MGM Springfield has incurred a fine of $25,000 after regulatory authorities in Massachusetts discovered that the casino inadvertently allowed bets on a men’s baseball game at Northeastern University scheduled for 2025, in violation of state laws prohibiting gambling on college sports teams.

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission sanctioned the fine during a meeting earlier this month. Reports indicated that betting on the game was available for about two hours before a gaming official identified the oversight, as noted in a recording of the session.

Diandra Franks, the commission’s enforcement counsel, confirmed that no bets were placed on the Northeastern game. Franks added that MGM was cooperative throughout the inquiry and agreed with the proposed penalty.

Massachusetts regulations restrict betting on college sports unless the teams are engaged in national tournaments. The prohibited wager concerned Northeastern’s matchup against Campbell University in North Carolina on April 5, the second in a three-game series, which Northeastern won 8-1, thanks to a strong performance by starter Aiven Cabral from Lynn, a draft pick for the Atlanta Braves, who pitched 6.2 innings.

This penalty comes after prior disciplinary actions targeting MGM Springfield for mishandling college sports wagering. In 2024, the casino faced a fine of $47,500 for accepting bets on two college basketball games in 2023 involving Northeastern and the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

The year prior, MGM was fined $20,000 for accepting bets on two Harvard University men’s basketball games. In that instance, regulators stated that BetMGM, the casino’s service provider, incorrectly classified Harvard as being in Connecticut.

Additionally, state regulators sanctioned Fanatics in November for accepting wagers on a 2024 Boston College football game against Michigan State. As per the meeting’s recording, Fanatics accepted 83 bets amounting to $3,325 over several days due to an employee mistakenly disabling betting limits on the game.

Fanatics received a fine of $20,000, although one commissioner expressed the opinion that the punishment should have been more severe.

“I’m not pleased with the fine,” stated Eileen O’Brien, highlighting the company’s repeated offenses. “Incrementing only $5,000 each instance isn’t a substantial deterrent for the operator. Learning that an employee loses their job is …[placing] the burden on the employee rather than the company.”

“Three violations in a few years with just a mild reprimand, there should be greater measures in place to prevent this from recurring,” she added.