Sports betting’s rise has generated billions in tax revenue and transformed the way Americans engage with sports. Now, members of Congress are asking whether college campuses are paying part of the price.
The “The Rise of Sports Gambling on College Campuses” hearing held by the House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development highlighted growing concerns about student gambling, financial hardship, athlete harassment, and the expanding reach of legal wagering among young adults.
The hearing comes eight years after the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. NCAA opened the door for state-regulated sports betting. Today, sports wagering is legal in 39 states and Washington, D.C., creating a vastly different environment than the one many colleges operated in just a decade ago.
Much of the discussion centered on how frequently college students are now exposed to sports betting.
According to remarks delivered by Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-WA), an NCAA survey found that 67% of students living on campus had bet on sports, while 16% showed signs of problematic gambling behavior, including chasing losses or wagering more than intended. He also noted that 6% of students reported losing more than $500 in a single day.
Baumgartner argued that younger adults are particularly vulnerable to gambling-related harm, pointing to research showing college students experience problematic gambling behaviors at more than twice the rate of the broader population.
Additional data cited during the hearing painted a troubling picture. A recent undergraduate survey found that nearly one-third of male students and one-quarter of female students knew someone who had experienced financial or academic consequences tied to online wagering losses. More than one in five students surveyed reported using financial aid money to place bets.
Much of the policy debate continues to revolve around player prop wagers involving student-athletes.
Unlike traditional game wagers, player props allow bettors to wager on an individual athlete’s performance. Critics argue they create unique pressures because a single missed free throw, strikeout, or turnover can determine whether a bet wins or loses.
During the hearing, witnesses and lawmakers repeatedly connected college player props to athlete harassment and integrity concerns. Baumgartner said the wagers expose students to harassment and raise questions about the integrity of college sports, while University of Mississippi professor Dr. Daniel Durkin told lawmakers eliminating college player props could help reduce those risks.
The NCAA has spent the past several years urging states to prohibit such markets. Multiple states have already restricted or banned college player prop betting, and Congress is now examining whether broader action is warranted.
Sports betting regulation has largely remained a state issue since PASPA’s repeal, but the hearing signaled growing interest in Washington.
One proposal already on the table is the PROTECT Student Athletes Act, introduced by Baumgartner. The measure would prohibit player prop bets involving college athletes while allowing betting on college games to continue.
The hearing’s witness list reflected the breadth of concerns being discussed, featuring representatives from the University of Michigan, University of Mississippi, Massachusetts Gaming Commission, and The Ohio State University. Topics ranged from mental health and addiction risks to athlete safety and regulatory oversight.
Congress is still a long way from adopting a national sports betting framework. Even so, the fact that lawmakers devoted a hearing to gambling’s impact on college students suggests the conversation is expanding beyond tax revenue and market growth. Increasingly, attention is turning to how legal sports betting affects the people most likely to encounter it every day on campus.
