Congress Renews Push To Scrap Sports Betting Excise Tax
Summary
Two senators, Catherine Cortez Masto (D‑NV) and Cindy Hyde‑Smith (R‑MS), have reintroduced the Withdrawing Arduous Gaming Excise Rates Act to repeal the federal excise tax on sports betting handle (0.25%) and the $50 annual per‑employee fee. The tax, dating to 1951, was designed to combat illegal bookmaking but is now criticised for disadvantaging regulated operators and encouraging offshore and underground activity. Previous repeal attempts have surfaced repeatedly but not advanced; there are competing proposals to redirect the revenue to problem‑gambling programmes instead.
Key Points
- The bill (Withdrawing Arduous Gaming Excise Rates Act) would remove the 0.25% handle tax and the $50 per‑employee annual fee for legal sportsbooks.
- Sponsors are Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D‑NV) and Cindy Hyde‑Smith (R‑MS); companion House measures exist from Reps. Dina Titus and Guy Reschenthaler.
- The tax originates from 1951 and was intended to target illegal bookmaking, but industry groups say it now penalises regulated operators and benefits offshore competitors.
- Nevada paid nearly $22m in handle taxes in 2022; nationally operators have paid more than $500m since PASPA was overturned in 2018.
- Alternative proposals, like the GRIT Act, would keep the excise tax but dedicate revenue to problem‑gambling treatment and research.
Content summary
The proposed repeal frames the excise tax as outdated and counterproductive for a maturing legal sports‑betting market. Sponsors argue repeal would level the playing field for regulated operators and shore up state casino economies. Opponents and some lawmakers favour repurposing the funds to address gambling harm. Despite bipartisan support at times, prior repeal efforts have repeatedly stalled in Congress.
Context and relevance
This matters because the excise tax affects operator economics and market competitiveness as the US sports‑betting industry grows. Removing the levy would lower operating costs for sportsbooks, potentially influence pricing and product availability, and shift debates about federal vs state roles in funding problem‑gambling initiatives. It also reflects ongoing tension between industry interests and public‑health funding proposals.
Why should I read this?
Quick, no‑nonsense: if you follow sports betting, run a sportsbook, work in gaming policy or care about how gambling is taxed and regulated — this could change who wins and who loses in the market. We skimmed the legalese so you don’t have to.