Regulators in Kentucky are in no rush to decide what to do about an NCAA request for a ban on college player prop betting in the Bluegrass State.
NCAA President Charlie Baker wrote to the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission's general counsel on March 29 seeking "a prohibition on player-specific prop bets and related markets" in the Commonwealth, as the college sports executive has done with other state regulators.
As of late April, the letter to the KHRC was still being reviewed by the commission, a spokesperson told Covers at the time.
From commission to corporation
Oversight of legal Kentucky sports betting has since been tweaked following the passage of legislation in the state legislature, which could partly account for the relatively slow response to Baker’s request.
The tweaks resulted in the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission being replaced as regulator by the Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation, an independent agency that doesn't fall under the umbrella of the executive branch’s Public Protection Cabinet.
The new agency met Monday in Lexington and received a report from its sports wagering division. However, the corporation's board did not discuss the NCAA’s request for a player prop ban, according to Travers Manley, interim general counsel for the regulator.
“The request remains under review,” Manley said in an email to Covers. “There is not a specific date by which the KHRGC will issue a decision.”
That means, at least for the time being, that college player prop markets remain safe at Kentucky sportsbooks. The state is one of 20 that still offers those props in some form, although the NCAA is hoping to convince Kentucky regulators to change their minds.
Push for bans continues
Baker and the NCAA have pushed for college player prop bans because of worries about student-athlete harassment by bettors and attempts to squeeze inside information out of those players, among other concerns. Those efforts have been successful in certain states, sometimes even without a direct request from Baker.
“Surrounding states already maintain anti-prop betting measures,” the NCAA president noted in his letter to the KHRC’s lawyer. “In March 2024, Ohio joined states like Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia to implement a full ban on individualized student-athlete prop bets. Indiana also has certain restrictions in place on player prop bets.”
Similar requests by Baker were successful in Ohio but failed in Montana. Louisiana, Maryland, and Vermont also decided to ban college player props without a direct request from Baker, although those decisions were made after Ohio opted to do so.
Baker, the former governor of Massachusetts, signed a bill into law in 2022 that legalized sports betting in the New England state. Even so, and even with the college player prop issue cooling some, he has not backed off his stance, saying in June that “I kind of wish sports betting had just stayed in Vegas."
The ceremonial first sports bet placed by Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear LOST. The Kentucky Wildcats won only seven games this season, which let down the since-re-elected gov on his NCAAF future parlay. https://t.co/qsDbD2ZZYc
— Geoff Zochodne (@GeoffZochodne) November 30, 2023
So, while the college sports calendar has slowed down with school out for the summer, Kentucky regulators still have a decision to make about player props.
Whether they do so before the start of football season in the fall remains to be seen. However, a lack of professional sports franchises in the state (and the importance of college sports) could factor into the thinking of the gaming corporation, as it did in Montana.
“Speaking specifically to our state, with Montana’s low population and only two large universities, we can speak confidently that any issues occurring nationally have not been an issue in Montana,” Montana Lottery Director Bob Brown wrote in a letter to Baker in April. “Regarding the specifics of player prop betting, it is not in our immediate plans to discontinue college player prop markets offered through our sports book. Montana’s local teams already have a limited number of markets, which we are not inclined to limit further.”
