Another state has decided to kibosh betting on college player props.
Vermont’s Department of Liquor and Lottery (DLL) updated its mobile sports wagering catalog last week to prohibit individual player prop betting on National Collegiate Athletic Association-sanctioned events.
“Individual player proposition (prop) bets will not be allowed on any NCAA allowed game offered in Vermont,” the catalog now states. “Proposition bets that cover the entire team will be allowed.”
Not the first, not the last
Vermont already restricted wagering on college sports, namely, by banning betting on the state’s colleges unless they are playing in a tournament. The state does not allow wagering on individual college awards either, such as the winner of the Heisman.
Yet betting college player props involving non-Vermont teams had been allowed until last week at the state’s three online sportsbooks. A spokesperson for the DLL told Covers the department banned the props after reaching out to the NCAA for more information about the issue (and after Covers asked the regulator if it had been contacted by the NCAA).
The NCAA and its president, former Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker, are lobbying lawmakers and gaming regulators for such restrictions due to concerns about leaks of inside information and the harassment of student-athletes by sports bettors, among other things.
Vermont is not the first state to be receptive to those arguments either. Maryland and Ohio recently banned college player prop betting, and lawmakers in Ohio and West Virginia have passed legislation that would allow them to ban abusive gamblers.
Getting proactive
Maryland decided to ban college player prop betting before an official request from the NCAA. A spokesperson for Maryland Lottery and Gaming told Covers that the move brought the state in line with others “that have disallowed these wagers to protect college athletes against potential harassment”
In Ohio, the NCAA formally prodded regulators to take college player props off the state’s sports wagering menu. That effort also had the support of Gov. Mike DeWine.
“The NCAA national office contacted several Ohio Division I schools about challenges related to sports betting and their athletics departments,” Baker wrote to the Ohio Casino Control Commission. "Those schools cited issues surrounding player prop bets, including multiple instances of harassment and other well-being concerns.”
College player prop betting is finished in Ohio as of March 1. Matthew Schuler, executive director of the Ohio Casino Control Commission, announced today he approved the NCAA's request to ban such wagering. Any remaining futures must be voided by next Friday. pic.twitter.com/b9MXDJmZJE
— Geoff Zochodne (@GeoffZochodne) February 23, 2024
Legal sports betting only began in Vermont in January on an online-only basis. DraftKings, Fanatics, and FanDuel are the New England state's three authorized operators, as the mobile bookmakers emerged victorious from a competitive bidding process.
It’s unlikely the college player prop ban in Vermont sports betting will have a big impact on the companies given the relatively small size of the state and the handle of those wagering markets. However, the prohibition could irritate gamblers, especially with March Madness so close.
Liquor and Lottery Commissioner Wendy Knight said last month that approximately $20 million was wagered in Vermont during January, which translated into around $1.1 million in revenue for the state.
Nevertheless, the latest bans now mean a majority of states in the U.S. prohibit or limit college player prop betting, as lawmakers and regulators grow more concerned about student-athlete harassment. Even more states could still follow suit.
“The NCAA has shown good cause to support its request to prohibit player-specific prop bets on NCAA collegiate events in Ohio,” Casino Control Commission Executive Director Matthew Schuler wrote in a Feb. 23 letter to Baker and sportsbook operators. “While I recognize that there may be a small negative impact to operator and tax revenue, the protection of student-athletes and the integrity of collegiate competitions far outweigh these impacts.”
