A coalition of Republican legislators in Ohio has proposed a bill aimed at prohibiting online sports wagering, alongside implementing stringent restrictions regarding the manner, location, and amounts individuals can bet, reflecting a market that has increasingly transitioned toward mobile apps since the gambling was legalized.

This initiative, named the Save Ohio Sports Act, was unveiled on April 8 at the Statehouse by Republican Representatives Riordan McClain, Gary Click, Johnathan Newman, and Kevin Ritter, who were joined by addiction specialists and health advocates. The bill is now set to be reviewed by the Ohio House of Representatives.

If passed, the legislation would mandate that all legally sanctioned sports betting occur exclusively in-person at Ohio’s four casinos established by the state constitution, effectively banning mobile betting. Sports wagering has been sanctioned in Ohio since December 2021, with operations commencing in January 2023 through both retail and digital channels.

Since legalization, online platforms have significantly dominated the landscape, accounting for over 98 percent of betting activity, with total wagering exceeding $10 billion in 2025.

Proponents of the bill argue that the widespread access to digital betting introduces dangers that surpass any potential tax revenues. McClain pointed out that the majority of participants end up losing money over time, observing that only a small fraction of bettors achieve long-lasting profits, while most continually deposit funds without substantial returns.

The proposed legislation imposes restrictions on betting activities, including a $100 limit per bet and a cap of eight bets daily, all of which are confined to casino premises. Additionally, it prohibits the use of credit cards, adhering to a “no debt to bet” framework advocated by supporters.

A number of betting formats would be eliminated, such as in-game wagers, parlay bets, and prop bets associated with individual athlete performance. The bill would also prohibit betting on college sports. Furthermore, sportsbooks would no longer be permitted to provide promotional offers like free bets, and advertising would face stricter controls, including bans during live events and within sports facilities.

Click questioned the financial gains, pondering whether they justify the potential risks. “Is the tax revenue truly worth the risks posed to people’s lives, mental health, personal welfare, their families, and homes? I think not,” he remarked.

Advocacy organizations in support of the bill include the Center for Christian Virtue, the Ohio Suicide Prevention Foundation, and addiction advisors from the Lindner Center of Hope. They contend that aggressive marketing and unrestricted access could lead to detrimental gambling behaviors.

Center for Christian Virtue President Aaron Baer compared this issue to substance addiction, cautioning that promotional tactics can act as gateways that encourage continuous participation.

Experts in the field have also highlighted the severe ramifications of gambling-related issues. Dr. Chris Tuell, Clinical Director of Addiction Services at Lindner Center of Hope, stated: “This is akin to Narcan; there is no equivalent for problem gambling.”

Supporters of the bill further stressed the dangers of solitary gambling associated with mobile devices. Tony Coder of the Ohio Suicide Prevention Foundation asserted that confining betting to physical locations could help diminish risks by curtailing late-night, solitary gambling behaviors that exacerbate distress.

Legislators raised additional concerns regarding the integrity of sports. Newman described the existing framework as lacking adequate protections, advocating for clearer limitations to mitigate emerging threats. Click concurred that the combination of mobile accessibility and gambling escalates the risk of compulsive behavior.

While the sponsors concede that sports betting will continue to be permitted, they assert that the focus is on enhancing consumer protections and curtailing excessive gambling. This proposal follows previous initiatives to reinforce regulations, including an unsuccessful attempt last year to curb specific prop bets.