South Carolina’s online sports betting hopes remain slim for 2026
South Carolina lawmakers are considering legalizing online sports betting to curb the growth of prediction markets, but the bill’s passage this year remains unlikely.
Senate Bill 444, sponsored by Sens. Tom Davis and Matt Leber, was introduced in March and was referred to the Senate Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry. If passed, the bill would legalize interactive sports wagering and create a state sports wagering commission.
While the threat of prediction markets worries some lawmakers, the measure was reviewed by the Senate subcommittee but did not advance. Lawmakers say that it could still be in contention for a revisit next year.
According to WIS10, Chairman of the Senate subcommittee, Sen. Tom Davis, acknowledged the spread of prediction markets, saying that big operators were circumventing state law to access states with no legalized sports betting. However, he added that there needed to be a discussion first on whether South Carolina really wanted sports betting.
“You have large operators like FanDuel and DraftKings coming into states like South Carolina and arguing the federal law gives them the ability to offer those services,” he said.
Supporters of the measure estimate that legalization could generate about US$50 million in annual tax revenue. Online operator Caesars Digital told lawmakers that demand already existed.
However, opposition remains firm, with some saying lawmakers should instead focus on curbing offshore betting platforms. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster has also said he opposes sports betting.
South Carolina isn’t the only state talking about legalizing sports betting. Wisconsin Representative Tyler August said this week that he remains optimistic that their own sports betting bill will pass the Assembly.
Charlotte Capewell brings her passion for storytelling and expertise in writing, researching, and the gambling industry to every article she writes. Her specialties include the US gambling industry, regulator legislation, igaming, and more.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
How South Carolina got here
South Carolina’s bid to legalize online sports betting has been building in fits and starts, shaped by committee delays, gubernatorial resistance and growing unease over gray-market products filling the gap. Lawmakers floated a plan to authorize interactive wagering and stand up a new commission, but the measure stalled in a Senate subcommittee this spring with no clear path before next year’s session. Supporters tout tax revenue and consumer protections, while critics argue the state should focus on curbing offshore play rather than expanding legal options. The impasse has set the stage for a broader debate over whether the state wants any form of online wagering at all and, if so, on what terms.
Even without a floor vote, the conversation has sharpened as large national operators test legal interpretations and as residents bet across state lines or with unregulated sites. The policy question now is less about demand—which industry executives say already exists—and more about the political appetite to channel that activity into a licensed framework.
Horse racing as a narrower on-ramp
While full online sports betting is stuck, a parallel effort has targeted a more limited slice: pari-mutuel wagering on live horse racing. A Senate panel recently reviewed the Equine Advancement Act, a bill to legalize online horse race betting and create a South Carolina Equine Commission, with backers pitching it as a tightly tailored tool to bolster in-state training, farms and events. The proposal explicitly excludes historical racing and other games of chance, positioning it as a contained policy experiment rather than a gateway to broader gambling expansion. Lawmakers say proceeds would be reinvested in the equine sector to help it compete with neighboring states.
That approach mirrors earlier, unsuccessful attempts to pass horse betting legislation that cleared committee but never reached a Senate vote. The new push has bipartisan sponsors and support from leadership on finance, signaling it could advance faster than a comprehensive sports betting package if consensus holds. Still, the measure faces many of the same headwinds—skepticism over social costs, concerns about market creep and questions about whether incremental legalization actually dents the offshore market. For a state wary of a sweeping shift, however, horse racing offers a policy foothold with narrower risk. Read more in South Carolina lawmakers discuss online horse racing betting bill: Equine Advancement Act gains a hearing but no vote.
Prediction markets raise urgency—and legal gray areas
The status quo is being challenged by the rapid spread of prediction markets, which sell event contracts that can function like bets while operating outside traditional state licensing. Lawmakers in multiple states warn these platforms are filling the vacuum where regulated sports wagering is absent or constrained. In Wisconsin, a senior legislator backing a tribal mobile wagering bill argued that authorizing in-state, server-routed betting is the best way to keep activity onshore and within clear jurisdiction, rather than ceding ground to national apps that exploit loopholes. See Wisconsin lawmaker warns prediction markets will launch even if sports betting is not approved: Push to “channel activity” into a compacted system.
South Carolina policymakers face a similar calculus. If large operators advance legal theories to reach customers despite prohibitions, or if prediction markets scale in the shadows, the state could see de facto expansion without safeguards, tax capture or problem-gambling tools. That prospect is moving the debate from “whether” to “how” and “who”—questions about licensing structures, server location, and enforcement that other states are trying to settle in real time. The more prediction markets normalize among consumers, the more difficult it may be for a late-arriving regulated market to dislodge them.
Neighboring states redraw the map
Comparative politics are also in play. South Dakota advanced a constitutional amendment to enable statewide mobile betting so long as wagers are routed through licensed casinos in Deadwood, a model designed to satisfy in-state server requirements and channel tax revenue to property tax relief. Backers said most wagering is already happening via offshore apps or across borders, so regulation would bring oversight without materially expanding demand. Opponents warned of addiction risks and questioned revenue projections. The measure’s progress underscores how fast policy can pivot once a framework exists. For details, see South Dakota moves forward with online betting measure: Deadwood hub-and-spoke approach.
Elsewhere, blocked reforms are instructive. Rhode Island’s bid to end a single-operator model and invite up to five sportsbook licenses sailed through the Senate but died without a House hearing, reflecting entrenched interests and timing constraints around a long-standing supplier contract. The collapse keeps a monopoly intact for at least another year and highlights how vendor agreements and legislative calendars can shape market structure as much as policy merits. More in Rhode Island expanded sports betting bill fails to pass: Senate-approved expansion stalls in House.
Market design, not just legalization, will decide winners
South Carolina’s choices echo a broader theme: the architecture of legalization is as consequential as the yes-or-no vote. Wisconsin’s proposal would keep servers on tribal land, affirming sovereignty and revenue sharing while enabling mobile access. South Dakota’s routing through Deadwood casinos preserves a local nexus for compliance and taxation. Rhode Island’s failed expansion shows how exclusivity can endure due to contractual or political friction even after sports betting is legal.
For South Carolina, these templates pose strategic questions. A server-location rule could address jurisdictional ambiguities raised by prediction markets. A limited slate of licenses could balance consumer choice with oversight, while avoiding the pitfalls of a single-operator regime that may become politically sticky. Alternatively, starting with a narrowly drawn horse racing bill could test regulatory capacity, data reporting and responsible gaming programs before a broader rollout. But delaying too long risks further entrenching unregulated options and forfeiting revenue that neighboring states are beginning to capture.
The stakes: consumer safety, state revenue and competitive parity
The policy outcomes will ripple across constituencies. For consumers, regulated mobile betting can bring age verification, limits, self-exclusion tools and dispute processes that offshore sites lack. For the state, tax design—rates, deductions, and earmarks—will determine whether projected tens of millions of dollars materialize and where they flow. For local industries like equine businesses, a horse-focused bill could steer targeted investment, though critics warn about normalization and oversight costs.
Political resistance remains, including from leaders who oppose expansion on principle and from those who prefer to focus on illegal-market enforcement. Yet as more states codify mobile systems and as prediction markets scale, pressure will grow to pick a lane. Whether South Carolina moves first on horse racing or jumps straight to sports betting, the experience of neighbors and peers suggests that clarity on routing, licensing and accountability will matter as much as the decision to legalize.
