Some guardrails on prop bets expected, but not a full ban.

Following a raft of sports betting scandals in 2025, momentum is building for regulatory changes in the new year that could place tighter restrictions on player prop bets.

One prominent league, Major League Baseball, has already worked with sportsbook operators and state regulators to establish a ceiling on microbets that allow bettors to wager on individualized balls and strikes. Two others, the NFL and the NBA, have disseminated leaguewide memos that outline thorough protocols designed to mitigate the risks of a rigged prop scandal.

One crusader on the federal level, US Rep. Paul Tonko of New York, has cited the need for more integrity in the multi-billion dollar industries that are profiting handsomely from sports gambling. Tonko sent letters to seven professional sports leagues urging them to support federal standards he believes will establish the proper guardrails against those who seek to game the system.

At the same time, the NCAA is dealing with scandalous activity in college basketball — a point-shaving case that could be among the biggest in the history of the sport. NCAA President Charlie Baker, the former governor of Massachusetts, has strenuously pushed for a nationwide ban on college player props. Although some new restrictions are widely anticipated, there are still questions whether such bans will become widespread or consist of just limits on a few props in a handful of jurisdictions.

A reasonable target

While prediction market activity dominated the conversation at a recent gaming legislative conference in Puerto Rico, stakeholders still devoted a considerable portion of the four-day event to the fallout from the scandals. One panel at the winter meeting of the 2025 National Council of Legislators from Gaming States focused on multi-faceted challenges related to Name, Image and Likeness rights for college athletes, including the impact on sports betting integrity.

Steve Lautz, executive associate athletics director for compliance at LSU, indicated that while Louisiana bans college player prop bets, 20 or more states with legal sports betting still allow customers to wager on the bet type. At least 17 states restrict bettors from wagering on college props, with nuanced rules in several others that limit the restrictions to colleges and universities within state lines. Lautz hopes more states will add restrictions in 2026.

Over the course of the conference in Puerto Rico, iGB interviewed nearly a dozen legislators, regulators and lobbyists on the topic. Frank Ciccone III, who serves as the majority leader of the Rhode Island Senate, remarked that the props should be prohibited. Nevertheless, most of the attendees who spoke with iGB agree that it is unrealistic to expect every state to enact a ban.

Mike Finn, a state representative from Massachusetts, suggested that a “threshold of about 50%” could be an attainable target. Once a measure receives majority backing, according to Finn, some of the holdouts may change their position due to the groundswell of support.

Finding a balance

Beyond college props, there could be reforms with other bet types. Last fall, federal prosecutors in Brooklyn indicted 34 defendants in parallel sports betting-poker cases, with manipulation of NBA prop bets part of the allegations. Prosecutors also charged two Cleveland Guardians pitchers accused of rigging pitches to enable prop bet profits.

In November, the NFL disseminated a memo informing all 32 clubs that the league had begun discussions with state legislators and regulators on limiting prop bets. The league outlined a series of props it deemed to have a “corrosive effect” on the sport. Those included bets that involved player injuries, officiating and pre-determined outcomes such as which quarterback will start for a given team.

Weeks later, the NBA also issued a memo to clubs on a set of proposed modifications to the league’s gambling policy. The recommendations call for the imposition of certain limits on “under” wagers, the elimination of bets dependent on a single play (such as which team will score the first basket) and a reduction in the number of bench players whose performance can be bet upon.

Christopher Hebert, chairman of the Louisiana Gaming Control Board, told iGB that any time a sports regulatory body has those types of concerns, state regulators should listen. Still, he cautions that even with the best statutes and regulations in place, some violations will still occur. Hebert is unsure if a ban on certain props will solve those issues.

On the legislative side, state Senator Michael Webber of Michigan said that there will probably be some “give and take” between the states and operators if some jurisdictions seek to prohibit various props. A number of states may find it difficult to restore integrity through a stricter regulatory framework, without impeding tax revenue through a blanket prohibition. Webber believes it is unlikely that operators will pre-emptively remove certain props on their own.

Federal intervention?

In Congress, representatives of the US House Energy Committee met with staffers from the NBA in November. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver did not attend the meeting, nor did deputy commissioner Mark Tatum. It is unclear if any major North American pro sports commissioner will testify before Congress on sports betting integrity in 2026.

While Tonko, the New York congressman, has written at length about sports integrity since the first wave of arrests in October, he has not pushed explicitly for a nationwide ban on props. The SAFE Bet Act, legislation proposed by Tonko and Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, aims to create minimum federal standards in marketing, affordability and use of artificial intelligence across the US sports betting market. Tonko has now added sports betting integrity to the queue of proposed safeguards. Besides the NBA, Tonko’s office also sent letters to the NFL, MLB, NHL, WNBA, MLS and NWSL.

“The choice before you is now explicit,” he wrote to the leagues. “Either engage directly with Congress to establish mandatory federal guardrails that restore integrity and protect the public or stand in opposition and accept responsibility when the next scandal breaks and more families and lives are destroyed.”