The MLB Players Association (MLBPA) has proposed eliminating player prop bets as part of negotiations for the league’s next collective bargaining agreement. The proposal would include bans on bets that include strikeouts, and hits, and much more. In doing so, the MLBPA is attempting to protect the players from harassment related to sports betting.
The MLBPA’s proposal comes as more players have publicly discussed the abuse they receive from sports bettors following games. With the expansion of legalized sports betting and the popularity of player prop markets, athletes have reported receiving hostile messages and personal attacks related to betting.
Several Cleveland Guardians players highlighted the issue earlier this year. Outfielder Nolan Jones said he received death threats after committing multiple errors in a game, while pitcher Tanner Bibee argued that betting-related abuse should not be treated as a normal part of professional sports because of its impact on players’ mental health.
These incidents have fueled broader concerns throughout baseball about the unintended consequences of player prop betting and the need for additional safeguards to protect athletes.
Player prop betting has become one of the most popular betting options in the legal U.S. sports betting market. Sportsbooks heavily promote wagers on individual performances, such as strikeouts, hits, home runs, and stolen bases, particularly through same-game parlays that combine multiple player outcomes into a single bet. As a result, player props generate significant betting activity throughout the MLB season.
If the MLBPA’s proposal is ultimately adopted, sportsbooks would lose one of their most popular categories for baseball bettors. Lower wagering volume on MLB games could translate into reduced sportsbook revenue and, in turn, lower tax collections for states.
Legal sports betting has generated billions of dollars in state tax revenue in recent years, meaning any meaningful decline in betting activity could affect public revenue in states with regulated markets. Therefore, a full-out ban on MLB player props may be unfeasible.
Rather than eliminating player prop betting, leagues, sportsbooks, and regulators could pursue more targeted measures to address harassment while preserving one of the industry’s most popular betting products.
Sportsbooks can continue strengthening customer monitoring systems to identify abusive behavior. They can also permanently ban bettors who harass players.
MLB has already taken steps in this direction. This is seen at a recent San Diego Padres game, where they emphasized a zero-tolerance policy toward fan misconduct after players were subjected to betting-related abuse. The club warned that spectators who harass players over sports betting could be ejected from games and banned from future events.
Similar policies could be paired with stricter sportsbook enforcement against users who use betting platforms to target athletes with threats or harassment. These types of responses directly address the individuals responsible for the abuse without removing an entire betting market that millions of fans use responsibly.
Another consideration is whether eliminating MLB player prop bets at regulated sportsbooks would encourage some bettors to use offshore gambling sites that continue offering those markets.
Unlike licensed U.S. operators, offshore sportsbooks are not subject to state regulations or consumer protection requirements. They also operate outside the jurisdiction of U.S. regulators, making it more difficult for customers to resolve disputes if issues arise.
If regulated sportsbooks were no longer able to offer MLB player props, some bettors seeking those wagers could migrate to offshore platforms instead of abandoning the market altogether.
That shift could reduce wagering activity at legal operators and lower state tax revenue. While the overall impact is uncertain, it is one of the practical considerations policymakers and league officials would likely weigh before implementing a total ban on player prop betting.
