Political commentator Saggar Enjeti wants you to believe that legalizing online sports betting is a fast track to a nation of addicts and bankrupt gamblers. It’s a tidy narrative—moral panic dressed up as compassion for the vulnerable—but its not supported by fact. The truth is more complicated: much of the so-called “increase” in gambling is actually existing gamblers transitioning from the black market to a legal one. The studies Enjeti and other opponents of online gambling rely on often use flawed data and confuse correlation with causation, turning complex behavioral shifts into political bogeymen.
Among Enjeti’s more absurd claims is that “tens of millions” of people are what he calls “borderline addicted” to gambling—a vague term with no actual meaning. Yes, some people struggle with gambling addiction and deserve support. But the data tell a different story: only one percent of adults—2.5 million—have a “severe gambling problem.” That number hasn’t changed since online sports betting legalization. Pushing this vulnerable population back into the black market, where there are no protections or oversight, is one of the worst possible responses.
Another so-called data point often used to support gambling restrictions is increased searches for gambling addiction resources. But, according to the executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, this reflects increased awareness of the resources—not increasing addiction. Contrary to Enjeti’s claim that legalized sports betting could “rival the opioid epidemic,” legalization has encouraged problem gamblers to seek help by reducing the stigma and making support easier to find.
Outlawing online sports betting won’t protect problem gamblers—it will funnel them back into offshore sportsbooks that are truly predatory, where they have no legal recourse. Legal markets bring consumer protections for gamblers.
Enjeti also objects to online sportsbooks advertising what he calls “get rich” schemes that highlight large payouts on long odds and misrepresent the risk. What he ignores is that the major sports betting operations already comply with the American Gaming Association’s Responsible Marketing Code for Sports Wagering, which bans language hiding the risks of gambling. It is the illegal market that can make false promises without recourse.
While some studies claim to link sports betting legalization to various social harms, the data behind these studies is frequently flawed. When determining increases in online sports betting they fail to fully account for the illegal sports betting already taking place. In doing so they misinterpret newly visible behavior as new behavior.
One study attempts to measure online gambling habits through financial transfers. But illegal offshore gambling operations routinely disguise transactions through third party intermediaries, misleading merchant codes, and cryptocurrency—making most pre-legalization activity invisible to researchers. This results in a classic case of over-identification: assuming legal visibility equates to new demand, inflating the perceived impact of legalization. In reality data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows states that allowed online sports betting saw the smallest increases in gambling per capita.
Enough people have been drawn out of the shadows by legalization that more than half of sports bettors now play exclusively on legal platforms. Even before legalization, online sports betting was one of the 20 largest industries in the U.S.
For all the poor arguments presented, Enjeti does make one valid point: most states don’t offer a truly competitive sports betting market. Instead, the state grants one or a handful of licenses to select online sportsbooks legally allowed to operate in the state—state sanctioned monopolies and oligopolies. He’s right to criticize that. Throttling competition gets bettors worse odds, worse customer service, and less safety and harm reduction measures. More consumer friendly, online gambling laws wouldn’t limit the number of sportsbooks that can operate in the state, they would ensure all sportsbooks are operating above board.
Ultimately, arguments against legal online sports betting collapse under mild scrutiny. What they often reveal is a personal distain for gambling itself—not a concern for public health. They may hate it as a “vice” and “disgusting,” but criminalizing peaceful behavior based on moral repugnance is the peak of nanny-state politics.
Helping people doesn’t require controlling them. It requires accepting that not everyone lives the same way—and providing legal, transparent ways to do so. Those who need help are far easier to reach when they aren’t trying to hide.
Justin Leventhal is a senior policy analyst for the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the Institute, follow us on X @ConsumerPal.