- Casino companies in Ohio have differing views on iGaming
- Ohio lawmakers are considering two iGaming bills
- Online gambling, aside from sports betting, is prohibited in the Buckeye State
Ohio casino representatives continue to make their cases for and against the state’s consideration of iGaming.
The House Finance Committee reviewed House Bill 298 on Tuesday — legislation that would allow Ohio’s four casinos and seven racino properties to seek online casino licenses. Officials from the Buckeye State’s gaming facilities have provided different takes on whether it’s in the state’s best interest to expand gambling to include online slots and interactive table game offerings.
If we thought this was a threat to our brick and mortar business, I wouldn’t be here today to speak on this bill,” said Ryan Soultz, vice president of government affairs for Boyd Gaming, which operates the Belterra Park racino in Cincinnati. “We believe iGaming, if legalized through the proper framework, can be beneficial to both the state and existing gaming venues. iGaming is a natural step in the evolution of the [gaming] industry. We believe that it is highly complementary to our existing land-based operations and an opportunity to engage our customers while they are not physically at our properties.”
Soultz’s opinion was shared by Dean Hestermann, vice president of issues management and strategic communications at Caesars Entertainment. Caesars manages Eldorado Gaming Scioto Downs, also a racino that can only offer slot-like video lottery terminals.
How exactly do we employ iGaming to drive our brick-and-mortar businesses? Through omni-channel promotions that encourage digital players to experience our retail properties,” Hestermann testified.
“We’ve found that our existing in-person customers who try our online products increase their casino visits by 55%, from 11.5 trips to 17.8 annually. Furthermore, our online customers who visit casinos play nearly twice as much as in-person-only customers,” Hestermann continued.
iGaming Opposition
HB298 is one of two pieces of legislation in the Ohio capital seeking to authorize internet gambling with Senate Bill 197. Both statutes seek to charge a $50 million upfront iGaming license fee, with renewals set every five years for an additional $10 million.
Proposed taxes on iGaming revenue range from 28% to 36%.
While iGaming might benefit the state’s coffers, reps from Jack Entertainment, Ohio’s oldest gaming company, along with Churchill Downs, which is also invested in the state, say online casinos hurt in-person casinos. Retail play is poached to the online platforms, those casino company officials claim, which leads to job layoffs and reduced local taxes.
Jack and Churchill are part of the National Association Against iGaming. The organization is committed to defeating state legislative efforts to legalize online casino gambling, aside from mobile sports betting.
“Unlike online gaming, in-person gaming provides effective safeguards to prevent underage gambling, limit excessive access, and address problem gambling through established support programs. Additionally, in-person gaming drives local economic growth by generating stable jobs and reinvesting revenues into schools, infrastructure, and public services,” a statement from the National Association Against iGaming read.
License Fee Panned
The operators supportive of iGaming told the House Finance Committee members that if they do decide to move forward with HB298, the $50 million entry fee should be eliminated or greatly reduced.
At $50 million an online casino skin, Ohio’s proposed rate would be the highest among the seven states that currently license internet gambling platforms. In Michigan, a similarly populated state, an online casino license costs just $100K, with annual renewals at $50K. Pennsylvania has the costliest iGaming framework, with licenses costing $10 million upfront and renewed every five years at $250K.
The post Ohio Casino Operators Give Opposing Testimony Regarding iGaming appeared first on Casino.org.
Leave a Reply