Rhode Island lawmakers look to expand sports betting market

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/07/01: Rhode Island expanded sports betting bill fails to pass 2026/05/29: FanDuel makes last-minute attempt at Rhode Island market expansion 2025/06/05: Rhode Island lawmakers prepare to vote on gambling bills as legislative deadline nears 2026/05/27: Bally’s selected to operate Rhode Island’s second online sportsbook

The Backstory

Rhode Island’s long-running single-operator debate

Rhode Island’s latest push to expand sports betting is not an isolated fight over vendor access. It is the next phase of a yearslong dispute over how far the state should move from a tightly controlled model that has prioritized state oversight, high tax collections and a limited number of gambling partners.

Since legal sports betting began in 2018, Rhode Island has been one of the most restrictive markets in the country. Mobile betting has largely run through Sportsbook Rhode Island, with IGT supplying the technology under a state-backed arrangement and Bally’s tied into the broader casino and retail sports betting structure. That framework has produced predictable revenue for the state but has also left Rhode Island surrounded by more competitive markets in Massachusetts and Connecticut, where bettors can choose from multiple national operators.

The current proposal, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Frank Ciccone, would authorize four to six additional sportsbook licenses and revise how revenue is divided among the state, platform operators and Bally’s. Supporters argue Rhode Island is losing business to neighboring states because consumers can access more apps and promotions just over the border. Opponents, including the Rhode Island Lottery and IGT, say the existing system protects the state’s constitutional control over gambling and helps preserve revenue.

A failed 2025 vote set the stage

The pressure for a broader market intensified after a similar measure collapsed in 2025. Ciccone’s Senate Bill 748 would have allowed the state to accept applications for as many as five sportsbook licenses, potentially opening the door to DraftKings, FanDuel and other national operators. The bill passed the Senate 30-2 in early June, a sign that support for competition had gained traction in that chamber.

But the measure died when the House did not schedule a committee hearing before the June 21 deadline, effectively postponing market expansion for another year. As Rhode Island’s failed 2025 sports betting expansion effort showed, support in the Senate was not enough to overcome House reluctance and industry resistance.

House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi had indicated he was unwilling to revisit the sports betting structure before IGT’s current contract expired. That position underscored one of the central obstacles facing any expansion bill: Rhode Island’s gambling system is built around long-term contracts, and any major change risks disrupting the economics of those agreements.

IGT and Lottery Director Mark Furcolo both raised concerns during the 2025 debate. Their arguments have carried into the new proposal. They contend that adding operators could increase regulatory complexity, reduce the state’s percentage share and undermine the state-control model that has shaped Rhode Island gambling policy for decades.

Bally’s second sportsbook changed the baseline

While lawmakers debated whether to open the market more broadly, regulators moved to add a second online sportsbook within the current framework. The Rhode Island Lottery tentatively selected Bally’s to operate the state’s second online sportsbook, ending the single-operator mobile betting structure that had existed since 2019. The decision followed a process that included Rush Street Interactive, although major national operators did not submit bids.

That development, detailed in Bally’s selection to run Rhode Island’s second online sportsbook, complicated the legislative argument. Expansion supporters could point to Bally’s addition as evidence that the single-app model was already giving way. Opponents could counter that the Lottery was already introducing measured competition without handing the market to four to six operators at once.

Bally’s cannot launch its platform before Nov. 26, when exclusivity provisions tied to the IGT agreement expire. IGT is also expected to continue supplying sportsbook technology under a separate extension running through November 2028. Those overlapping timelines matter because lawmakers are debating whether to legislate competition before the state has tested the two-operator structure.

The current revenue split is also central to the fight. Rhode Island receives 51% of online sportsbook revenue, operators receive 32% and Bally’s retail sportsbook operations receive 17%. The new Senate proposal would lift the platform operator share to 40.5%, with the increase coming from Bally’s allocation. That would improve terms for potential entrants but also reshape the economics of companies already embedded in the state system.

FanDuel and tax rates sharpened the politics

FanDuel has emerged as a visible force behind the push for a more open market. The company has promoted messages to Rhode Island residents who wager on its platform in nearby states, urging them to support more choice and competition. That campaign reflects a broader strategy by large sportsbook operators to challenge restrictive state models by emphasizing consumer choice, product quality and recaptured tax revenue.

A separate House measure backed by expansion supporters would have gone further than the Senate bill by lowering Rhode Island’s sports wagering tax rate from 51% to 12%. As described in FanDuel’s late push for Rhode Island sports betting expansion, House Bill 8186 proposed four to six operators and a sharply reduced tax burden. It made little progress after the House Finance Committee recommended it for further study.

The tax question exposes a divide between two competing theories of gambling revenue. Rhode Island’s current model produces a high state share from a smaller, controlled market. Expansion advocates argue a lower tax rate and more operators could increase total handle, reduce betting leakage to Massachusetts and Connecticut and ultimately generate more money for public needs. Skeptics argue that giving operators a larger share does not guarantee enough new volume to offset a lower state take.

A Spectrum Gaming Group study cited during the debate found Rhode Island’s 51% tax rate was the highest among states with legal sports betting. Between July and March, the state generated $31 million in revenue. Those numbers give both sides ammunition: Supporters see untapped growth, while opponents see a revenue stream the state should not risk without clear evidence.

Consumer choice collides with state control

The constitutional and regulatory arguments may be more decisive than the consumer-choice pitch. Rhode Island’s gambling system has long rested on the principle that the state must retain control. Furcolo has warned that an expanded operator model may conflict with that requirement and make oversight more difficult. That concern goes beyond sports betting revenue and touches the legal foundation of the state’s gambling regime.

Lawmakers have also been weighing gambling expansion alongside enforcement and consumer-protection measures. In 2025, Ciccone advanced Senate Bill 623 to increase penalties for facilitating underage online gambling, while a related House measure sought to criminalize certain underage online gambling activity. The broader package was outlined when Rhode Island lawmakers prepared to vote on gambling bills near the legislative deadline.

Those enforcement bills reflected a political reality: expansion becomes harder to sell unless lawmakers can show they are also tightening safeguards. But even that effort proved contentious. House Bill 5643, which targeted online gambling by people younger than 21, was defeated before being scheduled for reconsideration. Critics argued young adults who can gamble at retail locations should not face criminal records for misunderstanding online restrictions. The debate around the reconsidered underage online gambling bill showed how quickly gambling policy can split lawmakers even when framed as consumer protection.

The stakes heading into the new debate

The current bill arrives with more context, more industry pressure and a clearer divide between the Senate and other power centers. The Senate has shown repeated interest in expanding sports betting, particularly under Ciccone’s leadership. The House has been more cautious, and the Lottery remains protective of the state-run structure.

For national sportsbook operators, Rhode Island is a small market but a symbolically important one. A shift away from the limited-operator model would show that even states with high tax rates and centralized control can be pressured into opening access. For IGT and Bally’s, the issue is defensive as much as competitive: new licenses could dilute their position just as contractual milestones approach.

For the state, the question is whether competition would grow the market enough to justify changing a system that has delivered revenue and control. Bettors may want more options, but lawmakers must decide whether consumer choice, potential recaptured wagers and operator lobbying outweigh the risks of lower margins, litigation or regulatory strain. That trade-off has defined Rhode Island’s sports betting debate since 2025 and is now returning with higher stakes.