Washington state and Massachusetts are each advancing high‑profile sports betting bills in their respective legislatures, but in fundamentally different directions. In Olympia, lawmakers have approved legislation that would allow wagering on in‑state collegiate sports while retaining athlete prop prohibitions, whereas Beacon Hill is considering a proposal to curtail certain bet types, ban in‑play/proposition wagering, restrict advertising, and sharply raise sports betting tax rates.
Both measures are part of an intensifying national debate over how to balance economic opportunity, regulatory integrity, and social risk within the rapidly expanding legal sports betting ecosystem.
Key Legislative Highlights
As sports betting continues to expand across the U.S., two states, Washington and Massachusetts, are advancing significant legislative measures aimed at reshaping the landscape. While Washington’s bill seeks to expand wagering on college sports with specific protections for athletes, Massachusetts is taking a more restrictive approach, banning certain bet types and increasing taxes on sports betting revenue. Here’s a breakdown of the key developments in each state’s legislative proposal:
- Washington state’s SB 6137 has cleared both chambers, positioning the Evergreen State to formally allow wagers on games involving collegiate teams from Washington but still prohibiting bets tied to individual athlete performance.
- Massachusetts’ S302 proposal, still at committee review, would prohibit prop bets and live/in‑play wagering, alongside restrictions on sports betting advertising during televised games.
- The Massachusetts bill also targets a significant tax increase on online/mobile sports betting revenue, jumping from roughly 20% to 51% of gross receipts.
- Washington’s measure remains tribal‑centric, preserving the state’s model focused on tribal gaming compacts and regulated casino environments.
- Lawmakers in Massachusetts frame their bill as addressing economic, health, and social harms of expanded gambling, particularly among younger cohorts and vulnerable populations.
- If enacted, these legislative packages could meaningfully reshape betting product offerings, compliance expectations, market economics, and consumer risk profiles in their respective states.
Washington’s Expansion With Targeted Athlete Protections
In Washington state, Senate Bill 6137 has garnered bipartisan support, passing the Legislature with strong margins in both chambers. The bill aims to clarify and expand the limited sports wagering regime already in place under the state’s Class III tribal gaming framework, which currently restricts betting to tribal casino facilities and bans certain markets.
Under SB 6137:
- Wagers on collegiate sports that involve teams from Washington’s public and private universities would be permitted within tribal casinos.
- The bill explicitly prohibits wagering on the performance or nonperformance of individual student‑athletes, effectively banning player props tied to in‑state institutions.
- Additional prohibitions extend to in‑game coach decisions and officiating calls, as well as gross misdemeanour penalties for anyone who makes threats against participants related to wagers.
- The measure retains the requirement that bettors be physically present at a tribal facility to place wagers, although it modernises provisions to better support tribes’ ability to offer regulated sports wagering services.
Supporters, including tribal gaming representatives, argue the bill brings existing wagering activity into regulated channels, enhances consumer protections, and preserves tribal economic interests. Opponents, notably university representatives, caution that even with player prop bans, increased betting visibility may lead to privacy and safety concerns for student athletes.
If enacted, SB 6137 is slated to take effect 90 days after adjournment of the legislative session and would position Washington among a small cohort of states that formally allow in‑state collegiate betting, albeit with tailored constraints.
Massachusetts Targets “Harms” With Restrictive Proposal
In contrast to Washington’s expansion, Massachusetts Senate Bill 302 adopts a regulatory retrenchment framework, driven by lawmakers’ stated concerns about addiction risks and social harms linked to specific wager types. The bill, sponsored by a Democrat member of the Senate, seeks broad changes to the state’s sports betting landscape, which has operated since 2023 under a regulated model encompassing retail and online operators.
Key elements of S302 include:
- Banning prop bets and in‑play or live wagering, bet types often cited by lawmakers and advocacy groups as linked to higher addiction risk due to rapid decision‑making and engagement.
- Raising the state excise tax rate on online and mobile sports betting revenue from around 20% to approximately 51%, aligning with rates in several neighbouring states.
- Prohibiting sports betting advertisements during televised sporting events, a measure aimed at reducing exposure and normalisation of gambling among younger audiences.
Proponents argue these steps address documented concerns around addictive play patterns and economic externalities, framing the proposal as the “Bettor Health Act”. However, the bill remains in committee and has yet to be endorsed by key leadership figures, including the House Speaker and Senate President, raising questions about its legislative viability.
Opposition voices suggest that extreme tax rates could deter regulated market participation and fuel grey or illicit wagering channels, while advertising bans raise First Amendment considerations and operational challenges for licensed operators.
Diverging Paths: Balancing Growth, Public Concerns, and Regulation
Taken together, the Washington and Massachusetts proposals underscore a divergent regulatory philosophy emerging across U.S. states: some jurisdictions are pursuing measured expansion with athlete safety safeguards, while others are seeking restrictive guardrails and revenue rebalancing measures aimed at mitigating perceived social harms.
These legislative trends reflect wider questions about the future of sports wagering, particularly how regulators balance market growth, consumer choice, responsible gambling, and public health concerns. In some states, opposition to expanding sports betting remains strong, with recent polling showing significant resistance to broader online sports and iGaming markets.
Looking ahead, both bills will continue through their deliberative processes, with stakeholders including operators, regulators, tribal gaming partners, and public health advocates shaping outcomes.