Missouri’s Betting Launch and the Questions Ahead

Missouri will enter the national sports betting market on Monday, becoming the 39th state to allow legal wagering since the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door in 2018. But the state’s debut comes with a notable restriction: bettors cannot place proposition bets — wagers on the performance of a specific athlete — when the athlete plays for a Missouri college or university.

The limitation is narrower than rules in some states, but it underscores rising concerns about prop bets as the fastest-growing segment of sports wagering. Those concerns have intensified amid a string of recent scandals involving professional and college athletes accused of manipulating game outcomes tied to individual-performance bets.

Category	Detail
Launch Date	Monday, December 2, 2025
Prop Bet Restriction	Prohibited on Missouri college athletes
Revenue Potential	$11B nationally through first 3 quarters (2025)
Problem Gambling Fund	$5M annually allocated in Missouri
iGaming Outlook	Potential future expansion pending sports betting success

 

A Market Expanding Amid Scandal

Sports betting operators collected more than $11 billion in the first three quarters of the year, a 13% increase from the same period in 2023, according to the American Gaming Association. Prop bets, though not tracked nationally, are playing an outsized role in that growth. West Virginia’s internal data shows that over a one-month period this summer, more than half of all wagers placed on a major platform were prop bets. Nearly all were wrapped into parlays — multi-leg wagers that lengthen odds and increase potential payouts.

These bets also increase risk. Because they encourage frequent, rapid-fire wagering, prop bets can heighten the likelihood of addictive behavior, said Rachel Volberg, a University of Massachusetts Amherst researcher who studies gambling disorders. Missouri’s sports betting framework allocates at least $5 million annually for problem-gambling services.

The industry’s expansion has coincided with a surge in integrity cases. In recent weeks, two Cleveland Guardians pitchers were charged with accepting bribes to influence pitch selection. An NBA player was arrested in an alleged information-sharing scheme. The NCAA also revoked the eligibility of six men’s basketball players accused of manipulating their performance. All cases centered on prop bets.

Missouri’s restrictions fall in the middle of a broad national spectrum. More than a dozen states allow unrestricted collegiate prop bets, while another dozen ban them entirely. A handful, including Missouri, ban prop betting only on in-state college teams. The restriction was written into Missouri’s constitutional amendment that legalized wagering, a measure approved narrowly last year after a record $43 million campaign financed largely by DraftKings and FanDuel.

Industry advocates argued that banning prop bets outright would push bettors toward illegal offshore markets, reducing oversight and limiting the ability to detect suspicious activity. Jack Cardetti, a spokesperson for the Sports Betting Alliance, called Missouri’s approach “a good middle ground.” Skeptics dispute the effectiveness of partial bans. With bettors able to wager online across state lines, prohibitions limited to in-state teams may have little practical impact. “That’s going to be a Band-Aid on a dam that’s breaking,” said Nathan Novemsky, a Yale University marketing and psychology professor.

 

Oversight Amid Rapid Growth

The Missouri Gaming Commission has three staff members dedicated to sports betting oversight and plans to hire a fourth. But day-to-day monitoring of potential manipulation will fall largely to operators, working with leagues and federal authorities. Major League Baseball recently moved to limit exposure after the Guardians case, capping pitch-by-pitch bets at $200 and removing them from parlays.

Industry leaders argue that these adjustments show that integrity monitoring works. “The market is really working as intended,” said Joe Maloney of the American Gaming Association. Missouri’s launch adds momentum to a broader national shift toward integrated online gambling platforms. Sports betting is often the entry point for iGaming — a category that includes online casinos, virtual table games, and mobile slots. Only a handful of states currently allow full iGaming, but operators describe it as the next major expansion.

Missouri’s constitutional amendment authorizes sports wagering only, not online casino gaming. Yet analysts view sports betting infrastructure as a precursor to future iGaming debates. States that have already legalized sports betting often revisit the issue within several years as tax revenues plateau and consumer behavior shifts toward mobile gaming environments that offer more than wagers on athletic events.

 

Missouri’s sports betting launch permits wagering on professional athletes but restricts in-state college prop bets, highlighting growing concerns over player integrity, addictive betting, and the future expansion of iGaming.

 

The Shaping Factors

• 1. Integrity pressures tied to prop bets.
  Even with restrictions on in-state college athletes, Missouri will need to track the same risks now visible in other states. If scandals grow, lawmakers may revisit the boundaries of legal wagering before considering any expansion into iGaming.
• 2. Fiscal competition with neighboring states.
  Illinois and Kansas already benefit from Missouri residents crossing state lines to bet. If sports wagering becomes a stable revenue stream and problem-gambling data remains manageable, Missouri may face pressure to expand further to keep gaming dollars in-state.

For now, the state is focused on its launch. Bettors accustomed to driving across the Mississippi River or pulling off the first exit in Kansas will soon be able to place wagers at home. Whether Missouri eventually joins the states pushing into full digital casino gaming will depend on how the early months of sports betting unfold — and whether the industry can contain the risks that accompany its fastest-growing products.