July Sports Betting Index (SBI)

In the chart below, we present our RubinBrown Sports Betting Index (SBI). The SBI is based on our proprietary index of the leading sports betting states in the U.S. To continue to best reflect current market conditions, we’ll occasionally adjust the components of the index. To better compare competitive conditions, our index numbers focus in on a group of mature, competitive states. Therefore, a state with an index score of 1.15 had a raw index score of 15% greater than the average, while a 0.90 index score shows a 10% lower than average result.

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE RUBINBROWN SBI
 

July Results and the Next Wave of Regulation

July 2025 delivered the expected midsummer cooling of sports betting activity, with the national handle easing under the typical lull in marquee sporting events. That said, state-level results offered plenty of intrigue. Kansas emerged as an outlier, posting one of its strongest summer Index ratings at 1.38 on nearly $174 million in handle, meaning the market outperformed the average state by 38%. At the same time, Kansas lagged in profitability, generating just 7.52% hold, while most jurisdictions cleared the 10% hurdle.

The discrepancy was driven largely by BetMGM, which captured over 31% of the state online handle but reported a gross loss of nearly $650,000. While we have seen reporting of BetMGM’s increased promotional play during July, BetMGM only reported $237k in promotional deductions, whereas market leader DraftKings logged $1.55 million on a comparable handle. Time will tell if BetMGM can hang on to the #2 spot in the state.

The month’s results highlight how operator strategies can dramatically shape performance, even during quieter periods.

Meanwhile, the broader regulatory landscape continues to evolve, raising fresh questions about how far restrictions can go before they reshape the very market they aim to safeguard.

When Excessive Regulation Undermines Regulation

At what point do restrictions stop protecting consumers and instead risk undermining the very purpose of legalization—keeping bettors in safe, monitored environments?

This tension is now at the center of the sports betting debate in the United States. States continue to operate in silos as they pass new rules designed to protect consumers and safeguard sports integrity. Yet each new restriction chips away at the breadth of the regulated market, nudging more bettors toward alternative verticals such as sweepstakes and prediction markets or unregulated options such as offshore operators that face far fewer limits.

New Jersey’s latest move, considering a ban on micro-betting, is a prime example of this dynamic.

New Jersey’s Micro-Betting Flashpoint

Assembly Bill A5971, introduced this summer, would prohibit “micro bets” and explicitly ban their use across state-licensed sportsbooks. The bill defines a “micro bet” as a proposition bet placed live during a sporting event that relates to the outcome of the next play or action. Supporters argue the fast-cycle nature of these wagers fuels addiction.

“The pace of micro betting is designed to keep people gambling constantly, making one impulsive bet after another with little time to think,” said Assemblyman Hutchison. “This bill is a commonsense step to slow that cycle down and protect individuals from the financial and emotional harms that can come with excessive betting.”

Assemblyman Hutchison also noted that micro bets are easier to fix than many more traditional forms of wagering.

Opponents counter that micro-betting represents only a sliver of betting activity (DraftKings CEO claims they account for <10% of handle) and argue the ban would do more harm than good by shrinking consumer choice in the legal market while leaving alternative platforms free to meet demand.

A National Trend of Incremental Restrictions

New Jersey’s proposal is part of a broader pattern:

• Ohio has limited prop wagers and signaled caution about micro-bets targeting younger users.
• Massachusetts regulators have questioned micro-betting and college props on integrity grounds.
• North Carolina, a bill was introduced that would outlaw college player prop bets in the state.
• New York bans wagers on in-state college teams outright.
• Other states are weighing stricter controls on promotions, advertising, and even the design of betting apps.

Each measure is framed as a safeguard. Collectively, they are transforming the U.S. market into a patchwork of restrictions where the legal experience risks falling behind both consumer demand and the unregulated competition.

DraftKings & Simplebet: Betting on Micro-Betting’s Future

The regulatory pushback comes at an interesting time. In late 2024, DraftKings acquired Simplebet, the technology company that is among the pioneers of micro-betting infrastructure in the U.S.

• Why It Matters: Simplebet built the engines behind instant markets like “next pitch” or “next play,” which many sportsbooks use to power micro-bets. DraftKings’ purchase signaled a long-term belief that micro-betting could be a cornerstone of in-play wagering.
• The Disconnect: Even as lawmakers in New Jersey and elsewhere move to restrict micro-betting, major operators are doubling down, investing millions in the technology to make these bets faster, more seamless, and more engaging.
• Industry Perspective: DraftKings CEO Jason Robins has suggested that micro-bets are still a small percentage of overall betting handle today but could grow as consumers demand more interactive, instant-action experiences. The acquisition ensures DraftKings controls the tech stack if and when micro-betting becomes mainstream.

This juxtaposition highlights the widening gap between regulatory priorities and operator investment strategies: regulators see micro-betting as a risk; operators see it as a potential growth engine serving customer demand.

Operators are also looking for alternative verticals to potentially serve their customer base should regulatory pressures continue. FanDuel has partnered with CME group to provide event contracts (though they have not mentioned sports event contracts), Underdog has partnered with Crypto.com to offer sports event contracts in 16 states, and DraftKings has applied for a license with the NFA (National Futures Association).

The Balancing Act Ahead

For states, the balancing act is increasingly clear:

• Too few restrictions, and it may present the appearance of enabling problem gambling.
• Too many restrictions, and consumers migrate to unregulated or alternative markets, taking tax revenue and oversight with them.

New Jersey’s micro-betting proposal illustrates the dilemma perfectly. It is both a consumer protection initiative and, potentially, a catalyst for market leakage. If passed, it could cement a precedent for more states to follow.

So, the core question remains: can states strike the right balance of protecting consumers while also encouraging innovation by their regulated partners? The answer may define not only New Jersey’s market but also the trajectory of U.S. sports betting for the next decade.

Published: 09/10/2025

_{^{Readers should not act upon information presented without individual professional consultation.}}

_{^{Any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments): (i) is intended for your use only; (ii) is based on the accuracy and completeness of the facts you have provided us; and (iii) may not be relied upon to avoid penalties.}}