Nevada Officials Push Back Against Proposed Federal Sports Betting Regulations

A recent bipartisan effort to impose federal guidelines on the rapidly expanding legal sports gambling market has encountered significant resistance from Nevada officials.

The Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet (SAFE Bet) Act, introduced by U.S. Rep. Paul Tonko, D-New York, and U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, seeks to establish federal regulations for advertising, individual betting activities, and the use of artificial intelligence in the sports gambling industry.

At a press conference on September 12, Tonko emphasized the urgent need for federal oversight, stating, “This relationship between the gambling industry and sports has reached intolerably dangerous levels. It’s well past time for Congress to step up and make a difference.”

Nevada Pushback

However, the reaction from Nevada's political leaders has been overwhelmingly negative.

• U.S. Rep. Dina Titus argued that the SAFE Bet Act reinforces outdated prejudices against the gaming industry.

• U.S. Sen. Jacky Rosen’s office stressed Nevada’s long history of effective regulation.

• U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto’s office warned the bill could hurt Nevada’s workforce without solving the illegal market issue.

The SAFE Bet Act Proposals

The legislation lays out several federal restrictions on the industry:

• Prohibiting advertising between 8–10 a.m. local time and during live broadcasts.

• Banning terms like “bonus bets” or “no sweat.”

• Restricting individual activity by capping mobile deposits at five per day and banning credit card funding.

Industry Context

The broader U.S. gambling landscape highlights why the debate is so heated:

• Sports betting is now legal in 38 states and Washington, D.C., with 31 offering mobile wagering.

• Americans wagered $121 billion on sports last year, generating $11 billion in sportsbook revenue.

• Nevada, where betting has been legal since 1949, remains the model for balancing regulation and economic benefits.

Michael Green, professor of history at UNLV, explained Nevada’s skepticism: the state has long resisted federal involvement, citing its track record of uncovering betting scandals and maintaining consumer protection.

In conclusion, while the SAFE Bet Act aims to address legitimate concerns about the rapidly expanding sports gambling market, Nevada officials are pushing back against what they see as unnecessary federal overreach. As the debate unfolds, the future of sports betting regulation in the U.S. remains uncertain, with states like Nevada advocating for the autonomy to manage their own gaming industries without external interference.