Bill
SB 982
Authorizes and regulates historical horse race wagering as pari-mutuel bets at selected licensed facilities under SLGCC oversight, with a cap of 4,000 terminals and safeguards.
Status & timing
- Introduced: Jan 28–29, 2025; assigned to Budget & Taxation. Hearing scheduled 3/05 at 1:00 p.m.
- Effective date (statutory): July 1, 2025 (bill text sets that effective date).
- Agency implementing/regulating: State Lottery and Gaming Control Commission (SLGCC) / State Lottery & Gaming Control Agency (SLGCA).
Purpose / intent
- Authorize and regulate sports-wagering bets on historical horse races (HHR) as a form of pari‑mutuel sports wagering, expanding the statutory definition of “sporting event” to include HHR and permitting certain licensed sports‑wagering facilities to accept HHR wagers under SLGCC oversight.
Key provisions
- Definition: “Sporting event” is amended to explicitly include a HISTORICAL HORSE RACE.
- Where allowed: Only certain sports‑wagering facility licensees may accept HHR wagers — specifically Class A‑2 licensees at thoroughbred or standardbred racecourses, the licensee at the Maryland State Fairgrounds (Timonium), and sports‑wagering licensees at designated satellite simulcast facilities.
- In‑person requirement: An individual may wager on HHR only if physically present at an approved terminal located within the specified licensed track or satellite simulcast facility.
- Terminals & caps: HHR wagers must be placed only on SLGCC‑approved terminals. SLGCC may authorize no more than 4,000 HHR terminals statewide.
- Pari‑mutuel pools: HHR wagering must be conducted as pari‑mutuel betting (pooled wagering). SLGCC must approve types of wagers and the operation/method of pari‑mutuel pool(s).
- Player‑funded pools: The bill permits licensees to operate player‑funded pools or assign a percentage of wagers to such pools to ensure funds are available to pay winners if a pari‑mutuel pool becomes negative (“minus pool”).
- Financial safeguards: Payouts to winning bettors must come from wager pool funds (not be a wager against the licensee). Minimum wager allowed is $0.10; minimum payout cannot be less than the amount wagered.
- Operational controls: SLGCC must approve terminals, designated wagering areas, days/hours of operation, and posting/notice requirements explaining HHR pari‑mutuel betting.
Who is affected
- Sports‑wagering facility licensees at eligible racetracks and approved satellite simulcast facilities (potential new product line).
- Patrons physically present at those licensed facilities.
- Existing video lottery terminal (VLT) operators and local jurisdictions that receive VLT‑derived impact grants (possible substitution effects).
- SLGCC/SLGCA (implementation, licensing, enforcement costs).
Fiscal and regulatory impact (high‑level)
- Fiscal note projects, under one set of assumptions, an increase in Blueprint for Maryland’s Future Fund special‑fund revenues/expenditures of at least $17.0 million annually beginning FY2027. General Fund expenditures decline correspondingly but the SLGCA incurs additional administrative costs (one‑time and ongoing); estimated hiring in the fiscal note includes additional staff.
- Offsetting risks: VLT revenues and related local impact grants could decline materially if HHR wagering substitutes for VLT play. Problem Gambling Fund receipts may increase slightly.
- Small‑business impact: potentially meaningful for racetracks and simulcast facilities; HHR terminals could create new revenue streams but also require investment and compliance.
Regulatory notes
- SLGCC retains broad approval and operational authority (terminal approvals, wager types, operational days/hours, posting requirements).
- The pari‑mutuel structure and the player‑funded pool mechanism are intended to insulate licensees from direct liability for payouts when pools are insufficient.
Bottom line
SB 982 would add HHR to the roster of permitted sports wagering in Maryland, tightly limit where and how HHR wagers may be accepted, require SLGCC approvals for terminals and pools, and treat HHR as pari‑mutuel wagering with safeguards (player‑funded pools, minimum wager/payout rules). The measure could generate new dedicated special‑fund revenues but carries substitution risk for existing gaming receipts and requires additional regulatory capacity.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
