Bally’s tentative selection is limited: Rhode Island will move from one online sportsbook to two, not to a fully open market. But the decision changes the political baseline. Once a second operator is introduced, lawmakers and industry participants will have new evidence to argue whether competition improves revenue and consumer experience or merely divides existing activity.

The stakes are larger than a single contract. Rhode Island is balancing a dependable gambling revenue model against the risk that an undercompetitive market leaves money on the table and frustrates customers. The state’s high revenue share, small population and existing contractual obligations make it unlikely to mirror larger multi-operator states quickly. Even so, the shift toward Bally’s as a second sportsbook shows that the old monopoly is no longer the default answer.

For national operators that did not bid this time, the legislative path remains crucial. If lawmakers authorize four to six online sportsbooks, Rhode Island could become a more conventional competitive market. If they do not, the Bally’s launch will serve as a narrower experiment in controlled competition. Either way, the state is entering a new phase in which performance, not exclusivity alone, will determine whether its sports betting model can keep pace.