Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s recent call to ban all prop bets—following the suspension of Cleveland Guardians pitchers Luis Ortiz and Emmanuel Clase in an MLB gambling probe—marks a new phase in the tug-of-war between integrity protection and market flexibility in U.S. sports betting.
The governor’s letter to the Ohio Casino Control Commission (OCCC), dated July 30, 2025, expresses “serious concern” over what he views as an increasing threat to game integrity driven by player-targeted wagering markets. His request isn’t unprecedented. Back in February 2024, the OCCC prohibited all college player props after NCAA President Charlie Baker requested urgent action in response to rising threats against student-athletes. That ban was executed under Ohio Administrative Code 3772-11-01(B)(2), which empowers the commission to restrict wagering on any event “contrary to the public interest.”
What’s new is the scope: DeWine is now pushing for a full prohibition on all player-specific betting across professional leagues—a much larger segment of the market. According to public data, micro-props and in-play prop bets account for approximately 8–12% of total sportsbook handle in Ohio, depending on operator and event type. A statewide ban would create a substantial hole in product offerings.
While the governor’s rationale centers on integrity, critics argue that the move feels reactionary and overly broad, especially since the implicated MLB players were reportedly involved in placing bets, not manipulating outcomes linked to prop markets.
Furthermore, the existing regulatory framework already provides for risk-based wagering restrictions. The OCCC Rule 3775-16-01 allows the regulator to review and revoke approval of specific bet types on a case-by-case basis. A full category ban, absent a technical assessment or clear manipulation evidence, may be legally vulnerable and economically disruptive.
For context, several jurisdictions—Colorado, New Jersey, and Indiana—allow professional prop bets but ban or tightly restrict college player props. Some, like Illinois, require specific regulatory review for certain types of player wagers. Ohio’s approach would go beyond any current model in the U.S. market.
There’s also the issue of proportionality. As FanDuel and BetMGM have noted in prior regulatory filings, removing player props could disproportionately affect casual bettors, who prefer low-stakes engagement tied to individual performance rather than outcome-based wagers. The broader question is whether Ohio is setting a precedent for pre-emptive regulation based on the fear of perception rather than demonstrated manipulation or technical risk. For a state that legalized mobile wagering in January 2023—with Ohio Revised Code 3775 outlining a detailed licensing and compliance framework—this sudden pivot risks regulatory whiplash. Rather than a total ban, Ohio may benefit more from operator-specific monitoring obligations, expanded data-sharing agreements with leagues, and enhanced consumer education around responsible in-play betting.
At a time when legal markets are fighting to distinguish themselves from offshore platforms, overregulation without nuance could drive bettors back into the shadows. Ohio has an opportunity to lead—not just with integrity, but with proportionality and innovation. The challenge is doing so without turning the lights off on regulated betting’s most dynamic product segment.
