Government · Archive
Sports wagering bill advanced by Kentucky House committee
The proposal outlined a regulated market for sports betting, online poker and fantasy contests, with a portion of revenue designated for pension obligations and addiction services.
A proposal to legalize and regulate wagering on sporting events in Kentucky advanced from a state House committee without a dissenting vote. It was then sent to the full House for further consideration.
House Bill 175 would have permitted wagering at licensed horse-racing tracks and through mobile applications available within the state. Its framework also covered online poker and fantasy sports contests, with public revenue generated through taxes, registration charges and licensing fees.
The legislative effort followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision that removed the federal prohibition preventing states from authorizing sports wagering. Several states subsequently adopted regulatory and tax systems of their own.
What the proposal included
- Oversight
- Exclusive regulatory jurisdiction assigned to the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission.
- Eligible facilities
- Horse-racing tracks and Kentucky Speedway could apply for licenses.
- License fee
- The proposal listed a $500,000 fee.
- Proposed tax rates
- 10.25% for on-site wagering and 14.25% for mobile wagering.
- College contests
- Wagers involving Kentucky college teams would have been prohibited.
The measure would have established a wagering fund to administer the program. After administrative needs were met, 5% of remaining proceeds would have supported services addressing gambling-related harm. The balance would have gone to a fund created to reduce Kentucky’s public pension liabilities.
At the committee stage, the Legislative Research Commission had not issued a fiscal impact statement. A study commissioned by a Lexington horse-racing track estimated that sports-wagering revenue could produce at least $20 million in annual state tax receipts. That was an interested-party estimate rather than a confirmed government projection.
Opponents raised concerns about integrity in sports and the potential effect on people experiencing gambling-related harm. Supporters argued that regulation would create oversight for activity that could otherwise occur outside legal channels and would direct revenue toward public obligations.
The proposal had bipartisan co-sponsors and support from business organizations. Its committee approval represented one step in the legislative process and did not itself make the measure law.
