Ohio Lawmakers, Industry Stakeholders Debate iGaming Bill’s High Costs and Restrictions
Senator Nathan Manning’s proposed legislation to legalize iGaming in Ohio—Senate Bill 197—had its second hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Gaming, prompting praise for its goals but criticism over its high financial barriers and restrictive structure.
Industry supporters voiced strong backing for the broad concept of legalizing online casinos and lottery offerings in the state. However, many raised concerns over the bill’s proposed licensing fees, tax rates, and limitations on the number of allowed platform partnerships, commonly referred to as “skins.”
Unprecedented Licensing Costs and Tax Rates
Ryan Soultz, Vice President of Governmental Affairs at Boyd Gaming, highlighted during the hearing that the bill’s fee structure would be the most expensive in the nation. Under SB 197, operators with existing physical casino facilities in Ohio would pay a $50 million license fee and face a 36% tax rate on iGaming revenue. For operators without a presence in the state, the fee would double to $100 million, accompanied by a 40% tax rate.
Manning’s bill also limits each license holder to partnering with only one platform operator, which industry representatives argue will stifle market growth. In total, the proposal would permit just 11 skins to operate across the state.
Calls for Reform: Lower Fees, More Flexibility
Scott Ward, spokesperson for the Sports Betting Alliance—an organization representing major players like FanDuel, DraftKings, Fanatics Sportsbook, and BetMGM—commended the bill for establishing a regulated online gaming framework that could divert customers from illegal sites. However, he urged legislators to reevaluate the financial and structural aspects of the proposal.
Ward advocated for reducing the tax rate and initial licensing fees, along with expanding the number of platform partnerships per license holder to at least two. Doing so, he said, would bring Ohio in line with other states and encourage a more competitive iGaming environment, ultimately benefiting players and state revenues alike.
This sentiment was echoed by several others, including John Pappas of GeoComply, a geolocation security firm serving gaming operators. He pointed out that with just a 25% tax rate, a mature Ohio iGaming market could generate over $500 million annually for the state. He also stressed that a $50 million license fee was “just too much” for potential operators.
No Threat to Brick-and-Mortar Casinos, Industry Insists
A commonly voiced concern with the expansion of iGaming is the potential for cannibalization of traditional casinos and racinos. However, multiple industry representatives dismissed that risk.
Trevor Hayes, Vice President of Government Relations for Caesars Entertainment, said the company’s decade-long experience operating both iGaming platforms and physical casinos in New Jersey showed no signs of conflict between the channels. Caesars, which operates Eldorado Scioto Downs in Columbus, supports Manning’s proposal and claims iGaming can actually enhance brand engagement and drive traffic to brick-and-mortar locations.
Boyd Gaming’s Soultz agreed, citing the company’s investments in its Pennsylvania casino—a state with a thriving iGaming market—as evidence that online operations do not diminish physical casino performance. Instead, he emphasized the complementary nature of digital and in-person gaming, referring to iGaming as a “synergistic relationship” that extends brand reach and player loyalty.
Next Steps for SB 197
The third reading and continued discussion of Senate Bill 197 is scheduled for Wednesday, May 28. As Ohio moves closer to potentially launching a regulated iGaming market, stakeholders are urging lawmakers to craft a system that balances strong regulation with accessible market entry and long-term growth potential.
- SCCG Management. The Gambling Industry’s Global Connector. Access Here.
- Source: SCCGManagement.com