Ohio is edging ever-closer to legalizing more faucets of online gambling, with iGaming now becoming the latest frontier that lawmakers and the public are discussing
Ohio is debating whether it should legalize iGaming, the collective term describing online casinos and, in some cases, – online poker websites.
A Tuesday testimony saw industry representatives testify in front of lawmakers in support of a proposed piece of draft legislation – House Bill 298, which is one of the two bills seeking to make this a reality.
iGaming Remains a Hot-Button Topic in Ohio, as More Testimonies Come In
The argument made by prominent industry figureheads was clear – the state only stands to benefit from the legalization of iGaming and online casinos in particular. Traditionally, online casinos have been a bigger booster to the local economy than sports betting operations, although the argument also has to be taken with a caveat.
One the one hand, sports wagering usually brings land-based sportsbooks tethered to the digital skins and vice versa, which means physical operations that require maintenance and staffing, or in other words – jobs.
Online casinos are often cited as job-killers, but this is not technically true. iGaming operations still require staffing for the live studios that host popular table games and broadcast them statewide. The iGaming sector also attracts high-value techie jobs and skilled workers.
Commenting on the economic boon to the state, FanDuel’s head of government relations, Cesar Fernandez, said that the state could be enjoying as much as $600 million in annual tax windfall from the legalization of the activity:
“With Ohio’s large, growing market, we believe that iGaming can contribute more than $600 million in annual tax revenue. And that’s net new tax revenue for the state.”
There are many different points of contention. For one, opponents worry what iGaming would do to the brick-and-mortar sector, a common gripe, but the experience of states such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey clearly demonstrates that land-based and online casino gambling can co-exist and, in fact, drive each other’s results.
Prominent gambling operators and industry insiders have argued against scare-mongering. Boyd Gaming’s Ryan Soultz stated that his company ran dozens of brick-and-mortar facilities in states that had land-based and online gambling, and that his company was still in favor of House Bill 298, or any other law that paved the way forward for iGaming in Ohio.
Brick-and-mortar Operations Are the Biggest Consideration
“I can tell you that if we thought this was a threat to our brick-and-mortar business, I wouldn’t be here today to speak on this bill. In fact, we’d be opposing it,” Soultz explained. Currently, House Bill 298 is looking to tax iGaming at a rate of 28%, which is still a little lower than what other states do.
However, some industry types have protested rather vehemently against the proposal. Mark Stewart, head of the National Association Against Igaming, has said time and again that iGaming will destroy jobs and lessen the economic clout of land-based casinos.
He pointed out that building just two casinos would require as many as 3,000 people, while investing in an iGaming enterprise was a much smaller undertaking altogether, both financially and in terms of headcount.
Other proposals were thrown in the way, such as people calling to make it mandatory for people to visit land-based casinos to claim iGaming promotions. This, Caesars cautioned, would only result in the online casino sector-to-be in Ohio ending up less competitive than the illegal gambling market.
