Sports betting was legalized in December 2021 under House Bill 29 and launched on January 1, 2023. The Ohio market is now largely made up of digital channels. The state processed more than $10.3 billion worth of sports wagers in 2025, indicating the importance of mobile wagering in its betting economy.
A Market Built on Phones Now Faces a Full Reversal
This scale is precisely what the advocates of the Save Ohio Sports Act have been contesting. The measure was unveiled at a Statehouse press conference this week by Reps. Riordan McClain, Gary Click, and Johnathan Newman, with Rep. Kevin Ritter also listed as a sponsor of the legislative package. Their point of contention is not whether or not Ohio requires stricter regulation to achieve compliance. Instead, it’s that the very nature of the existing market makes betting easy, regular, and conspicuous.
What the Proposal Would Change
The central notion behind this bill is straightforward: legal betting on sports will not take place via phones. The proposal states that wagering should only occur in person, by placing a bet inside one of Ohio’s four casinos.
Restrictions are far from ending there. The plan states a maximum cap on bets of $100 and a maximum number of eight bets within a day. Furthermore, the proposed system would prohibit betting through the use of credit cards as part of the “no-debt-to-bet” stance taken up by advocates. Promotional tools like free bets and no-risk bets are also not allowed.
Several popular betting formats are to be gone, as stated in the bill. It specifically focuses on in-play betting, parlays, and player prop bets, and prohibits betting on college sports as well. Advertisements for sportsbooks will also be tightened, with no ads allowed during professional sporting event broadcasts or within professional stadiums.
Why This Fight Is Happening Now
In July 2025, Governor Mike DeWine requested that the Ohio Casino Control Commission ban sports props because of threats against players following an MLB investigation. While that incident failed to result in any wider restrictions on betting, it strengthened the political argument for more restrictive legislation. And that’s what the current bill attempts to do.
It is not so much a regulatory fix as an outright assault on Ohio’s phone-first betting model. This proposal shows that, in at least part of Ohio’s Republican caucus, the convenience-driven model of sports betting is now being openly challenged.
