I Can’t Even: Massachusetts Sports Betting Bill Puts The ‘Over’ In Oversight

First things first: As most watchers of the legalized gambling space have noted, the odds of this new batshizz crazy Massachusetts sports betting bill passing is somewhere between “nope” and “never.”

But that doesn’t stop me from sounding like a 15-year-old teenager from 2013 when I look at it, groaning out an eye-rolling, “I can’t even.”

As in, I can’t even fathom that here we are, in 2025, and we have a state senator in a legal state introducing legislation that would, quite simply, be a financial windfall for offshore, sweepstakes, crypto, you name it, whatever, doesn’t matter.

The new bill basically takes the federal SAFE Bet Act — which also has about zero chance of ever passing — and brings it down to the state level.

The bill would basically gut the entire legal sports betting industry in Massachusetts. 

For operators, the tax rate would go from 20% to 51%. Prop bets and live betting would be banned. Ads for sportsbooks would be banned during sports broadcasts. Bonuses, SGPs, odds boosts, and more would be deemed “unfair and deceptive.” Bettors couldn’t bet more than $1,000 a day or $10,000 a month without an affordability check, and the affordability checks would limit wagers to 15% of a person’s bank account.

I can’t even.

An open-minded(ish) look

Again, as every person in the gambling world agrees, this bill isn’t going anywhere. The concern, however — expressed by minds sharper than mine — is that this bill, along with the SAFE Bet Act, along with other would-be do-gooders, can start gaining some momentum, and some part of these notions in the bill would gain traction.

So with that in mind, I will set aside my eye-rolling “I can’t even” and take a quick look at each of these ideas in the bill. I will attempt to be open-minded. I will fail.

Tax rate: Sure, increase the tax rate to 51%. Brilliant. Sure, maybe it hasn’t yet handicapped the market in New York. Bring it to other states, and before you can say “duopoly,” DraftKings and FanDuel would be even more dominant than they already are. It would, without question, limit competition, which is always #notgood for consumers.

Prohibit live betting and prop betting: I mean, this is the equivalent of a transportation bill prohibiting cars and planes. Horse is out of the barn on this one, pun intended.

Wagering limits without affordability checks: This is fine, as long as we’re putting limits on how much junk food we can buy, how many pairs of shoes we can buy, how many vacations we can go on, how many streaming services we can subscribe to … I could literally do this forever, and I am well aware of the definition of both “literally” and “forever.”

Affordability checks that limit bets to 15% of my bank account: This one is just stupid, and yeah — I’m very aware of the definition of that word as well. The actual language reads, “determining that the daily or monthly amounts wagered do not exceed 15 per cent of the amount said person has available in a bank account.” This one drives me batty, because no one should have more than three months of monthly expenses in a bank account. So what would I have to do? Turn over my entire financial portfolio in order to place a wager? Does that include my retirement account? Or the loose change I keep in a Werther’s Original tin? And let’s not even get me started on the complete invasive nature of this. My goodness. I can’t hate this idea more.

Prohibition of ads during sporting events: Actually, this one is fine. Let’s knock booze ads out of there while we’re at it. I can Puritan up on this one.

Saying bonuses, odds boosts, and the like are “deceptive”: Not even sure what this would accomplish, but again: No, no, no, no, no. I actually depend on these things to keep my bankroll bankrolled. As long as you’re not a greedhead — or a mathematical fool — these types of offers are just fine.

So there you have it. 

I can’t even with this bill. I. Can’t. Even.