Sports gambling has gone mainstream, sweeping the country. Today, 39 states have legalized it, including Kentucky. Unlike most states, Kentucky allows 18-year-olds to gamble on sporting events (32 of the 39 states set the minimum age at 21). Perhaps the state legislature overlooked this detail when mainstreaming sports gambling in 2023. But considering the vulnerabilities of young people, Kentucky should reconsider raising the minimum age this legislative session.
The National Institute of Health references a study from Great Britain titled Gambling in Young Adults Aged 17–24 Years: A Population-Based Study. The study notes:
“Young people are known to be at risk of problems with gambling because of cognitive immaturities, such as illusions of control over outcomes … and poor understanding of statistical probability … These can lead to chasing losses, a common gambling problem. In adolescence, executive function is not fully developed, which increases impulsivity and risk-taking behaviors … This immaturity in self-regulation can increase the frequency of placing bets impulsively, especially in-game sports betting.”
These are the same reasons the law restricts tobacco and alcohol to those under 21. Until the brain is fully developed, good public policy steps in to protect young people from potential harms. The same is true when it comes to protecting pocketbooks. There is widespread cynicism that younger generations have the deck stacked against them. Now the figurative deck—or sportsbook app in their back pocket—bombards them with messages and promises that they’re going to strike it rich.
DraftKings and FanDuel dominate the airwaves, especially during live events. For young males—the group most likely to wager—this constant exposure can be hard to resist. Sports betting is no longer limited to predicting game outcomes; it includes prop bets, in-game bets, and rapid, high-risk wagers. This pace can make it dangerously addictive.
The NCAA surveyed 3,500 college-aged students (18–22) in 2023 to better understand sports wagering behaviors. NCAA President Charlie Baker explained the goal was to “better understand what student-athletes are experiencing on their campuses and among their peers so we can best help them deal with the potentially disruptive dynamic of legal sports betting.” Key findings included:
- 67% of students living on campus are bettors, with higher-than-average frequency.
- 16% engaged in at least one risky behavior, and 6% reported losing more than $500 in a single day.
- 70% of risky gamblers believe consistent sports gambling will increase their earnings.
- 28% used mobile apps to place their wagers.
Some argue that legalized sports betting increases the fan base. Even if true, it has also created problems that didn’t exist before the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision allowing states to legalize it. These include corruption and threats to student-athletes, and students risking what little money they have on long-shot bets.
In November 2023, the NCAA found that 36% of Division I men’s basketball student-athletes reported “experiencing social media abuse related to sports betting in the past year.” Nearly one in three reported interacting with a student on campus who had bet on their team. Football numbers were lower: 16% reported negative or threatening messages, and 26% reported interacting with students who had bet on their team. A 2024 study found that one in three high-profile athletes receives abusive messages from bettors.
Critics warned that legalized betting would have costs. Few anticipated just how high. While sports gambling isn’t going away anytime soon, there is a practical step Kentucky can take to protect young people, including potential gambling peers of student-athletes: raise the minimum age.
Kentucky Revised Statute 230.805(b)(3) currently states:
“…prevent access to sports wagering by any person under the age of eighteen (18): a. At a licensed facility; and b. Online via website or mobile application.”
Changing “eighteen (18)” to “twenty-one (21)” would add a much-needed safeguard, as would tightening the language to decrease the opportunity for loopholes (as states like Michigan, Washington, and Connecticut previously have.
Who could oppose increasing the minimum to 21? Seems like a no-brainer.