Survey paints Americans as increasingly negative on sports betting

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/06/11: Survey bodes well for sports betting, Jefferies analyst says 2025/05/21: Athletes to be protected from negative prop bets, NCAA reveals 2025/09/10: Most Americans think prediction markets should be regulated as sports betting 2025/07/25: Most Filipino online gamblers are low-stakes players, survey says

The Backstory

Shifting tides behind America’s betting boom

The rise of legal sports wagering since the Supreme Court cleared state-by-state legalization in 2018 has collided with a sharp turn in public sentiment and new lines drawn by regulators and leagues. A growing share of Americans now say legal betting hurts society and sports, even as operators lean on faster, more immersive products to drive handle and keep customers engaged. This backstory traces how consumer behavior, policy pushback and global market lessons set the stage for the latest developments.

How public sentiment flipped on legalization

Growing skepticism is now a key headwind. A recent Pew Research Center survey shows 43% of Americans believe legal sports betting has a negative impact on society, up from 34% in 2022, and 40% say it harms sports, up from 33% three years ago. Yet the share of people who bet has held steady at about 22%, with an uptick in online activity. One in 10 adults placed a bet online in the past year, nearly double 2022 levels, underscoring how mobile wagering is shaping attitudes. The findings, detailed in a report on rising U.S. negativity toward sports betting, cut across demographic and political lines and include sizable shifts among young men. The divergence points to a market where usage and concern can grow at the same time.

State expansion has been brisk: at least 38 states, the District and Puerto Rico have adopted legal wagering since 2018, according to the survey write-up. But the wider availability has carried new risks and scrutiny. Ohio’s governor, for example, urged curbs on proposition bets after two Cleveland pitchers were suspended, an illustration of how integrity concerns can trigger targeted restrictions rather than broad rollbacks. The policy trajectory increasingly hinges on product design and perceived social costs.

Inside the in-play and prop bet boom

Even as sentiment sours, bettor behavior continues to migrate to higher-frequency formats. A June analysis by Jefferies found in-play wagering is gaining traction and could be a durable handle driver. In its latest poll of U.S. bettors, 90% said they were engaged with in-game activities and 80% had tried proposition bets, with demand for more prop offerings still outpacing supply. The results, summarized in Jefferies’ survey on in-play and prop trends, highlight the commercial stakes: DraftKings could benefit from its SimpleBet acquisition and focus on live markets, while FanDuel and Flutter lean on parlays, where margins tend to be stronger.

The pattern exposes a tension. Products that increase frequency can lift engagement and revenue, but they also draw scrutiny from lawmakers and leagues worried about addiction risk and harassment tied to bet outcomes. Jefferies’ finding that a broad swath of bettors checks odds and cash-out options midgame underscores how time-on-app is becoming both a growth metric and a policy flashpoint. If regulators move to narrow the types of acceptable in-game or player-specific markets, operators’ handle mix could shift quickly.

College sports draws the line on athlete safety

No arena has tested that balance more than college sports. The NCAA has moved to limit the most contentious wagers, leveraging its data partnership to keep off the board categories that can fuel targeted abuse. As reported in coverage of the NCAA’s new protections against negative prop bets, the governing body extended its deal with Genius Sports through 2032 with a condition that blocks markets deemed harmful to student-athletes. The move follows a documented surge in online harassment, particularly during March Madness, and reflects the political appeal of curbing bets that hinge on individual underperformance.

The NCAA’s push aligns with calls in more than half of legal states to restrict college proposition betting. It also creates a template for other stakeholders to tie data access to integrity and welfare standards. In practice, this approach can reshuffle the economics of college wagering toward team outcomes and away from granular player stats. For sportsbooks, that may reduce some of the fastest-growing bet types but could also lower reputational risk and regulatory friction.

Prediction markets face a regulatory squeeze

At the same time, a parallel front has opened around prediction platforms offering sports event contracts. New polling commissioned by the American Gaming Association indicates voters view these products as gambling and want them regulated like state-licensed sportsbooks. About 80% support equal oversight, 84% say sports event contracts should be sold only by state-licensed operators in the states where they’re offered, and 70% believe some platforms are exploiting loopholes to act as unlicensed books. The results, detailed in the AGA-backed survey on prediction market regulation, sharpen pressure on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which currently oversees certain contracts, and on Congress to clarify lines.

The stakes are twofold. For sportsbooks, stricter treatment of sports contracts on prediction sites could blunt a competitive edge from lighter federal oversight and limit gray-market migration. For regulators, drawing a clearer boundary can simplify consumer protections and advertising standards. Either outcome reinforces a broader trend: markets that look and feel like betting are likely to be pulled into the same ruleset, regardless of their original regulatory home.

Global echoes from Manila to Tokyo

International markets offer cautionary tales and political counterpoints. In the Philippines, a survey of online gamblers found 89% are low-stakes players spending less than PHP5,000 a month, with broad support for tougher action against illegal operators and concern that outright bans would push users underground. The debate, chronicled in reporting on low-stakes play and regulatory choices in the Philippines, shows how policymakers weigh economic benefits, consumer protections and social costs. Industry voices there emphasize know-your-customer checks, age verification and self-exclusion, signaling that compliance posture can shape public and legislative sentiment.

Japan illustrates the downside of unclear rules and persistent demand. Despite a ban on online casinos, an estimated 3.7 million residents have used offshore sites, with annual illegal spending topping JPY1.2 trillion, according to the National Police Agency. Notably, about 40% of those users did not realize the sites were illegal. The findings, outlined in a survey of Japan’s illicit online gambling market, suggest that opacity and limited disclosure by offshore operators can fuel usage, and that consumer education is a necessary complement to enforcement. For U.S. regulators, the takeaway is that demand will seek a channel; strong legal frameworks and clear messaging can reduce leakage to unregulated venues.

Together, these threads point to a market entering a second phase: product innovation is driving engagement, public patience is thinning, and regulators are becoming more surgical. The near-term path likely runs through narrower prop offerings, higher compliance costs and tighter guardrails on lookalike platforms. Operators that adapt product mixes and invest in integrity and safer-play features may preserve growth, while those leaning on frictionless volume face greater political risk. As the legal map stabilizes, trust and design choices are moving to the center of the industry’s story.