The Future of Sports Gambling in Missouri: Amendment 2 at the Ballot Box

As the general election approaches, one topic weighing heavily on the minds of Missourians is the potential legalization of sports gambling through Amendment 2. This proposed change offers more than just a bet on games; it potentially promises funding for education, yet it has stirred up substantial controversy among educators, lawmakers, and the public alike.

The Drive for Legalization

The pressures for legalizing sports gambling in Missouri are fueled by a coalition aptly named Winning for Missouri Education, composed of various sports teams and gambling operators. Jack Cardetti, spokesperson for the coalition, has pointed out that many Missourians engage in sports betting daily—typically through illegal offshore websites or at neighboring states where gambling is already legal. According to Cardetti, “As it currently stands, Missouri is getting no benefit out of that.”

The urgency for change is evident, with 38 states across the nation already allowing citizens to wager on sports. Missouri, surrounded by seven states with legalized betting, faces a competitive disadvantage in revenue generation, leaving millions on the table.

Projected Financial Gains

To fortify their argument, Winning for Missouri Education commissioned a study from Eilers & Krejcik, which estimated that the state could see approximately $560 million in wagers over the first five years after legalization. The proposed amendment includes a 10% sales tax on all gambling revenue, which could result in an influx of about $100 million in tax revenue over the same period. According to supporters, these funds would not only cover regulatory costs but also contribute to education budgets and support programs for compulsive gambling treatment.

However, while many view this as a boon for educational funding, concerns linger about the true implications of such revenue streams.

The Opposition’s Concerns

Opposition against Amendment 2 is spearheaded by a coalition known as Missourians Against Deceptive Gambling, which argues that the amendment’s wording could be misleading. Brooke Foster, the group’s spokesperson, highlights the absence of non-supplant language, which would ensure that money generated by gambling would add to, rather than replace, existing educational funding in the state.

In Missouri, revenue from already-established gambling sources like riverboat gaming and the state lottery already contributes to the Foundation Formula used to fund schools. Kari Monsees, deputy commissioner for financial and administrative services at the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), cautions that current budgets already include substantial allocations from gaming revenue. “I wouldn’t describe [gaming funding] as on top of what they were already getting,” she states.

Legislative Implications and Educational Funding

Many educators echo similar concerns. Bob Dorries, a former president of the American Federation of Teachers in Missouri, expresses apprehension that any newfound funds might merely substitute existing budget allocations rather than enhance educational support. "You’re just playing a shell game," he says, fearing that shifting funds could deprive schools of their necessary resources.

This skepticism is exacerbated by the complexities of how funding is distributed. When revenue from sports betting is collected, the language in the amendment indicates that it would first cover operational costs for the Gaming Commission, then fund compulsive gambling treatments, and only after that direct any remaining funds toward education. This layered structure raises questions about how much money might ultimately reach schools and in what form.

Expectations vs. Reality

Among the concerns voiced is the estimated revenue discrepancy as laid out by the state auditor’s office. The projections for annual revenue from sports gambling range from $0 to $28.9 million, based on modeling from states like Indiana, which legalized sports betting during the pandemic. Critics argue the pandemic may have skewed those figures, leading to an underestimation of what Missouri could achieve.

Moreover, operators may be allowed to deduct up to 25% in promotional costs and other undefined federal taxes, a stipulation that could drastically reduce potential state funding.

Jason Roberts, president of the Kansas City American Federation of Teachers, outlines the frustration felt by many educators. “Using teachers as political pawns for any ballot initiative is simply unacceptable,” he asserts, calling into question whether any new funds would be utilized to adequately compensate teachers or improve educational conditions.

The Bottom Line

As elections draw near, the future of sports gambling and its implications for Missouri’s education system hang in the balance. While proponents tout increased funding and regulation as key advantages, opponents raise crucial points regarding transparency and the potential for existing educational budgets to suffer.

Regardless of the outcome of Amendment 2, what remains clear is that the conversation surrounding gambling in Missouri will forge new paths for funding policies, requiring careful consideration from both state leaders and constituents. As Missourians prepare to cast their votes on November 5, the stakes have never been higher. The decision on sports betting could very well reshape the landscape of education funding in the state for years to come.