Ohio Governor regrets signing sports betting into law

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/07/25: Ohio governor opposes igaming expansion 2025/08/01: Ohio governor calls for sports betting changes after Major League Baseball investigation 2025/08/12: Ohio lawmaker opposes governor’s push to ban prop bets 2025/11/18: Ohio pauses updates to sports betting regulation as MLB limits prop wagers

The Backstory

How Ohio got here

Ohio’s rapid embrace of legal sports wagering set the stage for today’s political reversal. Lawmakers authorized statewide mobile and retail betting as part of a late-session package in 2021, and the market launched in early 2023 with strong operator interest and brisk tax collections. The promise was simple: regulate a widespread activity, drive it into the open and capture revenue. That bet has grown complicated as integrity scares and consumer harms have gained attention, prompting calls for a sharper regulatory turn.

Concerns centered first on the speed and scope of the rollout. The statute greenlighted a modern sportsbook ecosystem built around live markets and granular, player-specific wagers. Those products, popular with consumers and crucial to operator growth, now sit at the center of the state’s political debate. The shift reflects a broader national recalibration as policymakers weigh revenue against risks to athletes, leagues and young bettors.

From warning signs to a policy push

Gov. Mike DeWine’s rhetoric hardened as the market matured. He began publicly questioning whether Ohio was granting too much access to betting apps and too much latitude on in-game markets seen as more vulnerable to abuse. In a major escalation, the governor urged the Ohio Casino Control Commission to remove proposition bets from the legal catalog, framing the move as necessary to protect athletes and the integrity of competition. He paired that in-state request with a national appeal to professional leagues and unions to curb prop wagering. The full statement is posted on the governor’s site, where he explicitly pressed for a ban on prop bets across sports following an MLB investigation and threats against collegiate players.

That push followed months of warnings about gambling-related harassment of athletes and the outsized influence of micro markets. The governor’s office highlighted the risks around single-player events that can be manipulated without swinging a game’s outcome. Regulators acknowledged they were evaluating options even as they balanced consumer demand with enforcement capacity. The debate set up a test of how far a state can dial back popular bet types after legalization.

League action and a pause in Columbus

The calculus changed when Major League Baseball tightened its own limits on the riskiest wagers. The league instructed authorized books to cap certain pitch-level markets at $200 and to remove those bets from parlays, citing heightened integrity risks. Ohio regulators and the governor responded by holding off on new state rules, saying MLB’s move addressed the immediate pressure point without disrupting a multistate market. Coverage of the decision noted that state officials did not foreclose future action, but they paused updates while league limits took effect.

The backdrop was stark. Two Cleveland Guardians pitchers landed on paid leave as part of MLB’s gambling probe, and prosecutors later filed federal charges alleging manipulation of individual pitches tied to a scheme involving wire fraud conspiracy and bribery. MLB called micro-bet pitch markets uniquely vulnerable because a single player can determine the outcome. DeWine praised the league’s step as “sensible” and a meaningful integrity safeguard, while keeping up pressure for broader curbs on micro props and similar offerings.

A public split over prop bets

Not everyone at the Statehouse agrees. Republican Rep. Brian Stewart has emerged as a leading critic of an outright ban on prop bets in professional sports. He argues the wagers are a core part of consumer demand and tax performance, noting sports betting has generated hundreds of millions in revenue for the state since launch. Stewart said he would oppose a ban and work to keep the markets open, a position he has reiterated publicly, including in posts defending prop bets as a lawful choice for adults.

At the same time, Stewart has signaled interest in revisiting collegiate props, which Ohio already bars, reflecting a possible middle ground that targets the most sensitive arenas while preserving professional markets. The commission, for now, is reviewing the governor’s request and watching league-led steps. The standoff underscores a core tension of the post-PASPA era: states sold legalization as a balance of freedom and safety, but the equilibrium shifts quickly when integrity scares hit hometown teams.

Policy frictions have spilled into public messaging. State leaders are weighing whether league standards offer sufficient guardrails or whether Ohio should impose tougher, state-specific limits. That decision carries operational and legal consequences for books and could drive product differences across state lines, affecting consumer behavior and enforcement.

The next front: igaming

As the sports betting debate intensified, lawmakers opened a new front with proposals to legalize full internet casino gaming. Companion measures in both chambers would authorize online slots and table games, with key differences over scope. The House version, House Bill 298, would extend online gambling to slots and table games through existing casinos and racinos. The Senate measure, Senate Bill 197, contemplates a broader framework that also touches on lottery and horse wagering limits, including a $500 weekly cap in some drafts, according to recent coverage.

DeWine has opposed the expansion bluntly. He told reporters he is not for igaming, warning that putting a round-the-clock casino on every phone would heighten addiction and harm families. In a separate appearance, he expanded on the risk, saying the always-on nature of mobile gambling could draw in younger users despite age checks. Those views have colored the legislative debate and influenced the industry’s expectations. Supporters counter that Ohio already regulates land-based slots and tables and allows online sports betting, making igaming a logical extension that could produce substantial new tax revenue. Opponents in the brick-and-mortar sector warn of cannibalization and job losses. Reporting on the early bill hearings captured those competing claims, with supporters touting more than $600 million in potential revenue and DeWine emphasizing addiction risks.

Why the stakes are rising

The convergence of integrity scares, political blowback and expansion plans has sharpened the stakes for operators, leagues and consumers. For sportsbooks, Ohio is a large, sports-mad market that values same-game parlays and prop options. Any rollback could dampen engagement and tax yield. For leagues, the state’s posture foreshadows whether team-linked crises prompt state-level intervention or are managed through league policy and data controls. MLB’s limits on micro props are a test case for cooperative solutions that avoid patchwork rules.

For policymakers, the arc from legalization to reconsideration is a cautionary tale. The first phase emphasized access and revenue. The second is about containment: tightening product offerings, elevating integrity partnerships and calibrating advertising and affordability checks. As leaders spar over prop bets and igaming, Ohio’s experience will inform debates in other states weighing similar trade-offs. The coming months will show whether league guardrails satisfy state concerns or whether Ohio moves unilaterally to restrict prop markets while tabling broader expansion. Either way, the politics of gambling in Ohio have entered a new, more skeptical phase shaped by events on the field and on the phone.

Key players are dug in. DeWine continues to pressure regulators and leagues for systemic changes, while legislative voices like Stewart defend consumer choice and tax receipts. Regulators are signaling patience while monitoring outcomes. With bills pending and league policies shifting, the policy map is still being drawn.