Georgia online sports betting bill fails to meet deadline
Another attempt to legalize online sports betting in Georgia failed after neither the proposed bill nor the constitutional amendment came to a vote in the House of Representatives, according to a report by the Associated Press.
Although legal sports betting in Georgia is supported by Atlanta’s professional sports teams, local business groups and Republican Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones, efforts to pass sports betting regulations have failed.
Since 2018, US states have been free to establish their own sports betting legislation, and 38 have done so.
Lawmakers who oppose sports betting in Georgia highlight the potential addiction risks that it poses. Supporters claim that Georgians should be allowed to vote on the issue and that many residents are betting on sports using illegal offshore online sportsbooks.
“It came in late and I guess people just weren’t there yet,” House Higher Education Committee Chairman Chuck Martin told The Associated Press about the bills. “We’ll keep working with people and trying to do what’s in the best interest of the state.”
He said a referendum was possible for the November 2026 ballot.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
How Georgia’s latest push unraveled
Georgia’s drive to legalize online sports wagering has cycled through momentum and impasse for years, and the latest stall fits that pattern. The House’s failure to advance enabling legislation before a procedural deadline did not happen in a vacuum. It followed months of mixed signals at the Capitol, a bruising committee defeat earlier in the year, leadership changes in the House ranks and a late-session attempt to reframe sports betting as a tourism tool rather than a gambling expansion.
In February, a key Senate panel blocked a resolution that would have asked voters to approve online sports betting and casino gambling on the ballot, taxing operators at 20 percent. The vote effectively halted a top-down path to legalization that hinged on a constitutional amendment. As reported in Georgia Senate put an end to online sports betting bill, opponents emphasized mental health and addiction risks, while supporters pointed to data showing Georgians already place bets through gray-market channels and argued the state was forfeiting as much as $115 million in annual tax revenue. That defeat forced backers to regroup around narrower approaches and a different sales pitch.
By spring, advocates were still trying to thread the needle between a constitutional vote and a statute-only approach that would run sports betting through existing lottery authority. But committee calendars, member priorities and unresolved questions about tax rates and revenue allocation left little runway. When the House did not move a bill or a companion referendum by the cutoff, it signaled that votes were not there to bridge the divide between social conservatives and gambling proponents, even with professional sports teams and business groups urging action.
A leadership void midstream
The sudden resignation of one of the House’s most visible advocates compounded the challenge. Rep. Marcus Wiedower, a Republican who introduced a two-track package to legalize internet-only wagering and put the question to voters in 2026, stepped down to pursue a private opportunity. As detailed in Georgia sports betting push faces uncertainty after lawmaker resigns, Wiedower had proposed issuing up to 16 online licenses at a 24 percent tax rate through House Bill 686, while House Resolution 450 sought a 2026 referendum on online-only betting.
Wiedower’s exit removed a key negotiator as the session narrowed, leaving remaining sponsors to defend a complex package with moving parts. His plan steered clear of casinos, kiosks and horse tracks to avoid inflaming opposition, but it still required settling thorny issues: whether a constitutional amendment is necessary at all, how to earmark proceeds and which regulator should have primacy. Gov. Brian Kemp’s appointment to fill the seat ensured House operations continued, but the loss of a primary dealmaker in an already fractious debate made consensus less likely in time to meet procedural deadlines.
Tourism pitch arrives late
Even as legalization faltered on the Senate side, another arm of state government tried to reframe the issue. The Senate Study Committee on Making Georgia the No. 1 State for Tourism slipped a recommendation into its final report urging lawmakers to authorize mobile sports wagering as part of a broader strategy to boost visitor spending. The report, highlighted in Georgia tourism committee pushes for mobile sports betting, cited North Carolina’s model of directing a slice of betting revenue to attract marquee events and warned Georgia risks missing a global marketing moment ahead of 2026 World Cup matches in Atlanta.
The tourism case introduced a new rationale: use wagering to strengthen the state’s bid for major events, harness data-driven promotions and capture dollars otherwise flowing to neighboring states or offshore books. The committee pointed to Missouri’s rapid launch and first-day account sign-ups as a rough benchmark for potential demand, and it noted Georgia posted $45.2 billion in visitor spending in 2024 without a sustained international push. Still, the recommendation surfaced late and was not debated publicly before inclusion, leaving lawmakers little time to socialize the concept or reconcile it with ongoing constitutional questions.
Competing claims on costs and benefits
Outside the Capitol, a traveling House study panel heard dueling testimony that previewed arguments on the House floor. At a Savannah stop, witnesses marketed wagering—especially horse betting—as a rural economic engine with job creation, while critics warned about youth exposure and addiction. As recapped in Georgia committee hears sports gambling arguments, proponents emphasized leakage to legal markets in other states and the opportunity to formalize activity already occurring. Opponents, including faith-based and family groups, pressed social harms and enforcement challenges.
Those crosscurrents have consistently shaped outcomes. In the Senate panel defeat chronicled in the failed Senate resolution, social-conservative lobbying helped sink the measure despite claims of strong public support for a vote. House leaders faced the same calculus: a whip count that threatened to split both parties and a base wary of moving gambling beyond the lottery. The result was drift—an implicit decision to let the clock run rather than force a divisive vote before negotiators had a path forward.
What neighboring models signal—and what they don’t
Lawmakers often look to nearby markets for clarity. North Carolina’s decision to earmark betting revenue for event attraction and the early surge in Missouri sign-ups featured prominently in tourism rhetoric. Supporters hoped those examples would show how mobile wagering can be integrated into a broader economic-development play. But Georgia’s constitutional and political constraints differ. The state’s lottery construct and the unresolved debate over whether sports betting requires a constitutional amendment have repeatedly tripped up bills that might pass elsewhere.
Internal data points also cut both ways. Industry figures, cited during debate, suggest tens of thousands of Georgians already placed online bets during major events. That underlines a compliance and consumer-protection argument for licensing and taxing operators. Yet those same numbers energize opponents who argue that normalizing mobile betting would expand access and exacerbate problem gambling, especially among young adults. Without common ground on responsible gaming funding, advertising limits and youth protections, each new bill has faced familiar headwinds.
A cautionary parallel from Rhode Island
Georgia is not alone in stalling over the details. Rhode Island, which legalized sports betting in 2018, tried this year to open its market to multiple operators but ran out of time despite an early Senate win. As reported in Rhode Island expanded sports betting bill fails to pass, a proposal to allow up to five sportsbook licenses, potentially including national brands, cleared the Senate 30-2 but never received a House committee hearing before a June 21 deadline. Key House leaders signaled they would not entertain expansion before the incumbent’s contract nears expiration in 2026, and state officials raised concerns about destabilizing a single-operator model. The outcome shows how contract structures, not just ideology, can freeze change even where betting is already legal.
For Georgia, the lesson is that timing, governance and stakeholder alignment matter as much as raw revenue projections. A late tourism pivot, a leadership vacancy and unresolved constitutional questions combined to stall the latest bid. With Atlanta set to host World Cup matches in 2026 and neighboring states refining their approaches, pressure will build to settle the legal framework well before then. Whether advocates opt for a clean referendum, a lottery-based statute or a hybrid approach, they will need a clearer coalition—and a disciplined timeline—than the one that just ran out.
