Regional Casino Operators Form Group to Oppose iGaming Expansion

A newly formed coalition of regional casino operators is ramping up efforts to oppose the expansion of iGaming in the United States, arguing that online gambling leads to economic harm and job losses. The National Association Against iGaming (NAAiG) has released a study claiming that states introducing iGaming experience declines in land-based casino revenue, increased problem gambling, and lower net tax benefits than expected.

Industry Divided Over iGaming’s Impact

The NAAiG, which includes companies such as Cordish Companies, Red Rock Resorts, Monarch Casino & Resort, Churchill Downs Incorporated, and Jack Entertainment, is advocating against the expansion of online gambling. Their newly commissioned study, conducted by the Innovation Group, asserts that states legalizing iGaming face an average 16% drop in land-based casino revenue, leading to job losses and economic declines.

According to the report, states considering iGaming, such as Maryland, could see significant financial setbacks by 2029. The projected losses include:

• New York: $983.7 million in lost casino revenue and 4,921 job cuts
• Illinois: $545.3 million in casino revenue losses and 4,733 job cuts
• Ohio: $522.6 million in revenue losses and 2,818 job cuts
• Maryland: $342.6 million in revenue losses and $372 million in lost economic output

The study also highlights concerns about problem gambling and social costs. It states that 81% of gambling addicts engage in online gambling, and underage participation is more prevalent in digital platforms, with 26.4% of adolescent iGaming s developing gambling disorders.

Pushback from iGaming Advocates

Despite NAAiG’s findings, some industry experts argue that iGaming is not solely responsible for job losses and casino revenue declines. Gene Johnson, executive vice president of Victor Strategies, noted that while there is some cannibalization of land-based casinos, the study may overestimate its impact. He pointed out that iGaming provides an omnichannel capability that allows casinos to reach new customers who might not otherwise visit a physical location.

Johnson also suggested that some revenue declines attributed to iGaming may actually result from broader economic trends and casino expansion in competing states. For example, Massachusetts’ introduction of new casinos has affected the performance of Connecticut’s gaming industry, regardless of iGaming.

Ongoing Debate and Policy Implications

The NAAiG is calling on policymakers to resist the expansion of iGaming, arguing that brick-and-mortar casinos contribute more to local economies and provide better safeguards against problem gambling. The group is advocating for stronger regulations and urging businesses, labor unions, and local leaders to their fight.

Meanwhile, iGaming proponents argue that prohibition is not the answer, likening the debate to historical resistance to online commerce in other industries. Some industry analysts believe that banning online gambling would only push players to unregulated offshore sites, which offer fewer protections.

With more states considering iGaming legislation, the divide between national casino companies and regional operators is growing. As state lawmakers weigh the potential economic benefits against the risks outlined in the NAAiG report, the future of iGaming in the U.S. remains uncertain.

Source:

NAAiG Study Reveals Economic and Social Risks of iGaming, apnews.com, February 11, 2025.