U.S. operators launch NAAIG coalition to halt iGaming expansion

February 14, 2025

U.S. operators launch NAAIG coalition to halt iGaming expansion

A new group, the National Association Against iGaming (NAAIG), is pushing back against online casino expansion in the U.S.

With big players like Cordish Companies and Churchill Downs Inc. at the helm, the coalition is zeroing in on states considering legalising iGaming; and Maryland is front and centre.

The money issue: what’s at stake

The biggest gripe the NAAIG has concerns the hit that traditional casinos might take if iGaming becomes legal. They’re leaning on a report from The Innovation Group, which found that brick-and-mortar casino revenue drops by an average of 16.5 percent after regulated online gambling is introduced.

This could mean nearly 5,000 lost jobs in New York and Illinois by 2029. On top of this, the same study predicts big hits to state economies: Ohio could lose $602 million in GDP, Indiana $428 million, and Maryland $372 million.

Cordish Companies’ Mark Stewart, who is on the NAAIG board, stated, “When you add up the social costs from iGaming, like more underage and problem gambling, the net tax revenue takes a dive.” Shannon McCracken, the senior director of government relations at Churchill Downs and NAAIG board member, added, “This is about protecting local jobs and communities; it’s bigger than just responsible gaming.”

The NAAIG isn’t just talking about dollars and cents; they’re also worried about the human cost. Their report estimates that states could spend over $100 million a year dealing with problem gambling. Plus, they point to research showing that 81% of gambling addicts are using online platforms.

Jason Gumer from Monarch Casino & Resort, another NAAIG board member, was concise in his view, “Beyond the lack of any real upside for states, iGaming puts vulnerable individuals at greater risk of problem gambling and financial instability.” The group argues that the social fallout from online gambling far outweighs any potential benefits.

Having their cake and eating it, too?

Surprisingly, both companies are no strangers to online betting, with Cordish running PlayLive! in Pennsylvania and partnering with FanDuel for mobile sports betting in Maryland. Churchill Downs also has plenty of online experience, operating TwinSpires.com, a nationwide horse racing betting site.

Cordish Companies’ Mark Stewart defended this stance by explaining that Pennsylvania had already legalised iGaming before the company was licensed to operate there.

In his testimony against the Maryland legalisation bill, he said, “We stand to make a lot of money if iGaming is legalised. We’re a market leader in this state; on the sports betting side we’re partnered with FanDuel. We have nearly 60% of the market. We will do very well, but we think Maryland won’t do very well, and we know our employees won’t do very well, and that’s why we’re opposed to it.”

This perspective suggests that their participation in Pennsylvania was a pragmatic business decision rather than an endorsement of online gaming itself.

Cordish Companies’ Mark Stewart’s testimony:

NAAIG targets more states

The NAAIG is actively trying to convince lawmakers in states like Illinois, Maryland, New Hampshire, and New York to pump the brakes on iGaming, and so far, they’ve had some success. For example, a bill to legalise online casino games in Indiana has hit a dead end, even though it passed some early votes. Molly Gillaspie, who speaks for Indiana’s House Speaker Todd Huston, says it’s unlikely to move forward this session.

Still, the fight isn’t one-sided. Groups like iDEA (iDevelopment and Economic Association) argue that blocking iGaming misses the point and ignores growing consumer demand for safe, regulated online options.

A complex debate with far-reaching implications

The debate over online gambling in the U.S. rages on, with groups like the NAAIG and iDEA taking opposing sides. It’s a classic showdown between tradition and technology, with big stakes for players, businesses, and communities.

These days, people want convenience, and many are already placing bets on illegal sites that lack protections for players. According to iDEA, regulating online gambling could help states keep players safe, crack down on shady operators, and bring in valuable tax dollars to fund schools, roads, and problem gambling programs.

While critics worry that online gambling is too easy to access and could lead to addiction or expose minors to gambling, supporters believe that a regulated online market is actually a better way to protect players compared to the illegal platforms already out there.

The NAAIG, however, argues that online casinos could hurt local economies by pulling customers away from traditional, brick-and-mortar establishments, which could mean job losses and financial strain for communities.

Another point of contention is who’s really looking out for whom. Supporters of online gambling argue that some NAAIG members, like Cordish Companies, are more focused on profits than the public good, pointing out that while Cordish opposes iGaming in Maryland, they operate an online casino in Pennsylvania.

The real question

At the heart of this debate is finding the right balance between innovation and responsibility. One potential solution, backed by Penn Entertainment, is to limit online gambling licenses to land-based casino operators. This compromise could help protect local jobs while still tapping into the revenue opportunities of iGaming.

Additionally, ramping up enforcement against illegal operators could address some of NAAIG’s worries without halting progress on legalisation. As Mark Stewart put it: “The real question is: What’s the net tax impact?” But beyond dollars and cents lies a bigger question: How can states balance economic growth, public welfare, and innovation in a way that’s fair and sustainable for everyone involved?