The prospect of a sports betting bill passing through the legislative branches in South Carolina this year looks vanishingly small, with significant opposition still in place after debates in the state senate this week.
However, the advent of prediction markets, which are legal under federal law in all 50 states, is reshaping the conversation around legalized betting and what it may look like.
Addiction concerns and potential tax revenue among topics covered in debate
Discussions have been centered around Senate Bill 444 (SB 444).
The legislative proposal will legalize and regulate statewide mobile sports betting, amend state law to create a new South Carolina Sports Wagering Act and establish a Sports Wagering Commission to oversee the industry.
It would allow up to eight licensed online sportsbooks, set a 12.5 % tax rate, and lower the minimum betting age to 18, among other regulatory provisions. The bill has yet to be voted on, but there have been strong stances on both sides of the aisle.
Steve Pettit of the Palmetto Family Alliance, a non-profit, faith-based organization, opposes the legislation. He said: “Betting and gambling is going to become ubiquitous, it’s going to be everywhere and it’s going to be on everybody’s phone and suddenly we have no idea the tidal wave of what that could do,”
However, bill sponsor Senator Tom Davis argued that residents are already wagering through illegal channels or traveling out of state to gamble, and said a regulated framework would provide oversight, consumer protections and potential tax revenue rather than allowing that activity to remain underground.
“The worst thing you can do in politics is bury your head in the sand and pretend something doesn’t exist. The best thing you can do as a public official is to bring an issue out there, the pros and cons,” he said.
South Carolina governor remains staunchly opposed to any legalization
South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster has consistently positioned himself as a firm opponent of expanding legalized gambling in the state, framing the issue as one of cultural values rather than fiscal opportunity. “Gambling is bad for our culture. It’s not a part of our heritage, and there are better ways to make money to get jobs and generate tax money,” he said last year.
It is a stance allies say he has not softened. His opposition has served as an obstructive political barrier for lawmakers exploring sports betting or other gaming expansion, particularly given the governor’s influence within the state’s Republican leadership.
Still, the political landscape could shift in the coming years. McMaster is term-limited and cannot seek reelection in 2026, meaning the next gubernatorial race may reset the debate.
Industry observers note that gambling legislation often hinges as much on executive posture as legislative appetite. A new governor, particularly one more receptive to economic development arguments or competitive pressures from neighboring states, could reopen the door to legalization in a future session, even if momentum remains limited in the near term.
Prediction markets muddy the waters
The rapid growth of prediction markets, federally regulated platforms that allow users to trade event contracts in all 50 states, is complicating the traditional debate over legalized betting.
Unlike state-licensed sportsbooks, these exchanges operate under oversight from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), positioning sports-related contracts as financial derivatives rather than gambling products.
That distinction has reshaped policy discussions in statehouses, where lawmakers weighing whether to legalize or expand sports betting now face a parallel system already accessible to residents.
The result is a shifting regulatory landscape in which the future of sports betting may hinge less on whether states legalize it, and more on how courts and federal regulators ultimately define the boundary between gambling and financial markets.
Size of market is limited, but upside to legalization is obvious, say Tax Foundation
The Tax Foundation, a nonprofit research organization focused on federal, state, and international tax policy, believes there are plenty of benefits to legalizing sports betting, despite some structural limitations.
They argue that with a largely rural population, below-average median income, and no major pro teams, South Carolina may face limits as a major sports betting market, though college wagering would be key.
However, they also believe a fully built-out market could “generate roughly $32 million annually in tax revenue” at a 10% rate on gross gaming revenue.
For now, the path forward for legalized sports betting in South Carolina appears steep. Deep cultural resistance, vocal advocacy groups and a governor firmly opposed to expansion leave little room for swift movement this session.
Yet the gambling landscape is evolving quickly. With prediction markets operating nationwide and neighboring states already offering regulated wagering, pressure on lawmakers is unlikely to dissipate.
Even if SB 444 stalls this year, the debate over how, or whether, South Carolina should regulate betting rather than ignore it seems set to continue well beyond the current legislative cycle.
