US House subcommittee holds hearing on college sports betting harm and prop bets

A US House subcommittee held a hearing on 11 November on gambling among college students, taking testimony on problem gambling, wagers tied to individual college athletes and prediction markets.

Operators and affiliates with campus-facing marketing or athlete-linked betting products should expect continued scrutiny from lawmakers, regulators and the NCAA.

What happened

The House subcommittee covering higher education and workforce development met at the House Rayburn Office for a hearing lasting nearly two hours, according to iGaming Business. Subcommittee vice chair Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-WA) made clear that cutting problem-gambling rates among college students should be a major priority for the industry.

Baumgartner cited an undergraduate survey released. According to the survey, 31 percent of male and 25 percent of female students know someone who had experienced financial distress or academic fallout from online wagering losses. He also said that, compared with students who had never gambled, students who gambled online were 10 percent more likely to report difficulty paying for basic expenses such as medication, transportation and housing.

Witnesses included:

• Cindy Clouner (The Ohio State University) and Dr Lindsey Mortenson (University of Michigan), who specialise in research on mental health treatment and addiction recovery.
• Dr Daniel Durkin of the University of Mississippi, who fielded questions on harassment of student-athletes and raised concerns about the integrity of college athletics.
• Jordan Maynard, Chair of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.

Durkin's written testimony set out survey data and policy points:

• A spring 2025 survey of 1,595 undergraduates across eight public universities in Mississippi found that about 39 percent had gambled in the preceding year and 16 percent had bet on sports.
• Of the sports bettors, about 10 percent screened at moderate risk and 6 percent in the problem-gambling range. Durkin described these as screening results, not clinical diagnoses.
• Most regulated online sportsbooks require customers to be 21, he said, while Kalshi permits people from age 18 to trade sporting-event contracts and Fliff offers a sweepstakes-style product from 18.
• He pointed to a Wall Street Journal report saying prediction-market firms have promoted their products through student influencers and campus groups.
• He cited NCAA survey data showing that, among sports bettors on men's teams, individual-player prop bets rose from 8 percent in 2016 to 38 percent in 2024.
• The NCAA has urged state regulators to restrict individual prop bets, citing risks of harassment and manipulation of particular plays, according to the testimony.

The hearing took place while federal prosecutors in Philadelphia continue work on a college basketball point-shaving case. Marves Fairley pleaded guilty to multiple charges, and former Southern Miss guard Arlando Arnold entered a guilty plea. Durkin's testimony says prosecutors charged 26 individuals in January 2026 and that many allegations remain matters for the courts.

Why it matters

Operators and affiliates should check whether any campus-linked promotion, student-influencer arrangement or sponsorship could be read as targeting students, and should review how individual-player props on college athletes are offered. Testimony at the hearing touched on both areas.

The age gap that Durkin described, 21 for most regulated sportsbooks against 18 for some prediction and sweepstakes-style products, is likely to draw attention to prediction-market marketing aimed at younger audiences. Companies in that segment could face questions from universities about campus promotion.

Durkin also called for independent national research and evaluated campus prevention programmes, which could eventually feed into a push for further safeguards.

What's next

Baker will appear at the winter meeting of the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States, held in Savannah, Georgia. Durkin's testimony sets three priorities for Congress: research carried out independently at national level, assessed prevention and care programmes on campuses, and a national assessment of institutional readiness.