Bipartisan Bill Seeks Excise Tax Revenue to Fund Federal Study on Sports Betting Harms and Policy Implications
Representatives Blake Moore (R-UT) and Dan Goldman (D-NY) introduced the Gambling Disorder Health Study Act on June 4. The bipartisan legislation directs a comprehensive, multi-year federal investigation into gambling disorder while appropriating 10% of federal excise tax revenue from state-authorized wagers for up to three fiscal years.
Eight years after the Supreme Court overturned the federal ban on sports betting, legal wagering has expanded to 39 states plus Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Americans have placed $668 billion in legal sports wagers since 2018. Yet no federal agency leads national research on the impacts.
This bill marks an inflection point. It ties federal revenue collection directly to studying the very activity generating that revenue. From my perspective after decades observing the evolution of gaming regulation, such moves warrant close attention from operators and tribal leaders alike.
Renewed Federal Interest in Oversight
The legislation requires the HHS Secretary to report annually to Congress on the study’s progress and policy recommendations. It would examine causes, development, associated demographics, long-term effects of gambling disorder and related harm. Prevention, treatment and intervention strategies would also face evaluation, including analysis of contributing factors and policy implications.
Rep. Moore called the proliferation of sports betting and prediction markets a crisis. He stated: “We are in a new age of gambling addiction as sports betting and prediction markets have proliferated into every aspect of life. Lawmakers and all Americans need to take a deeper look into the causes and effects of gambling addiction so we can best craft real solutions. This bill will go a long way in helping us address this crisis.”
Rep. Goldman echoed those concerns. He stated that gambling addiction is a growing public health crisis, especially for young men, and the federal government needs to start treating it as such. The bill represents a first step to understand implications of 24/7 accessible apps and sites.
Research cited in the announcement shows internet searches for gambling addiction help increased 23% since 2018. About 2-3% of the US population meets criteria for gambling disorder. The Siena Research Institute and St. Bonaventure’s Jandoli School survey found 27% of Americans hold an active online sportsbook account. Over half of men aged 18-49 reported the same, while 33% of that group used a prediction market for sports wagers.
Excise Tax as Funding Mechanism
The bill would fund the study with 10% of federal excise tax revenue on state-authorized wagers for up to three fiscal years. Similar proposals to direct portions of the excise tax toward gambling-related initiatives have appeared in Congress before.
This approach links regulatory study directly to the fiscal proceeds of legalized betting. It avoids new appropriations while spotlighting the federal government’s stake in the activity. For client-partners navigating multi-jurisdictional operations, such mechanisms introduce both predictability and potential new compliance layers.
The absence of a designated federal agency for this research stands in contrast to other behavioral addictions listed in the DSM-5. The press release notes this gap persists even as the government collects excise tax revenue from gambling. The study would address that void with structured, multi-year examination.
Institutional Support and Counterarguments
The Kennedy Forum, Foundation on Drug Policy Solutions, New York Council on Problem Gambling, American Society of Addiction Medicine, Stop Predatory Gambling, Texans Against Gambling and National Council on Problem Gambling endorsed the bill at introduction.
Lauren Finke, The Kennedy Forum’s senior director of policy, stated the organization is increasingly concerned about legalized sports betting’s impacts. She said: “As online gambling surges, permeating the lives of Americans, we are increasingly concerned about how this experiment will unfold for those who will inevitably develop dependencies that can hurt families, weaken relationships, harm finances, and destroy mental health. The Kennedy Forum supports this bill so we can better understand the scope and scale of the issue and help curb the emerging wave of addictions for profit that rely on shame, isolation, and silence to proliferate in our culture.”
Any federal study must grapple with real limitations. State regulators and operators have invested heavily in responsible gaming tools since 2018. Geolocation, KYC, deposit limits and self-exclusion already form part of the regulated landscape. A national study risks painting with too broad a brush if it overlooks those operational differences across jurisdictions.
Critics may also question whether excise tax diversion could reduce funds otherwise available for other federal priorities. The bill’s three-year cap attempts to address scope, yet implementation details will matter greatly.
State-Federal Tension and Prediction Markets
The legislation surfaces classic state-federal tensions. Sports betting legalization unfolded state by state after PASPA fell. A federal study now seeks to shape national policy responses using revenue those states help generate.
Prediction markets appear explicitly in the sponsors’ framing alongside sports betting. This inclusion aligns with broader convergence we see across event contracts, traditional wagering and emerging verticals. Any resulting policy recommendations could influence ongoing CFTC and state-level discussions.
For tribal governments and commercial operators, the bill signals potential structural shift. Federal research may inform future legislative or regulatory moves that affect market access, taxation and responsible gaming mandates.
The Bottom Line is that this bipartisan effort highlights genuine data gaps in understanding gambling disorder at scale while leveraging existing excise tax streams to fill them. Operators should track the bill’s progress and consider how study findings might shape both public perception and policy. As someone who has spent decades in this space, I believe constructive engagement with such initiatives serves the industry better than opposition. The key will be ensuring the research accounts for jurisdictional nuance, existing harm minimization efforts and the competitive realities client-partners face daily. What emerges over the next three years could clarify the path forward for balanced federal attention.
