This article answers a common question: will sports wagering ever become illegal across the United States again? The legal landscape shifted decisively after the 2018 Supreme Court decision that returned regulatory authority to states, and developments since have favored regulated expansion in many places. If you follow sports, place bets, or operate a prediction platform, the practical issue is less about a sweeping federal reversal and more about state-specific rule changes and court outcomes. This piece explains the legal baseline, recent court signals, the policy tradeoffs at play, and concrete steps to monitor and adapt.

Since Murphy v. NCAA the authority to regulate sports betting returned to states, making national prohibition unlikely without new federal law.

By 2025, a majority of U.S. jurisdictions had legalized some form of sports wagering, signaling continued expansion in regulated markets.

Most likely changes ahead are state-by-state tightening on advertising, college props, and affordability controls rather than a blanket ban.

Quick answer: why some people say sports betting should be legal and what that means

sports betting should be legal

The most straightforward conclusion is that a nationwide ban on sports wagering is unlikely to reappear absent new federal legislation; the dominant legal structure since 2018 puts control in state hands. This means debates will play out state by state, not as a single national reversal, and readers should watch state rulemakings for changes.

A short monitoring checklist readers can use to track state rule changes

Track bills
Watch court dockets
Review regulator guidance

Check updates weekly

Why that matters in practice: people who argue "sports betting should be legal" are usually pointing to regulated markets that allow consumer protections, tax revenue, and oversight rather than a return to an unregulated black market. Those arguments shape legislative choices but do not by themselves create federal rules. The underlying legal baseline since the 2018 Supreme Court decision has left regulation to states, which is why legalization has expanded in many places.

A practical distinction for readers is whether a product is a licensed sportsbook or a skill-based prediction platform. Licensed sportsbooks operate under state rules for wagering, while skill-based funded-account models follow different legal paths and are often regulated under sweepstakes or skill-game frameworks. That distinction affects legal risk and how regulators treat each offering.

The federal backstop that PASPA once provided was removed by the Supreme Court in Murphy v. NCAA, which returned authority over sports wagering to states and ended federal preemption on this issue; that ruling is the basic reason regulation is now state by state Supreme Court opinion in Murphy v. NCAA and related analysis Cato.

Close up of a legislative hearing room microphone and wood table with shallow depth of field suggesting policy discussion and that sports betting should be legal

States exercise authority in different ways, using a mix of commercial licensing, tribal compacts, and lottery-run models to authorize and oversee wagering. These frameworks have practical implications for who can offer bets, where servers can be located, and which consumer protections apply, as summarized in state-level overviews and legislative tracking NCSL overview on state sports betting.

Because authority rests with states, the same activity can be legal in one jurisdiction and restricted in another. That patchwork is why phrases like "sports betting should be legal" are shorthand for policy preferences rather than a single legal rule that applies across the country. For operators and bettors alike, the operative question is which state rules apply to the user and how regulators classify the product. For more on how Funded Plays evaluates changes in regulatory environments see how FundedPlays evaluates changes.

Expansion since the Murphy decision has been substantial: by 2025 a majority of U.S. jurisdictions had legalized some form of sports wagering, demonstrating ongoing market growth rather than a retrenchment American Gaming Association state of the states report and related scholarly discussion scholarly essay.

That growth shows how many states chose regulation over prohibition, often citing consumer protection and tax revenue as motivating factors. For bettors and platform operators the practical result is a varied market where access and product rules depend on the chosen state model.

See FundedPlays Challenges for challenge rules and state change guidance

Sign up for concise updates on state rule changes and major court decisions so you can respond quickly to new limits or opportunities.

Open FundedPlays Challenges

Courts continue to shape how state programs operate. A notable example involves the West Flagler litigation, where a D.C. Circuit decision supported a tribal-state compact approach to statewide mobile betting and the Supreme Court declined to review that decision, leaving the lower court ruling in place Supreme Court order list denying review in the West Flagler case.

The lower-court ruling that the Supreme Court declined to revisit illustrates how litigation can enable novel legal structures to proceed without a new federal statute, and it shows that court outcomes matter as much as legislative votes when it comes to market access.

Supporters of legalization typically advance three linked points. First, bringing wagering into a regulated system makes it easier to enforce consumer protections and combat unregulated operators. Second, a taxed, legal market provides public revenue that many states use to fund programs. Third, regulation can reduce criminal activity and provide clearer pathways for dispute resolution compared with an illicit market. These themes appear in industry and policy reporting on state legalization trends American Gaming Association state of the states report.

Minimalist 2D vector top view of a laptop showing simplified state statutes and regulator webpage blocks beside a notebook with schematic checklist boxes representing monitoring workflow for sports betting should be legal

In policy debates the phrase "sports betting should be legal" often functions as shorthand for a preference toward regulated access combined with oversight, rather than an unconditional endorsement of every market feature. Advocates emphasize that a legal market enables age verification, responsible-play tools, and enforceable consumer protections that do not exist in many unregulated environments.

Opponents or cautious policymakers point to consumer harm, the risk of increased problem gambling, and specific concerns such as bets involving college athletes. One major voice on this point urged states to ban college player proposition bets to protect student-athletes, a targeted policy proposal that typifies recent restriction efforts NCAA statement on college prop bets.

Where legislative activity focused from 2024 into 2025 it tended to target particular products and practices rather than pursue blanket bans. Policymakers have prioritized measures like limits on advertising to youth, restrictions on certain prop markets, and affordability checks that aim to reduce harm without closing down entire legal markets.

When states tighten rules they commonly focus on areas that are visible to the public and linked to perceived harm: advertising and marketing, bets tied to college athletes, deposit and affordability controls, and license conditions that shape who can enter the market. Those levers let regulators limit perceived harms while preserving the taxed market framework.

Targeted actions are typically easier to pass than sweeping prohibitions because they can be framed as consumer-protection measures. For example, restricting college-player props addresses a single, politically sensitive market without removing legal wagering overall, a posture regulators favored in 2024 and 2025.

Will sports betting ever be illegal nationwide again?

A nationwide return to prohibition is unlikely without new federal legislation; the more realistic path is state-by-state adjustments and targeted restrictions.

Different authorization methods create different policy levers. Commercial licensing lets states tie conditions to operator behavior, such as placing advertising caps in licensing terms. Lottery-run models give state lotteries discretion to change product offerings through administrative rulemaking. Tribal compacts may limit state regulatory reach and require negotiation, which can produce unique outcomes for mobile access and server location requirements, as recent litigation demonstrated NCSL overview on state sports betting.

Because frameworks differ, rollbacks are likely to be piecemeal and tailored to local politics. A state on a tight budget might emphasize licensing revenue and resist broad limits, while another might prioritize protecting college sports or vulnerable populations and impose stricter product rules.

A frequent error is assuming that federal law will re-impose a nationwide prohibition. The 2018 Supreme Court decision that struck down PASPA left authority with states, and there has been no federal law after that restoring a national ban; readers should treat state rules as the operative source of law Murphy decision and further analysis analysis.

Misreading federal authority can lead bettors to assume protections or prohibitions that do not exist in their state. Checking a state regulator's guidance or a state law summary is the simplest corrective step to avoid this mistake.

Another common misunderstanding is to conflate skill-based sweepstakes, funded-account challenge platforms, and licensed sportsbooks. These products can look similar to users but are treated differently under many state rules. Operators sometimes erode their legal position by not clearly documenting how their offering differs in mechanics and legal basis, or by failing to follow state-by-state compliance requirements NCSL overview on state sports betting.

Operational mistakes include not tracking state rulemakings, failing to update geofencing or terms when a state changes rules, and misclassifying a product type in regulatory filings. Those errors can expose operators to enforcement or market access problems even when the underlying business model is lawful in principle.

If a state moves to restrict or ban college-player props, bettors should first confirm whether the rule applies to their jurisdiction and whether existing wagers will be voided or allowed to settle. Operators should prepare to remove affected markets from the state in question and to communicate clearly about what changes mean for active users.

From a monitoring standpoint, track the relevant bill texts and any regulator guidance that implements the new rule, since administrative rules often determine the operational details that matter to users (see how we evaluate changes).

Funded Plays Challenges

Open FundedPlays Challenges

In states where tribal compacts determine mobile access, a negotiated change or a court decision can alter who can offer statewide mobile service and under what technical conditions. Watch litigation dockets and compact amendment notices because those are the places where access rules are often clarified or contested D.C. Circuit opinion in West Flagler.

Bettors in affected states should expect sudden market adjustments and should check whether a platform's terms or geolocation controls still allow access. Platforms and operators should have processes to block or modify offerings quickly in response to a compact change or court ruling.

The clearest takeaway is that a nationwide prohibition is unlikely without new federal legislation, and the more probable path is state-by-state tightening or litigation that shapes market rules. Keep an eye on state rulemaking, court decisions like the West Flagler sequence, and targeted policy debates such as college prop restrictions American Gaming Association state of the states report.

For most bettors and skill-based platforms the safest practical posture is to monitor local rules and to prepare to adjust products or behavior when state-specific limits appear; see Funded Plays.

Simple signals to watch: new state bills and administrative rule filings, appellate and district court opinions affecting compacts, and public statements from state regulators. Those items will generally appear first in state legislative calendars and regulator notice pages.

Keeping a short checklist and subscribing to updates from trusted state trackers on our blog will let you move faster than reacting after a change has already taken effect. Funded Plays blog

Will Congress likely ban sports betting nationwide?

A nationwide ban would require new federal legislation, and the post-Murphy structure gives states primary authority, so such a federal ban appears unlikely in the near term.

What should I watch if I place bets across states?

Monitor state rule changes, regulator guidance, and court decisions that affect access and product rules in the states where you place wagers.

How is a skill-based platform different from a sportsbook?

Skill-based platforms typically use structured challenges and virtual funds and are often treated under different legal frameworks than licensed sportsbooks; check each platform's terms and local rules.

Regulatory change is likely to be incremental and geographically varied. By focusing on state rulemaking, court dockets, and targeted policy debates, bettors and platform operators can respond constructively to new limits and protect users. Staying informed and distinguishing product types will reduce legal surprises and help you adapt to whichever policy path a particular state chooses.

Quick answer: why some people say sports betting should be legal and what that means

sports betting should be legal

See FundedPlays Challenges for challenge rules and state change guidance

References