Rhode Island’s Sports Betting Monopoly Is Suddenly On The Clock
Key Facts
- The Rhode Island Senate passed SB 3118 Sub A on June 4 by a 30-6 vote; the bill was referred to House Finance on June 5.
- The bill would require the state lottery division to award enough sports-wagering vendor contracts to bring Rhode Island to at least four and no more than six operators by Jan. 1, 2027.
- Rhode Island currently keeps 51% of online sports betting revenue, with 32% going to the vendor and 17% to the host facilities under the existing structure.
- Bally’s was recently selected for a second online sportsbook license, but that contract has not been finalized, leaving the state’s market structure in flux.
Rhode Island’s Expansion Bill Clears The Senate
The Rhode Island Senate has advanced SB 3118 by a 30-6 vote, reviving a multi-operator sports betting push that could materially change one of the most restrictive legal betting markets in the United States.
The bill passed the Senate on June 4, 2026, and was sent to the House Finance Committee the next day.
At its core, SB 3118 would move Rhode Island away from a limited lottery-controlled model and toward a competitive licensing structure.
By Jan. 1, 2027, the state lottery division would have to open a competitive vendor process and award enough contracts to give Rhode Island at least four, but no more than six, sports-wagering operators.
What this bill changes
This bill marks a major break from how Rhode Island has handled online sports betting since launch.
Mobile sports betting went live in the state in 2019 through a lottery-controlled model built around Sportsbook Rhode Island, the IGT-powered platform tied to the state’s casino partners.
This has given Rhode Island bettors access to a regulated app, a state-backed product, but very little competitive pressure on pricing, promos, or product quality.
If SB 3118 becomes law, Rhode Island would be moving from a protected, lottery-run sportsbook system into a competitive process where operators can challenge for access, bettors can compare products, and IGT’s long-running position is no longer the sole regulated lane in the market.
Bally’s Award Complicates The Timing
The Senate vote comes shortly after the Rhode Island Lottery selected Bally’s to operate the second of the state's online sportsbooks.
The Lottery opened the process in late 2025, and Bally’s beat out Rush Street Interactive for the contract. But the deal had not been finalized when the award was reported in May, leaving the timing awkward for both Bally’s and the state.
Lottery Deputy Director Michael O’Rourke stated there was “a thorough review process,” but also acknowledged, “There was a hope we’d get more companies to reply, but they didn’t.” O’Rourke said the state’s 51% revenue share was likely “part of the reason some of the companies did not respond.”
Bally’s spokeswoman Patti Doyle said in a statement that Bally’s was “thrilled to have been awarded a second sports betting license” and said the company’s product would generate additional revenue for Rhode Island taxpayers.
If SB 3118 becomes law before the Bally’s arrangement is finalized, Rhode Island could be forced to revisit the structure of that second-license award. If the House stalls the bill, Bally’s may enter under the current revenue model while Rhode Island remains a tightly limited market.
The Fight Is Really About Revenue Share
The policy dispute is not simply whether Rhode Island should have more apps. It is whether the state’s existing economics are too punitive to attract the operators bettors actually recognize.
Current Rhode Island law allocates sports-wagering revenue as 51% to the state, 32% to the authorized sports-wagering vendor, and 17% to host facilities.
SB 3118 would keep the 51% state share in place until annual sports-wagering tax revenue reaches the fiscal year 2025 level. After that threshold, the operator tax rate would drop to 12% for the rest of the fiscal year, while operators would receive a larger share of revenue. The host-facility share would fall from 17% to 8.5%, with minimum sports betting revenue protections for the two Bally’s casino properties.
This is the bill’s most important commercial feature. A market with six theoretical licenses means little if the economics only attract one or two bidders - as proven with the previous second-operator process, which drew only Bally’s and BetRivers.
Why This Matters For Bettors
For Rhode Island bettors, SB 3118 is about practical access. More operators would mean more lines, more promotional pressure, better app quality, and more competition around same-game parlays, live betting, payment options, and retention offers.
None of that is guaranteed by statute, but it is the normal commercial result when established operators have to compete for market share rather than serve a captive market.
The current model protects state revenue first. That is not inherently wrong - Rhode Island is small, and a 51% revenue share has helped the state extract meaningful public revenue from a modest betting market.
But the tradeoff is visible: major operators have little reason to enter if the state takes too much of the economics before customer acquisition, technology, trading, risk management, and compliance costs are considered.
That is why the Bally’s selection is such an important data point. When a state opens a second-license process and receives only two bids, the market is sending lawmakers a signal. The question is whether the House views that as evidence the current model is working efficiently, or evidence that Rhode Island has priced out serious competition.
For bettors, the most immediate upside of SB 3118 would be choice. Rhode Island residents currently sit near several more competitive markets, including Massachusetts, where multiple online sportsbooks are available. A bettor comparing prices across several books is often in a better position than a bettor limited to one platform, especially on props, futures, niche markets, and boosted offers.
For the industry, the bill would test whether a small state can maintain strong fiscal returns while moving away from a lottery-style monopoly. If Rhode Island can protect its baseline revenue and still attract major operators, it gives other high-control jurisdictions a template.
What Happens Next
The bill’s fate now sits with the House Finance Committee. That is where the same broad concept stalled in 2025, despite Senate approval.
The key regulatory question is whether lawmakers want to set the market structure by statute before the next phase of vendor contracting hardens. If they do, the Lottery would need to run a broader process and evaluate applicants on product quality, technical capability, other-state experience, consumer protections, compliance history, revenue potential, and harm-minimization commitments.
If the House does not move the bill, Rhode Island is likely to proceed with a narrower expansion: Sportsbook Rhode Island plus Bally’s, rather than a four-to-six-operator field. That would give bettors another option, but it would not fully resolve the competitive critique that has followed Rhode Island’s market for years.
Marcus has spent over 20 years navigating the legal side of online betting - from his early days consulting for offshore operators to helping licensed U.S. sportsbooks launch in regulated markets. He’s worked with compliance teams, reviewed licensing frameworks in 15+ states, and advised on some of the biggest regulatory shifts since PASPA was repealed.
At BettingScanner, Marcus serves as the voice of reason - translating legalese into plain English and helping bettors understand what’s legal, what’s risky, and where the gray areas live. If you’re ever unsure about the rules, Marcus is your man - as he probably helped write them.
