New York latest gambling regulator to discuss banning prop bets

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2026/01/16: NCAA urges a ban on prop bets after new point shaving scandal 2026/01/22: Missouri to decide on NCAA request to ban prop bets on college sports 2026/01/26: Missouri rejects NCAA push to restrict college athlete prop bets 2025/05/21: Athletes to be protected from negative prop bets, NCAA reveals

The Backstory

New scrutiny on a fast-growing wager

New York’s reassessment of player proposition wagers did not emerge in a vacuum. The state’s gaming regulator this week signaled it may curb, or even ban, some or all player-based props after a series of integrity scares and criminal cases tied to sports betting. The commission’s warning, outlined in a letter to professional sports leagues, was first reported by Law.com; the regulator said it is re-examining “individual player proposition wagers that are game specific” and multi-leg parlays built on those bets, and that an outright prohibition is on the table if warranted. The agency’s posture aligns New York with a broader national shift away from the most manipulable and harassment-prone forms of wagering as legal sports betting matures. For background on the New York outreach, see Law.com’s report, “NYS Gaming Commission Is Set to Review Prop Bets, Tells Sports Leagues That a Ban Is an Option,” at New York Law Journal.

Prop bets surged in popularity because they let fans wager on granular outcomes — a kicker’s miss, a pitcher’s strikeout total, a guard’s three-pointers — not just who wins the game. That granularity also creates friction points: small, discrete events can be vulnerable to manipulation, and even when play is clean, losing bets can trigger harassment of athletes who are blamed for missed targets. As regulators tally the pressures, a growing number are weighing permanent limits on player props, especially in live, in-game markets where speed and emotion can exacerbate risky behavior.

College sports pushback reshapes the conversation

College athletics has been a leading indicator. A wave of investigations involving dozens of NCAA Division I men’s basketball players intensified calls to ringfence student-athletes from betting markets that reduce their performance to binary financial outcomes. NCAA President Charlie Baker has leaned on states to bar college props and has moved to constrain how official data is used. In an extension of the NCAA’s long-term deal with data provider Genius Sports, Baker announced a new condition that blocks “negative” props — wagers that can incentivize or celebrate failure — from any sportsbook accessing NCAA data. The terms, designed to curb abuse and reduce perverse incentives, are detailed in Inside Gaming’s report on the NCAA’s effort to shield athletes from negative prop bets.

The NCAA’s stance arrives amid evidence that online abuse has spiked, with women athletes targeted at higher rates and a meaningful share of harassment linked to betting. More than half of students aged 18 to 22 say they have wagered on sports, according to NCAA surveys, raising the stakes for campus compliance and mental health. These dynamics have filtered into statehouses. Even where props remain legal for pros, college-specific restrictions have become the norm in many jurisdictions, creating a patchwork that New York is now re-evaluating as it weighs broader integrity risks.

Lawmakers rethink the guardrails they built

As regulators move, some legislators are reassessing the frameworks they wrote just a few years ago. In Massachusetts, state Sen. John Keenan introduced a bill he calls the Bettor Health Act that would ban in-game prop bets and halt sports betting ads during live televised games. Since launching legal wagering in early 2023, Massachusetts has banked more than $315 million in tax revenue, but Keenan argues the social costs demand tighter limits. His proposal would also require operators to double contributions to the public health trust fund, signaling a pivot from pure revenue maximization to risk mitigation. Read more in coverage of the Massachusetts bill targeting in-play props and advertising.

The legislative impulse reflects a pattern seen across the map: as betting volume normalizes, policymakers are refining rules to address second-order effects. Some efforts focus on the types of bets offered; others target the business model, including marketing and tax incentives. The through line is that first-wave legalization frameworks are being stress-tested by real-world behavior, enforcement challenges and public health concerns.

Ohio’s split screen: integrity fears vs revenue reality

Few states illustrate the crosscurrents as clearly as Ohio. Gov. Mike DeWine has pressed the state’s Casino Control Commission to prohibit prop bets in professional sports following a string of investigations, including cases involving Cleveland Guardians pitchers. He framed the issue bluntly, citing threats to athletes and the integrity of games; his statement is posted on the governor’s website. The commission says it is reviewing the matter and will outline next steps soon.

But there is resistance in the legislature. State Rep. Brian Stewart publicly opposed a ban on professional prop bets, noting the wagers’ popularity and their contribution to state tax collections since January 2023. Stewart argued that adults should be free to place these bets and that college props — already banned in Ohio — are the proper line of defense. His position is detailed in reporting on Ohio’s debate over prop bet restrictions, and he reiterated it on social media, writing that “prop bets are a big part” of Ohio’s tax revenue; see his post on X. The split underscores the policy trade-offs New York now faces: safeguard integrity and athlete welfare, or preserve a product category that drives engagement and dollars.

Leagues tighten their own guardrails

Even as states weigh bans, leagues are trying to preempt manipulation and harassment risks from inside the tent. The NFL recently reminded teams and personnel of restrictions on wagers vulnerable to influence — including bets tied to injuries, officiating and single-player actions — and said it is working with regulators and sportsbooks to further tighten player-based props. The initiative, reported in coverage of the NFL’s plan to tighten rules around player props, comes as other leagues confront higher-profile scandals.

Major League Baseball, rocked by federal indictments that alleged bribery linked to specific pitch outcomes, responded by capping pitch-related wagers at $200 and banning them from parlays. The NBA has faced its own integrity issues, including charges tied to alleged insider information involving a player and a coach. The cross-league recalibration strengthens the case for regulators like New York’s to pare back prop inventory most susceptible to manipulation or abuse, or to cordon off live micro-markets where bad actors can move faster than monitors.

The business calculus as the market matures

Tightening rules on props is part of a larger reset in U.S. sports betting as policymakers balance growth with safeguards. Some states are also revisiting the economics. In Colorado, lawmakers advanced a proposal to tax “free bet” promotions offered by online operators, aiming to channel an estimated $12 million annually to water projects as drought and climate change strain supplies. The measure, which would boost effective tax collections without raising the statutory 10% rate, is outlined in reporting on Colorado’s plan to tax free sports bets. While not directly tied to integrity, the move signals waning tolerance for aggressive customer acquisition subsidies and a shift toward fiscal sustainability.

For operators, the stakes are clear. Player props are sticky engagement tools that keep casual bettors tuned in, especially during off-peak segments of a game. Restrictions threaten short-term handle and parlay volume but could lower customer complaints, liability spikes and regulatory risk. For leagues, fewer sensitive markets may reduce threats against players and protect brand equity. For states, the trade-off pits tax receipts against compliance costs and public health claims that problem gambling rises with in-play, micro-bet frequency.

New York’s decision will reverberate. As one of the nation’s largest markets, any ban or sharp limit on player props would likely nudge other regulators and sportsbooks toward a tighter baseline. With the NCAA curbing negative props tied to its data, the NFL signaling new guardrails, and states like Massachusetts proposing in-play prohibitions, the momentum is moving in one direction. The remaining question is how far and how fast New York goes — and whether the industry can adapt product mixes to sustain engagement without the riskiest bets.