Ohio Senator Bill DeMora has publicly opposed the proposed changes to Ohio sports betting with Senate Bill 199 and the Save Ohio Sports Act. Sen. DeMora stated that it would have a negative impact on the market within the state. These public comments signal that the proposed changes could face challenges in progressing through the legislative process.
SB 199 focuses on taxation and funding. The bill proposes a 2% tax on total betting handle, rather than operator revenue, which is the common policy. Funds are then directed toward public sports, including facility development and youth athletics programs.
For operators, taxing handle instead of revenue presents a significant challenge. Handle represents the total amount wagered, not the portion sportsbooks actually keep after paying out winning bets.
In other words, they would be getting taxed on a much larger number, which can make it much more difficult to be profitable.
The Save Ohio Sports Act would eliminate online sports betting entirely, limiting wagering to in-person locations. The bill also seeks to ban several popular bet types, including prop bets, in-game wagers, and college betting markets.
In addition, it would cap bettors at $100 per wager, with no more than eight bets within 24 hours. There would be no credit card deposits, plus sportsbooks wouldn’t be allowed to offer bet credits. Sportsbook advertisements during live broadcasts would also be banned.
Sen. DeMora raised his concerns during a recent meeting of the Ohio Senate Select Committee on Gaming, which served as the first formal discussion point for Senate Bill 199. The hearing highlighted early divisions among lawmakers as they begin evaluating potential changes to the state’s sports betting framework.
While SB 199 has been introduced, the broader Save Ohio Sports Act proposal remains in a pre-filing stage. DeMora strongly pushed back on those ideas, framing them as unrealistic for a functioning betting market.
He argued that eliminating widely used betting options like props and parlays would effectively shatter the market, since these are among the most popular offerings.
DeMora’s criticism also signals that the proposal could face resistance as it moves through the legislative process. Early opposition from lawmakers suggests the path forward may be challenging, particularly for a measure that would significantly restrict the overall market.
If the legislation stalls or fails to gain sufficient support, it would preserve the existing structure, allowing operators and bettors to continue under the current, less restrictive system, which would be good news for Ohio sports betting.
