News analysis by Jack O’Toole | If asked, an attorney would likely tell you that sports gambling remains illegal under South Carolina law. And in a sense, that’s true.
But so is the reply that same attorney would hear from Palmetto State residents who pull up gambling apps on their phones every day: “Wanna bet?”
From fantasy sports to prediction markets to overseas sportsbooks, South Carolinians are clearly putting real money on their favorite teams and players — though exactly how much, no one can say. Without a law to expressly legalize, regulate and tax the industry, the state has no mechanism to collect data.
What we can say is this: Americans now spend more on sports wagering than movies, books and music combined — $167 billion in 2025 alone, up from $4.2 billion just 10 years earlier. And that doesn’t include the billions in monthly sports bets being placed in the form of “contracts” in prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket.
In short, there’s a large and growing gap between S.C. law and S.C. reality when it comes to online sports betting — a gap that many Palmetto State lawmakers have been hesitant to try to close while Gov. Henry McMaster, an ardent foe of gambling, wielded the veto pen.
But with the term-limited McMaster set to leave office in January, supporters say they are planning a serious push in the next legislative session — and both major party candidates for governor sound open to it, at least under the right circumstances.
Where the candidates stand
No one would call Republican gubernatorial nominee Alan Wilson pro-gambling. In fact, the four-term state attorney general has made it clear that he would oppose any bill to legalize casinos in S.C. — even if the voters gave their approval in a referendum. And just this week, he added his name to a U.S. Supreme Court brief arguing that states should have the authority to regulate, or even outlaw, sports wagering in prediction markets.
Nevertheless, he says he’s open to the idea of online sports betting with guardrails, mostly on pragmatic grounds.
“(The) internet is everywhere, and obviously, anybody can go online. I don’t want to criminalize conduct that people are doing on their phone,” Wilson recently told The State. “But at the same time, I just want to make sure that we’re very thoughtful about it.”
Meanwhile, his Democratic opponent, S.C. Rep. Jermaine Johnson, told the City Paper he would support a bill to legalize and tax online sports betting — again, with guardrails — but only if voters approved it first in a referendum.
“Gambling addiction in my family is part of the reason I spent years of my childhood without a home, moving from one motel room to the next, and I would never wish that on any child in South Carolina,” Johnson said. “(But) if voters choose to move forward, then my job as governor will be to make sure we do it responsibly, with strong protections, prevention programs, and treatment resources in place from the very first day, so that no family has to walk the road mine did.”
Johnson said he would also support brick-and-mortar casinos, pari-mutuel horse race betting and prediction markets — though again, only with voter approval and strong safeguards in place.
“That same responsibility applies to prediction markets and any other kind of wagering that is already reaching people on their phones, because families deserve those protections whether the bet is placed in a casino or on an app,” he said.
How we got here
The explosion of online sports betting in the U.S. didn’t happen by accident.
It was the result of a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the federal law that effectively prohibited legal sports betting outside the state of Nevada. Since then, 39 states and the District of Columbia have legalized and taxed the practice.
But as critics of gambling note, the negative consequences of those moves have been significant, with studies consistently finding higher gambling rates, more personal bankruptcies and lower credit ratings after legalization — particularly among young men.
Still, due primarily to clickbait mobile phone apps that cross borders at the touch of a button, those negative impacts have spread beyond the states that legalized, as noted in a recent report by the New York Federal Reserve.
“States that have not legalized bear costs from cross-border betting without capturing tax revenue, giving high exposure states a stronger case for legalization,” the report concludes.
In other words, the concerns are real. But so, too, are the practical reasons to construct a state-level legal framework to regulate and tax the activity.
What an S.C. bill might look like
Several gambling-related bills have been introduced in recent S.C. legislative sessions, including a pari-mutuel horse wagering bill that passed the House in 2023 before dying in the Senate.
But it’s the comprehensive online sports betting legislation sponsored in 2025 by GOP Sens. Tom Davis of Beaufort and Matt Leber of Charleston County that members say may provide the clearest look at a roadmap going forward.
Under the bill, as many as eight companies would pay a $100,000 application fee and a $1 million licensing fee to operate online sportsbooks in S.C. Adjusted gross receipts, less payouts, promotions and taxes, would be taxed at 12.5%. State estimates suggest policies such as those in the bill would eventually produce about $40 million annually.
State gambling revenues would then be split four ways, with 82% going to the General Fund, 10% to local governments for infrastructure projects, 5% to the state Department of Mental Health for problem-gambling treatment and prevention and 3% for administration of the program.
The system would be overseen by a new nine-member Sports Wagering Commission.
“I think this is a pretty well-crafted bill,” Leber told the City Paper Thursday. “And with some tweaks, including any additional best practices we can find from other states, it will be even better.”
As for concerns about negative impacts, Leber pointed to guardrails in the bill, including age limits and funding for treatment. But he was frank about where he believes the responsibility ultimately lies.
“I would humbly submit that people with gambling problems are the ones already finding ways to do it,” he said. “I call myself a conservatarian — a conservative libertarian. And I don’t think we should be a nanny state that tells people what they can or can’t do with their own money.”
He added, “This could bring as much as $40 million into the general fund, and if we could use that to cut taxes in an equal amount, I think that would be a good thing.”
Across the aisle, Charleston Democratic Sen. Ed Sutton had different priorities for the money — he called for putting it toward state roads — but seemed to agree on the underlying question.
“I’m a fan of letting adults make adult decisions,” he said, acknowledging the “negative consequences” while observing that the horse wasn’t just out of the barn, it’s on the track.
“I was at two dinners just last week where people were pulling up their apps and talking about their bets,” he said. “It’s clear that we don’t have the will or the appetite to stop online gambling. So in that regard, shame on South Carolina for not regulating and taxing it.”
Jack O’Toole is Statehouse bureau chief for Statehouse Report and the Charleston City Paper. Have a comment? Send to: feedback@statehousereport.com
Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations.
Help support independent journalism by donating today.
