Caesars Leads Opposition to Missouri Sports Betting Amendment

Caesars Entertainment has taken a firm stance against Missouri’s sports betting initiative, Amendment 2, positioning itself at the forefront of the opposition effort. This move, which marks a significant pivot in its strategy, has sparked debate over the motivations behind Caesars’ sudden resistance to a measure it previously supported.

 

The Campaign Against Amendment 2

On September 13, Caesars funded the Missourians Against the Deceptive Online Gambling Amendment campaign with a $4 million injection. That same day, the campaign aired its first opposition ad, targeting “big out-of-state gambling corporations” seeking to profit from Amendment 2’s passage. The timing of Caesars’ opposition is noteworthy. For years, the company was part of a coalition that pushed for legalized sports betting in Missouri. However, the company now opposes the very measure it once supported, indicating deeper concerns within the industry about how this initiative could affect Missouri’s gambling landscape.

At the heart of Caesars’ opposition is a technical issue known as “skin ambiguity.” Skins refer to licenses that allow casinos to partner with online sports betting operators, granting them the ability to offer mobile betting. Under previous legislative efforts, each Missouri casino could hold up to three skins, allowing significant flexibility. But Amendment 2 allows for just one skin per casino.

Caesars, which operates three casinos in Missouri, is reportedly concerned that the initiative’s wording could limit each casino company, rather than each individual casino, to one skin. This would drastically reduce its capacity to expand mobile betting operations, leaving only two untethered apps for operators like DraftKings and FanDuel. In contrast, the previous legislative framework allowed more room for casino operators like Caesars to maximize their mobile betting operations. The reduced skin limit has sparked fears within Caesars that it could set a precedent, potentially limiting future opportunities in online gambling beyond sports betting.

 

Commercial Strategy

Caesars’ opposition campaign leans heavily on the promise that Amendment 2 won’t benefit Missouri education, a critical selling point for its supporters. The opposition ad, titled “Zero,” accuses out-of-state corporations of falsely claiming that the initiative will direct millions to Missouri classrooms.

Citing a Missouri Department of Revenue report, the ad points out the lack of a clear agency to collect the taxes proposed by Amendment 2. This ambiguity, combined with potential deductions on promotional revenue, has led to the possibility that the initiative may generate no funds for education. These claims have stirred concern among Missouri voters, who were promised financial benefits to public schools as part of the measure’s appeal.

 

Legal and Political Implications

Behind the scenes, Caesars’ opposition has extended beyond ad campaigns. Sources indicate the company was involved in a failed lawsuit that sought to invalidate the initiative by challenging its certification. These legal maneuvers demonstrate that Caesars is playing a long game, attempting to reshape the legal and regulatory framework surrounding sports betting in Missouri before it solidifies.

Yet, Caesars’ opposition isn’t shared across the entire gaming industry. Other Missouri casinos that supported the legislative efforts haven’t joined the campaign against the initiative. This divergence within the casino industry suggests that Caesars’ concerns are more company-specific, tied to its own business strategy rather than industry-wide opposition.

Complicating the situation further is the Missouri Gaming Commission (MGC), which has been asked to clarify whether each casino will receive an online sports betting skin under Amendment 2. The MGC is set to meet on September 25, but new Executive Director Mike Leara won’t assume office until October 2, leaving a critical gap in leadership as both proponents and opponents of the measure seek clarity.

Should Leara and the MGC interpret the initiative in a way that allows each casino to operate one skin, rather than limiting skins per casino company, it’s possible Caesars could shift its stance. Proponents of the measure have been working with Caesars for months, attempting to address its concerns over skins and hoping to bring the company back to a neutral or supportive position.

Caesars’ move to oppose Amendment 2 comes as the public debate over sports betting in Missouri reaches a critical juncture. Polls conducted just before the ad campaigns aired show that 52% of likely voters support the measure, while 25.3% oppose it. Though the margin appears favorable, the narrow lead leaves Amendment 2 vulnerable to opposition efforts.

By opposing the measure at this crucial moment, Caesars can potentially sway undecided voters and narrow the margin further, particularly if its messaging on education funding resonates. The company’s ability to influence the outcome may depend on whether its concerns over skins can be addressed before voters head to the polls.

Caesars Entertainment opposes Amendment 2 due to concerns over limited mobile betting skins and the lack of guaranteed funding for Missouri schools.

 

Conclusion

Caesars Entertainment’s opposition to Amendment 2 reflects the complexities of the sports betting landscape and the high stakes involved for major casino operators. While the company’s concerns center around skins and potential limitations on its future operations, its campaign has sparked a broader discussion about the role of out-of-state corporations and the true benefits of the measure for Missouri residents.

As the campaign unfolds, the outcome of the Missouri Gaming Commission’s clarification and the response from voters will determine whether Caesars remains a key player in shaping the future of online gambling in Missouri—or whether it will adapt to the new regulatory environment being crafted by Amendment 2.