The Saracen Casino Resort in Pine Bluff is spearheading efforts to expand online gambling in Arkansas by requesting a rule change from the Arkansas Racing Commission. Currently, Arkansas only permits online sports betting, but Saracen is advocating to include online casino games such as slots, blackjack, and craps—games traditionally limited to physical casinos within the state.
Saracen’s plan is not just about bringing more gaming options to Arkansans; it’s about creating convenience for players. By using an app called ‘Play Saracen,’ users would be able to enjoy casino games from anywhere within the state’s borders, mimicking the same approach used when sports betting was legalized. This shift could be a game-changer, offering the potential to increase revenue while making Arkansas a more competitive player in the U.S. online gaming landscape.
A unique aspect of Saracen’s proposal is its tie-in to funding for Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) deals for Arkansas universities. Saracen wants to establish a 50/50 online drawing where half the proceeds would go directly toward recruiting college athletes. This innovative approach aims to secure support by blending entertainment with educational and athletic benefits. The potential to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars weekly for NIL deals could transform Arkansas’ collegiate athletic programs.
However, not everyone is on board with this proposal. Oaklawn Racing Casino Resort, one of Saracen’s biggest competitors, strongly opposes the expansion of online gambling. Oaklawn argues that it could cannibalize revenue from traditional casinos and even reduce the funds generated for the state’s scholarship lottery. Concerns also extend to the potential social impact, with critics suggesting that online gambling could lead to lower discretionary spending in local communities, which would, in turn, decrease sales tax collections for essential public services.
The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) has expressed a cautious stance, with Secretary Jim Hudson highlighting that any significant expansion of gaming should not be rushed without thoroughly understanding its potential impact. While Saracen presents online gambling as a safer, regulated alternative to illegal apps, Hudson’s concerns reflect the delicate balance between innovation and the unintended consequences that such changes could bring.
At the moment, the DFA has not put this proposal under official consideration, which leaves the future of online gambling in Arkansas hanging in the balance. As Saracen pushes forward, it remains to be seen whether the potential benefits—greater revenue, convenience, and NIL funding—will outweigh the risks that opponents are warning about.
The question now is: will Arkansas roll the dice on this new frontier of gaming, or will the state stick with its current approach to gambling?
