House Hearing Scrutinizes Sports Betting Effects on College Campuses

US lawmakers examined the effects of sports betting on college students during a House hearing that also raised concerns about prediction markets and player proposition bets.

The November 11 hearing, titled “The Rise of Sports Gambling on College Campuses,” was held by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce’s Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development. Subcommittee chair Michael Baumgartner stated that online sportsbooks and prediction market apps have placed miniature casinos in the palms of students' hands. Baumgartner highlighted college prop betting, noting that it exposes students to harassment and has called into question the integrity of college athletics.

Prediction Markets and Oversight Gaps

Rep. Alma Adams argued that prediction markets can offer sports-related products without following the same state rules applied to licensed sportsbooks. "Those laws reflect the judgment of voters and their elected representatives. Prediction markets have blown a hole straight through them," she said in her opening statement. Adams pointed to Kalshi and Polymarket, where users aged 18 and older can trade sports event contracts, while most state-regulated sportsbooks require customers to be at least 21. She questioned the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s oversight after the NCAA asked for college sports prediction markets to be suspended until more safeguards are introduced.

Massachusetts Gaming Commission chair Jordan Maynard said the coexistence of state-regulated sportsbooks and federally regulated prediction markets has created inconsistent standards. "We have basically two sets of standards for a product that looks exactly the same to the end user." Maynard added that his commission has received complaints involving prediction-market companies it does not regulate. Rep. Adelita Grijalva raised concerns about tribal gaming rights, stating that innovation should not come at the expense of consumer safety or tribal sovereignty. The discussion followed recent court disputes involving sports event contracts, including a federal order barring Kalshi from offering them on the lands of several California tribes.

Where Safeguards Fall Short

Witnesses supported limits on college player props. Dr. Daniel Durkin, an Ole Miss associate professor, agreed with eliminating prop bets for college sports. He described harassment directed at athletes after losing bets, including Venmo requests and threats tied to parlays. Maynard noted that Massachusetts’ ban on individual college player props has helped reduce those risks. University of Michigan chief mental health officer Lindsey Mortenson said eliminating player props could reduce opportunities for athletes to manipulate parts of their performance. Cindy Clouner of Ohio State University supported stronger federal involvement because state patchwork laws still put players at risk.

Baumgartner cited a 2023 NCAA survey showing that 67% of students living on campus had bet on sports. Sixteen percent reported behaviors associated with problem gambling, while 6% said they had lost more than $500 in a single day. Durkin reported only six gambling-related counseling referrals at Ole Miss as of November 5. Witnesses called for earlier intervention, prevention education, and awareness of treatment programs. According to World Casino News, sports betting advertising and offshore operators were also discussed as lawmakers considered the limits of the current regulatory framework.

The hearing makes clear that divided oversight between federal agencies and states leaves colleges exposed to uneven protections. Operators should track moves toward unified standards on age rules, prop bets, and tribal jurisdictions, as further NCAA pressure or legislation could reshape market access on campuses.