If you follow national business or political news, you’ve probably seen the recent headlines. Betting-style platforms are getting glowing profiles in major publications, often framed as innovative financial tools or harmless ways to “predict” outcomes. But behind the buzzwords and tech jargon is a much more important question: who gets to decide whether this kind of betting is legal in states like Alabama?
Here in Alabama, we do not currently allow legal, online sports betting through traditional sports books. That has been a deliberate choice, shaped by our laws, our values, and the voices of Alabama voters. People can, and do, disagree about whether that policy should change. But what should concern everyone is the idea that this decision could be quietly taken out of our hands altogether.
Prediction markets are being promoted as something different from gambling, but when you strip away the branding, many of these platforms allow people to wager on the outcomes of sporting events and other real-world contests. The key difference is not the activity itself, but the lack of state oversight. Unlike regulated sportsbooks, these platforms are not licensed by state gaming authorities, are not subject to state consumer protection rules, and do not contribute to state revenues or responsible gaming programs.
That matters, even in a state that has chosen not to legalize sports betting.
The Supreme Court made it clear in 2018 that gambling policy is a state issue. Since then, states across the country have taken different approaches. Some have legalized and tightly regulated sports betting. Others, including Alabama, have chosen to hold the line. That diversity is not a weakness of our system. It is exactly how federalism is supposed to work.
What prediction markets threaten to do is bypass that system entirely. Instead of state lawmakers debating the issue openly and allowing voters to have a say, federal regulators could effectively decide that these platforms can operate nationwide, regardless of state law. That should give everyone pause.
Supporters of prediction markets argue that federal oversight is enough. But history tells us otherwise. States are the ones that know how to enforce age restrictions, address problem gambling, and respond when things go wrong. States are also accountable. When Alabama lawmakers make a decision, they answer to the people who live here, not the regulators hundreds of miles away.
Even for Alabamians who oppose legal sports betting, this issue should be troubling. Allowing federal agencies to override state authority on gambling sets a dangerous precedent. Today it’s betting. Tomorrow, it could be other areas traditionally left to the states.
If Alabama ever decides to revisit sports betting, that conversation should happen openly, transparently, and at the state level. Lawmakers should be able to weigh the risks, the safeguards, and the impact on families and communities. What we should not accept is a backdoor expansion of betting through platforms that claim to be something they’re not.
Alabama doesn’t need Washington to decide what laws apply here. When it comes to determining the future of sports betting, the choice should remain where it belongs: with the people of Alabama and the leaders they elect to represent them.
Donna Granberry is President of Republican Women of East Alabama