Connect with us

South Dakota

Growth of sports betting may be linked to financial woes, new studies find • South Dakota Searchlight

Published

on

Growth of sports betting may be linked to financial woes, new studies find • South Dakota Searchlight


While states have cheered the new tax revenue from sports gambling, some new studies have linked the burgeoning industry to lower consumer credit scores, higher credit card debt and less household savings.

With access on their cellphones, gamblers can bet more often and easily than in traditional casinos, heightening concerns about problem gambling and the financial fallout for sports fans. The rate of gambling problems among sports bettors is at least twice as high as it is for other gamblers, according to the National Council on Problem Gambling.

Legal sports gambling is more widespread than ever. Missouri voters in November became the latest to approve it, making it legal in 39 states — including South Dakota — and the District of Columbia. Last year, Americans bet more than $121 billion on sports, according to the American Gaming Association. While betting revenues are exploding, the industry is still relatively young — only blossoming after a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling opened the door for states to authorize sports gambling.

So far, researchers have not reached a consensus about potential harms, though three papers released this year found poor financial results for consumers in states with legalized sports gambling.

Advertisement

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

Advertisement

In a working paper released in August, researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles and the University of Southern California determined access to legal online sports betting led to lower credit scores and higher rates of bankruptcies. That study examined credit bureau data of more than 4 million American consumers.

“Our results ultimately suggest that gambling legalization does harm consumer financial health,” the report said.

That paper did not assess specific solutions but called on policymakers to find ways to protect residents at risk of becoming problem gamblers.

“If no action is taken, it is highly likely that the large increase in sports betting will lead to a long-term increase in financial stress on many consumers and policymakers and financial regulators should be prepared for this.”

A study led by a Southern Methodist University professor released in June found problem gambling increased in states that introduced online casino gambling alongside online sports gambling.

Advertisement

Another working paper from researchers at several U.S. universities found legalized sports betting drained household finances more than other types of gambling and diverted money from saving and investing.

The research comes as some state lawmakers have pursued new restrictions on sports gambling and federal lawmakers have eyed stricter regulations. Last month, New Jersey lawmakers introduced legislation to ban so-called prop bets — bets on a particular player’s performance that may not affect the outcome of a game — on college athletes. If approved, it would join 13 other states that ban those bets. The measure has advanced out of an Assembly committee.

In September, congressional Democrats introduced legislation that would implement minimum national standards and authorize research on the public health implications of sports betting. Among other provisions, the bill would ban sports book advertising during live sporting events, prohibit more than five deposits from gamblers in a 24-hour period, and prohibit artificial intelligence tools that create specialized promotions by tracking individual gambler habits. But it is unlikely to progress in the GOP-controlled House.

“State regulation is faint-hearted and half-baked,” Democratic U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said at a news conference announcing the legislation. “That’s why we need a national standard — not to ban gambling, but simply to take back control over an industry that is out of bounds.”

Industry pushes back

Joe Maloney, senior vice president of strategic communications at the American Gaming Association, said legal betting is among the most regulated industries in the country.

Advertisement

Aside from providing new revenue streams for states, Maloney said, legal sports betting has brought many consumers out of the illegal betting markets, providing more transparency for consumers and money for problem gambling programs.

“You can go to any state that has yet to have an opportunity to erect a regulatory market and see a predatory and even more pervasive offshore, digital, illegal market that’s targeting consumers in those states,” he said.

Deadwood sports betting has its first million-dollar month

Maloney pointed to long-standing research finding no correlation between financial hardship and proximity to casinos. But he acknowledged that it isn’t yet clear whether sports betting has a different effect.

“I think that topic needs to be further explored, because the scale of legalized gambling online and in the digital space is still very much in its infancy,” he said.

Advertisement

But Maloney is skeptical of the idea that sports gambling harms household finances. He noted that Americans last year had record 401(k) holdings and record mutual fund ownership.

Maloney highlighted a separate piece of recent academic research that determined the rapid rise of sports betting hasn’t led to an increase in adverse mental health outcomes or financial difficulties. The paper examined self-reported data on mental and financial health from nearly 2 million survey responses across multiple states with legalized betting.

The results were somewhat surprising to lead researcher Timothy Bersak, an associate professor of economics at Wofford College in South Carolina. He said the findings contradict a popular narrative that sports betting leads to widespread harms.

“Our results suggest that there’s not like a really large population of latent problem gamblers that would have these large gambling problems but for the prohibition on sports betting,” he said.

Bersak said his findings don’t negate other recent research: There is a segment of the population that is likely worse off because of sports betting, he said. But for now, a much larger share of the population said they are not being hurt and finding enjoyment from it.

Advertisement

“We really can’t have any sense of the long-term impacts at this point,” he said. “Because at least in the U.S., it’s only been around for at most six years.”

‘That money’s gone’

Justin Balthrop, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Kansas, expected that legalized sports gambling would displace other forms of entertainment spending. Maybe someone would forgo a night out, for instance, and instead put a few bucks on Sunday’s game.

But a paper he co-wrote — titled “Gambling Away Stability” — found that legalized betting led households to spend more on both entertainment and betting, while putting less in savings and investment accounts.

Pretend that the hundred bucks … is an entry fee, and maybe you get to leave with some of it. But you need to mentally know that money’s gone.

Advertisement

– Justin Balthrop, assistant professor of finance at the University of Kansas

The paper examined financial transaction data from more than 230,000 households across 26 states with legal sports betting between 2018 and 2023. In households that placed bets, net investments dropped by 14% after legalization — a significant figure when factoring in the expected long-term gains of compound interest and rising stock prices.

“What’s happening is they’re pulling money from what I think we would argue are more long-term productive uses of their funds to do this instead,” Balthrop said.

Advertisement

Researchers found that sports betting disproportionately hurts lower-income households as they run up credit card debt and overdraft checking accounts.

Balthrop said policymakers should do more to provide education and transparency to consumers, so they know the full extent of the odds against them.

A gambler himself, Balthrop said bettors should go into every bet financially and mentally prepared to lose because most bettors don’t win.

“I would say the same thing as someone who goes to a casino: Pretend that the hundred bucks you’re bringing to the casino is an entry fee, and maybe you get to leave with some of it,” he said. “But you need to mentally know that money’s gone.”

West Virginia state Sen. Jason Barrett, a Republican, said he believes most people who have placed bets since the state legalized sports gambling in 2018 have done so for fun — not with the expectation of making money.

Advertisement

“The way I look at it is, if somebody decides that they’d rather spend $50 on the outcome of an NFL game as opposed to going out to the movies, I think they should have the right to do that,” he said. “I’m not aware that there are a lot of people that are doing this for a real investment.”

South Dakota Lottery revenue projected to fall by $4.7 million, report says

Barrett, the treasurer of a national group of state lawmakers that works on gambling issues, noted that sports betting is still just a fraction of the overall spending on gambling in West Virginia. The American Gaming Association reported sports betting last year brought in about $48 million in revenue in West Virginia; total casino revenues in the state reached nearly $806 million.

While problem betting is always a concern, he said he’s seen no evidence sports gambling has dramatically increased addiction.

“I don’t think all of a sudden that we’ve offered one new product through sports betting, that all of a sudden we’re going to create a bunch of gambling addicts,” he said, “or that people have this illusion that they’re somehow going to regularly beat the book, and that this is going to somehow replace their retirement.”

Advertisement

The American Gaming Association reported that commercial gambling revenues hit a record $66.66 billion last year — a 10.3% increase over 2022.

While casino revenues continue to rise, sports gaming revenues are exploding: Last year, when sports betting became available in five new states, the group reported a total of $11 billion in sports betting revenue — a 46% increase from the previous year. That figure does not include sportsbooks operating at tribal casinos.

Those figures will likely continue to rise as more states approve sports betting.

Missouri regulators are currently crafting rules and a licensing framework for sports betting following the narrow approval of the ballot initiative last month.

Jan Zimmerman, chair of the Missouri Gaming Commission, said the state hopes to launch sports betting by summer. While the agency has heard concerns from state residents about increased problem gambling associated with sports betting, Zimmerman said regulators in other states have not reported a significant uptick.

Advertisement

As it does with casinos, the gaming commission will funnel a portion of sports betting revenues to mental health work to address problem gambling. But because the initiative was passed as an amendment to the state constitution, the gaming commission has limited latitude to create new regulations or safeguards on sports betting.

“The constitutional language is that which was created by that initiative petition,” she said. “So, there’s no going back and maybe molding that to work better to fit our needs.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: [email protected]. Follow Stateline on Facebook and X.
Advertisement



Source link

South Dakota

SD Lottery Mega Millions, Millionaire for Life winning numbers for March 10, 2026

Published

on


The South Dakota Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at March 10, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Mega Millions numbers from March 10 drawing

16-21-30-35-65, Mega Ball: 07

Check Mega Millions payouts and previous drawings here.

Advertisement

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from March 10 drawing

03-27-43-45-49, Bonus: 04

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

Are you a winner? Here’s how to claim your prize

  • Prizes of $100 or less: Can be claimed at any South Dakota Lottery retailer.
  • Prizes of $101 or more: Must be claimed from the Lottery. By mail, send a claim form and a signed winning ticket to the Lottery at 711 E. Wells Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501.
  • Any jackpot-winning ticket for Dakota Cash or Lotto America, top prize-winning ticket for Lucky for Life, or for the second prizes for Powerball and Mega Millions must be presented in person at a Lottery office. A jackpot-winning Powerball or Mega Millions ticket must be presented in person at the Lottery office in Pierre.

When are the South Dakota Lottery drawings held?

  • Powerball: 9:59 p.m. CT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
  • Mega Millions: 10 p.m. CT on Tuesday and Friday.
  • Lucky for Life: 9:38 p.m. CT daily.
  • Lotto America: 9:15 p.m. CT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
  • Dakota Cash: 9 p.m. CT on Wednesday and Saturday.
  • Millionaire for Life: 10:15 p.m. CT daily.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a South Dakota editor. You can send feedback using this form.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

South Dakota

Trading property tax for sales tax: Legislature moves forward with parts of homeowner relief package

Published

on

Trading property tax for sales tax: Legislature moves forward with parts of homeowner relief package


PIERRE — Two pieces of a property tax reduction package prepared by South Dakota’s legislative leadership and the executive branch are moving forward, but one bill failed during votes on Monday as lawmakers began the final week of the annual legislative session.

The House of Representatives voted

42-27

in support of

Advertisement

Senate Bill 245

, which would pull future revenue from a scheduled sales tax increase from 4.2% to 4.5% next year into a relief fund for homeowner property taxes, and use nearly $56 million in one-time money to seed the fund before the sales tax increase.

The Senate supported

House Bill 1323

, which would reduce the number of petition signatures needed to force an election on a local government’s decision to levy property taxes beyond limits set by the state. The Senate passed the bill 19-15.

Advertisement

Both bills have to return to the opposite chamber for consideration of amendments.

The Senate rejected

House Bill 1253

, which would cap annual assessment growth for owner-occupied homes and commercial properties at 5% annually and reset assessments back to market value every five years. The bill failed with a 9-24 vote.

The bills are part of a broader,

Advertisement

five-bill legislative package

targeted at property tax relief.

Another bill

in the package, which would allow counties to implement a half-percent sales tax with proceeds going to homeowner property tax credits, is awaiting the governor’s signature after he proposed it and it received both chambers’ approval.

The legislative budget committee is scheduled to consider a fifth piece of legislation in the package on Tuesday.

Advertisement

The bill

would reduce maximum property tax levies for school districts.

Sales tax bill overcomes concerns about future budget needs

SB 245 would capture revenue from the impending sales tax increase to deposit into a “homeowner property tax reduction fund” meant to reduce property taxes levied by school districts. The Legislature and then-Gov. Kristi Noem reduced the state sales tax rate three years ago but scheduled the reduction to sunset in 2027.

House Speaker Jon Hansen, R-Dell Rapids, told lawmakers on Monday that the bill would be an “investment in the people,” because it’ll give South Dakota homeowners more money to spend as they choose. Hansen, the bill’s sponsor and a candidate for governor, said that would lead to more spending and, therefore, more sales tax revenue. The state relies on sales taxes, while counties and schools rely on property taxes, and cities receive revenue from property taxes and sales taxes.

Advertisement

Some opponents said the legislation would favor wealthier, property-owning South Dakotans rather than lower-income renters.

Rep. Mike Weisgram, R-Fort Pierre, speaks on the House floor at the Capitol in Pierre on March 9, 2026.

(Photo by Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)

Rep. Mike Weisgram, R-Fort Pierre, worried that automatically diverting future state revenue to reduce homeowner property taxes would come at the cost of other priorities, such as annual funding increases for state employees, Medicaid providers and public schools — which are known as the “big three” budget priorities. Lawmakers often

aim

Advertisement

to increase funding for the groups by 3% or inflation, whichever is less. An inflationary increase this legislative session would be 2.5%, according to the state Department of Education.

“We are just clawing to get 1.4% for the big three,” Weisgram said. “I don’t think any of us are proud of that.”

Hansen said the decision “is not an either-or” situation.

“We can help the property taxpayers in the state who desperately, desperately need it,” Hansen said, “and then I trust fully that this state is going to continue to grow and that we are going to be able to meet the needs of our core obligations of this state.”

The bill was introduced as an amendment to placeholder legislation last week, and it will head to the Senate for approval. The Senate narrowly rejected a

Advertisement

similar proposal

earlier this legislative session.

Senate approves lower signature threshold to force election on excess taxes

The version of House Bill 1323 that passed the Senate would set the number of petition signatures needed to force an election on an excess tax levy (often called an “opt-out”) for a local government at 2,500 or 5% of registered voters within its jurisdiction, whichever is less. The current threshold to refer decisions by a local government is 5% of registered voters in the district, without a 2,500 signature cap.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Taffy Howard, R-Rapid City, said it will still be difficult to refer decisions by a local government to voters.

Advertisement

“You’re talking dozens and dozens of volunteers, weeks of organized effort,” Howard said. “There’s not a lot of people that have been through that and can even organize that kind of effort. So it’s not a trivial bar.”

Because the bill was amended since it last appeared in the House, it’ll now go to the House for approval.

HB 1253 intended to provide South Dakota homeowners and commercial property owners predictable increases in their property assessments, which factor into property taxes they pay, over five year periods.

But opponents said the change would shift the property tax burden onto farmers and ranchers and surprise homeowners every five years when assessments would be re-based on market value, which could lead to double-digit increases in assessments.

This story was originally published on

Advertisement

SouthDakotaSearchlight.com.

______________________________________________________

This story was written by one of our partner news agencies. Forum Communications Company uses content from agencies such as Reuters, Kaiser Health News, Tribune News Service and others to provide a wider range of news to our readers. Learn more about the news services FCC uses here.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

South Dakota

Political Pulse: South Dakota Senate Majority Leader Jim Mehlhaff on data centers, property taxes and more

Published

on

Political Pulse: South Dakota Senate Majority Leader Jim Mehlhaff on data centers, property taxes and more


RAPID CITY, S.D. (KOTA) – State Senate Majority Leader Jim Mehlhaff joined Political Pulse over the weekend.

Mehlhaff weighed in on property tax proposals, data centers, and effort to repeal the death penalty and speculation that Kristi Noem could run for Senate.

The interviewed was taped on Saturday.

See a spelling or grammatical error in our story? Please click here to report it.

Advertisement

Do you have a photo or video of a breaking news story? Send it to us here with a brief description.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending